clr/1987/1987_3_83.pdf

(1)(a) of PartIof the Schedule of the Motor Vehiclesand Road Traffic (Amendment) (No2)Law 64/78 1U 15 Theapplicant,whoistheownerofacar,whichheimporteddutyfree upon his return andwhich was registered in Cyprus on30 184, applied fora licence fortheyear 1985 atreduced circulationfees, contendingthatthecar was registered for thefirst timeinEnglandon 111079andasitwas six years old hewasentitled toa reductionofthefees underpara 3EofPart 1ofthe Schedule toLaw64/78 Theapplicationwas turneddown onthegroundthat thematerial date wasthe date of the registration of the carinCyprus The applicant paid the fees, but heapplied fora refund onthe same ground as aforesaid andwhen this application was also turned down for the same reason,he filed thepresentrecourse 20 Held,dismissingtherecourse

(1)Thewhole caseturnsontheconstruction ofpara 3E

(1)(a)·ofPart1 ofthe Schedule toLaw 64/78 25

(2)From reading thelaw, thesaid Schedule andtheregulations made underthesaid law, therecanbe no 1doubtthatthewords «registration» or«re­ gistered» inthe MotorVehicles andRoad Traffic Laws refer toregistration underthesaid lawsandtheregulationsmadethereunder Ifthelegislature had intendedthewords «firstregistered» inthesaid paragraph toincludeanypre•Quotedatρ86 83 Antonlou v.Republic

(1987)viousregistrationabroad,expresswordstothateffectshouldhavebeenused, asitwasdoneinrelationtomattersinrespectofwhichthelegislatureIntended otherwise,eg tnthecaseofRegulation4

(2)(

1. a)(i). Recoursedismissed Noorderastocosts 5 Recourse. Recourse against the refusal of the respondent to accept reduced circulation fees in issuing a licence in respect of applicant's motor car under Reg.No. Q.D.556. L. Clerides, for the applicant. iQ M. Tsiappa (Mrs.), forthe respondent. Cur.adv. vult SAWIDESJ.readthefollowingjudgment.Theapplicantinthis case challenges the decision of the respondent contained ina letterdatedthe30thMarch, 1985wherebytherespondentrefused to accept reduced circulationfeesinissuingalicenceInrespectofhis car under Registration No.QD556. ^ The sub judice decision iscontained in a letter dated the 30th March, 1985, signed by the Director-General of the Ministry of „« Communications and Works, addressed to counsel for applicant which reads as follows: «Ihave been instructedtorefer to the correspondence which ends with my letter dated 17.1.1985 in connection with an application of your client Mr. N. Antoniou for the issue of a 25 licence for his motor vehicle under Registration No. QD556 atreduced circulationfeesand inform youthathisapplication cannot be satisfied because, for the purposes of reduction of the circulation fees, thedatewhichistaken into consideration is the date of registration of the vehicle in Cyprus under the 30 provisions ofsection 5,paragraph 3EofPartIofthe Schedule to Law 64/78». The facts of the case arebriefly as follows: The applicant was a permanent resident of England for a number of years and returned to Cyprus in 1983 for the purpose 35 of settling in Cyprus. He isthe owner of a car under Registration QD 556 which he imported to Cyprus duty-free upon his return 84 3 C.L.R. 5 Antoniou v. Republic S a w i d e s J. and whichwasregisteredinCypruson30.1.84.In1985theapplicantapplied for a licence forthe year 1985atreduced circulation fees, contending that the car was registered for the first time in England on 11.10.1979 and itwas, as a result, sixyears old and therefore he was entitled to a reduction on the fees under the provisionsof section 5, paragraph 3E of Part Iof the Schedule to Law64/78. The responsible officer of the Department of Registration of Motor Vehicles refused to accept the payment of reduced fees, 10 relyingontheprovisionsofthelaw,ontheground thatthecarwas first registered in Cyprus on 30.1.84 and that such date was the material date for the purposes of this law. Applicant paid the full amount ofsuch feesand, through hisadvocate,addressed a letter dated the 8th January, 1985, requesting the refund to which he 15 wasentitled,bearinginmind thefactthatthecarwassixyearsold. Inreply tosuch letter, the respondent addressed to him the letter dated 30th March, 1985, to which reference has already been made,rejecting his application. The legal grounds on which the recourse isbased, are the fol20 lowing: (a)The subjudice decision iscontrary tothe correct interpretationofsection5,paragraph3EofPartIoftheScheduletoLaw64/ 78. (
2. b)The sub judice decision violates Article 28 of the Consti25 tution. By her opposition counsel for the respondent contended that the sub judice decision was lawfully taken by the respondent in accordance with the Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Laws and Regulations and on the basis of all relevant facts and circumstan30 cesof the case. Counsel for applicant in his address simply repeated his legal groundswithout advancing any argument insupport of them. Counsel forrespondent, ontheotherhand, contended that the words«firstregistered»cannotbeconstrued inanywayother than 35 firstregistered inCyprusand thatreadingthelawand the relevant regulationsasawhole,no other.meaning can be attached tosuch words. 85 Sawides J. Antonlouv. Republic

(1987)The whole case turnsontheconstructionotparagraph 3E

(1)(a) of PartI of theSchedule toLaw 64/78 The circulation fees in respect of licences for pnvate motorvehicles are those prescnbed under paragraph 2B

(1)of Part I of the Schedule Paragraph 3E{1) (a) of Part Iof the Schedule as amended by Law 64/78, provides that «(E)

(1)To τέλος, τ ο πληρωτέον δι' άδειαν ιδιωτικού μηχανοκινήτου οχήματος, δυνάμει της π α ρ α γ ρ ά φ ο υ 2(B)

(1)του Μέρους Ιτ ο υπαρόντος Παραρτήματος: (α) μετά πάροδον πενταετίας από της1ης Ιανουαρίου 10 τ ο υ έτους, καθ' ο τ ο τοιούτον όχημα τ ο πρώτον ενεγράφη, θα είναι τ ο ποσόν τ ο καθοριζόμενον εν τη τ ο ι α ύ τ η π α ρ α γ ρ ά φ ω δια τ ο τοιούτον όχημα, μειωμένον κατά είκοσιπέντεεπίτοις εκατόν (25%).» 15 And in English («Thefee which ispayable underparagraph 2(B) 1of PartI of the present Schedule for thelicence of apnvate motorvehic­ le (a) after the lapse of five years from the 1st of January of 20 the year in which such vehicle was first registered, shall be the amountwhich is prescnbed insuch paragraph for suchavehicle, reducedbytwenty-five per cent(25%)») Reading the provisions of the law and the said Schedule and also the regulations made under the provisions of the law, no 25 doubt anses in my mindthatthe unqualified use of thewords «re­ gistration» or «registered» inthe MotorVehicles and Road Traffic Lawscanonlybe takentorefer toregistrationunderthe provisions of the said laws and the regulations made thereunder Had the intention of the legislature been that the words «first registered» 30 should includeany previous registrationabroad,express words to such effect should have been used Where thelegislator intended to refer to«registration ofacarabroad» or«firstregistration», words to thateffect hadbeen-used Inparticular,inRegulation 4

(2)(

1. a)(
2. i)incomputingtheage ofavehicle,express reference ismadetofirst 35 registration inany country.Such regulation prohibitsthe registra­ tion of apnvatevehicle which isimportedintheRepublicas used, 86 5 3 C.L.R. Antoniou v.Republic Savvtdes J. if«...onthedate. ofitsarrivalinCyprusitisagedover24months, counting from the dated onwhichthevehiclewasfirst registered asnewinanycountryorifnotregistered from thedatewhenthis wasfirstpurchased asnew ». BearinginmindtheobjectoftheprovisionsoftheMotorVehiclesandRoadTrafficLawsandtheRegulations,Ifindthatsuchlaws wereenactedforthepurposeofregulatingtheregistrationandcirculationofmotorvehiclesinCyprus. Havingconcluded asabove,I find myself unable toacceptthe 1^ contentionofcounselforapplicantthatwhenreferenceismadeto thedateofregistrationofthecarsuchdateshouldreferbacktoany registrationotherthantheoneeffectedinCyprusundertheprovisionsoftherelevantlaws. Noargumenthasbeenadvancedbycounselforapplicantasto 15 theviolationofArticle28oftheConstitutionandtherefore,Iconsidersuchgroundasabandoned. Foralltheabovereasonsthisrecoursefailsandisherebydismissed.ItiswithgreatreluctancethatIhavedecidedtomakenoorder forcosts. 20 Recoursedismissed. Noorderastocosts. 87