3 C.L.R. 1987 February 7 [DEMETRIADES,J ] INTHEMATTEROFARTICLE 146 OFTHECONSTITUTION PETROS NICOLAIDES, Apphcan THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS, THROUGH THEDIRECTOR OFCUSTOMS AND EXCISE, Responden (CaseNo 148/85 Recourse for annulment—Abatement—Revocation of the sub judice actWhether and inwhatcircumstancesthe recourseistreatedasabated 5 10 15 20 25 CustomsandExcise—Dutyfreeimportationofamotor car—Order188/82—*Rec sonabletime» withinwhichtosubmit the application—Circularissuedby th Directorof Customs and Exciselimitingsuch time to twelve months~Appl cation of circularto the present casewhere theapplicationwassubmitted 1 monthsafteramval ofapplicantm Cyprus—//resultedtolimitationof hisdis cretion, failureto exerciseitafterconstdenng allthe circumstancesandfatlur to carryadue inquiryinto the matter AdmtmstrabveLaw—Discretion of administration—Circular by theadmmistrativ organlimitingitsdiscretion—Application ofcircular—Effect Theapplicant,who was bom inCyprus in 1913, emigrated totheUΚ in 1938 where he lived until the 19 4 81, when he returned to and permanently settle* down inCyprus On the 10 183 he applied underOrder 188/82for theimporta Oonfree ofimportdutyofhismotorcar Theapplicationwas rejected onthegrounc thatitwas notsubmitted «within a reasonable time,ιe within 12monthsfrom tht date of hisamval inCyprus» Itshould be noted thatthe penod of twelvemonthhad been fixed by a circular issued by the respondent as being the «reasonabl* time» underthesaid Order As aresult theapplicant filed this recourse At somestage of theproceedings the respondentrevoked thesubjudice actanc after re-examiningthematterissued anew one,onceagain rejecting applicant'sap plicationontheground thatthepenodoftimethatelapsed from hisamval untiltht submission of theapplication (19 months)could notbe considered reasonable Held,annullingthesub-judice decision
(1)Therevocation ofthesubjudicedeci sion didnotinthecircumstances of thiscase lead totheabatementof the recourse because there were damaging effects tothe applicant, which had notbeen exbn guished by therevocation in question
(2)Therespondent,by fixing.thereasonable timegenerally attwelvemonthsli mited his discretion underOrder 188/82 and failed toexercise itafter takiqg into 9 Nicolaldes v. Republic
(1987)onsiderationthecircumstancesofthiscaseand,also,refrained from conductinga ue inquiry, especially with regard tothedateon which theapplicanthad formed ieintentiontosettle inCyprus aswellasthecircumstancesof thedelay inimporngthe car
(3)This Court has no power inthese proceedings toconsider thevalidity of the .'spondent's second decision 5 Sub}udicedecision annulled Costsin favour ofapplicants ^asesreferred to Chnstodouhdes ν TheRepublic
(1978)3 C LR 189, Hapeshisv TheRepublic \\979)3 C LR 550, 10 Kittouv TheRepublic {\983) 3 CLR 605, Payiatasv TheRepublic
(1984)3 C LR 1239, Vahs ν TheRepublic
(1985)3 C LR 534, Neocleousv TheRepublic
(1986)3 C L R 1981 . Recourse. Recourse against thedecision of therespondentswhereby ap plicant's application for the importation of a dutyfree second hand caras arepatriatedCypnotwas refused Κ Talandes, for theapplicant. Μ Photon, for therespondent 20 Cur, adv vuit DEMETRIADESJ read the following judgment By meansof thisrecoursetheapplicantprays for theannulmentofthedecision oftherespondentbywhichhisapplicationfortheimportationinto 25 theRepublicof a duty-free second handmotorcarwas refused. The applicant,who was bom inCyprus in 1913, emigrated to theUnitedKingdom in1938 where helivedandworked untilthe 29th Apnl, 1981, when he returned to andpermanently settled down in Cyprus Whilst in the United Kingdom he owned a 30 TOYOTA, Celica motor car As the car was needed by his son, wholivesintheUnitedKingdom,hedid not,atthetimeofhisarnval here,bnng itwith him Thecarwas shipped from theUnited Kingdom andamved inCyprus onthe3rdJanuary, 1983 After the amval of the car andonthe 10thJanuary, 1983,the 35 applicantsubmitted anapplication totherespondentfor itsclea10 SC.L.B, Njcolaides v. Republic Demetriade* raneefrom thecustoms,free of importduty, onthegroundthatht was arepatriated Cypriot. The application of the applicant was based on the decision ο the Council of Ministers,datedthe 11th June, 1982,published\i 5 Supplement No.Illof the Official Cazette of the Republic, unde Notification 188, which read:- 10 15 «Μηχανοκίνητα οχήματα των κλάσεων 87.02.11 κα 87.02.19εισαγόμενα υπόΚυπρίωνοιοποίοικατόπιν μο νίμου εγκαταστάσεως εις το εξωτερικόν δια συνεχι περίοδοντουλάχιστον 10 ετών επανέρχονται καιεγκα θίστανται μονίμως εν τη Δημοκρατία νοουμένου ότι τ εισαγωγή γίνεται εντός ευλόγου χρονικού διάστημα τος απότης αφίξεώςτων κατάτην κρίσιντου Διευθυν τού. ΝοείταιπεραιτέρωότιοΥπουργός Οικονομικών κέκτη ται εξουσίαν όπωςπαραχωρή ατέλειαν εις Κυπρίουςεπαναπατρισθέντας προτης 1.1.1982οιοποίοιδεν πλη ρούν τους ανωτέρω όρους». 20 25 («Motor vehicles under Tariff Headings 87.02.11 and 87-02.19 imported by Cypriots who after permanent settle mentabroad foracontinuousperiodofatleast 10yearsretur andsettle permanently intheRepublic provided theimporte tion takes place within areasonable timefrom theirarrival i thediscretion of theDirector: Provided further thattheMinisterof Financeisempoweredt grant relief from import duty to Cypriots repatriated befoi 1.1.1982who donotsatisfy theabove conditions.») Astheclaimoftheapplicanttoimporthiscarwithoutpaying in· 30 portdutywas rejected by therespondent, ontheground that, ac cordingtothestanding customslegislation, itwas notfound poss ble toaccede tohisrequest (see letteroftherespondent dated Is February, 1983), counsel for the applicant wrote a letter toth respondent (dated 10th March,1983), askingfor thereasons wh 35 hisclient'srequest was refused. Byhisletterdatedthe30thMarch 1983,therespondentgavehisreasonswhich,according toitscot tents,are asfollows: «... themainreason for not acceding toyour client's requestwas duetothefact thathefailed tosubmit his 11 DemetriadesJ. Nlcolaldesv. Republic
(1987)application within areasonable time,i.e.within 12 (twelve)monthsfrom thedate of hisarrival toCyprus with theintentiontotakeuppermanent residence». On the7thApril, 1983,theapplicant,after paying thecustoms Authorities the sum of £767.330 with reservation of his rights, 5 cleared hiscarandproceeded tofilethepresent recourse. Insupportofthisrecoursecounselfortheapplicantbasedhisar gumentmainly onthegroundthattherespondentfailedtoexerci sethediscretionvestedinhimbytheOrderoftheCouncilofMini sters and thatinstead hefelt bound by his own circularwhich he 10 had issued, the effect of which was to limit the meaning of the words «within a resonable time» provided inthe decision of the Council of Ministers to a period of time not exceeding twelve months. After the filing of the address of counsel for the applicant, 15 counsel for therespondentveryfairlyadvisedtherespondentthat therecourse was verylikelytosucceed onthisground.Asaresult, the latter, by letter dated the 7th December, 1983, addressed to theapplicant,revoked hisprevious decision,thesubject-matterof this recourse, and atthesame time issued a new one,informing 20 theapplicantthattheperiod of timethatelapsed from thedateof lis arrival to Cyprus (29th April, 1981) and the date of the importation of his car (3rd January, 1983), which amounted to approximately nineteen months, could not be considered easonable in the circumstances and his claim was, therefore, 25 •ejected. Counselfortherespondent,inhiswrittenaddi ·?.$, whichwas fiedafter therevocation,submittedthattherecoui ν wasabatedas ι result of the revocation and could not be poceeded with. Subjecttothis,heconcededthatthesubjudiced--:i ionshouldbe 30 leclared nullandvoidfor lack of due inquiry. Counselfortheapplicantmaintained.i:u'tply, :h rtherecourse snotabatedbecausetherevocationhasnotextinqutshedallconequences of thesub judice decision ab initiobuthis caused da-. naging resultstotheapplicant,whichstil!exist,andtheCourtcan 35 proceedandpronounceonitslegality.Counselfurther submitted hattheCourtcanpronounceinthesamerecourse onthelegality >fthesecond decision of the Director. 12 3 C.L.R. Nlcolaldes v. Republic Demetriade· J. What Ihave todecidefirstisthequestion of abatementofthere course. Ithasbeen established by thisCourtthatarecourse isaba ted if itis deprived of itssubject matter.Revocation of anadmini strative act normally results in the abatement of the recourse. 5 unless damaging effects have resulted toihe applicant, which are not extinguished by therevocation of theact(see Christodoulides. v. TheRepublic,
(1978)3 C.L.R. 189,192; Hapeshis v.The Rep ublic,
(1979)3 C.L.R. 550, 560; Kittou v. TheRepublic,
(1983)3 C.L.R. 605, 609-610; Payiatas v. The Republic,
(1984)3 C.L.R. 10 1239, 1246; Vakisv.Republic
(1985)3 C.L.R.534,537, andthe decision inCase No.734/85, Neocleous v.TheRepublic,inwhich judgment was delivered on the 20th December, 1986, not yet reported)*. Inthelight of theabove authoritiesandhaving regard tothecir cumstancesof thepresent case, I find thatthisrecourse isnotaba15 ted and I will,therefore, proceed toconsider thesubstance of the case. Itisobvious from thecontentsof theletterof therespondentda tedthe30th March, 1983, thatthesole reason thattheapplication of the applicant was refused was because «he failed to.submit his 20 application within a reasonable time, i.e. within twelve months from thedate of his arrival in Cyprus». Tomy mind,thiswas aneasy way outfor therespondenttodeal with the repatriates'applications of thisnature.As itappears f•om the wording of the Order of the Council of Ministers, the respon25 dent,by fixing thereasonable timegenerally attwelvemonta ; li mited his discretion and failed toexercise his discretion prop;Hy. after taking intoconsideration thespecial circumstancesof th-. :ase. Ifitwas the intention,of the Council of Ministers tu pla^t ..ny time limit.for the importation they would have done so. In t . c 30 the matterwas left open tothe discretion of the Director,st <-• ic enable him to examine each case on its own ments ani < ,r cumstances. The Director, also, by limiting his discretion ι. ".<vway, refrained from conducting an inquiry into the mattei espe cially with regard to the date on which the applicant had fo.-nud 35 theintentiontosettleinCyprus,aswellasthecircumstancesofthe delay inimporting his car. I,therefore, find thatthe sub judice decision must be annulled •Reportedm
(1986)3 C.L.R. 1981 13 JemetriadesJ. Mtolaldesv.Republic
(1967)forimproperexerciseofdiscretionbytheDirectorandlackofdue inquiry. Whatremainstobeconsidered isthecontention ofcounselfor heapplicantthatthisCourtcanproceedandconsidertheValidity }fthe second decision of the respondent in these proceedings. 5 PhisCourthasalwaystakenthestandthatItcannotconsidermaters which are subsequent to the decision challenged by the •ecourseandIfindthiscontentionofcounselasuntenable.Counselisat libertytoadvance anyargumentsheconsidersnecessary -egardingthesecond decision,duringthehearingoftherecourse 10 :hallengingthesaiddecision. In the result, the sub judice decision isannulled with costsIn avourofthe applicant. : Subjudicedecision 15 annulled. CostsInfavour ofapplicant 14