1 C.L.R. -' ' 1988January 29 (TRIANTAFYLUDES,P..SAWJDES,LORIS,STYUAN1DES,KOURRIS,JJ.] ARCHANGELOS DOMAINLTD., Appellants -Plaintiffs, v. VANNIEVELT,CONDRIAN &CO'S, Respondents - Defendants. (CivilAppeal No. 6842). Constitutional Law — Reasoning of Judicial determinations — Constitution,Art.30.2— Whatisconsidered assufficient reasoning depends onthe circumstancesofeachparticularcase. 5 10 European Convention fortheProtection of Human Rights—Art.6.1 — The notion of'fairhearing»requiresreasons tobe given bya Court foritsdecision—Extent ofsuch requirement. The plaintiffs-appellants claim an amount of C£4,147.- (four thousand, one hundred and forty-seven Cyprus pounds) damages for alleged breach of contract of affreightment by the defendants, with interestthereon attherate of8.5% perannum from thedateof the handing over of the goods to the date of judgment and legal interest thereafter. The defendants desisted and denied the claim. 15 Two witnesses testified for the plaintiffs and one for the defendants. The Bill of Lading and 16 other documents were produced asExhibits. InhisjudgmentthetrialJudgequotedseriatimthepetitionandthe answer, mentioned the names of the witnesses and, then, in abrief paragraph hesaid: .2 0 25 «Ido notintend togo intoa detailed analysisoftheevidence, but havingseen the witnesses inthe witnessboxinconjunction with the documents produced, 1 have come to the conclusion that there has been nobreach of contract». This is an appeal from the said judgment, whereby appellants' action wasdismissed. 51 Archangelos Domainv.VanNlevelt
(1988)Held, allowing the appeal:
(1)Article 30, para. 2 of the Constitution providesthatjudgmentsdetermining thecivilrightsand obligations, or of any criminal charge against a person shall be reasoned. Thenotion of«fairtrial»requiresreasonstobegivenbyaCourtfor 5 its decision and this applies to civil as well as criminal proceedings. What is considered as sufficient reasoning depends largely on the circumstancesof each particularcase.
(2)Article 6.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which, having been ratified by Law39/62, hassuperior force tothe 10 domestic legislation made under the Constitution, secures to everyone the right to a fair hearing in the determination of hiscivil rightsand obligations, or ofany criminal charge against him. The notion of«fairtrial»requiresreasonstobegivenbyaCourtfor its decision. If a Court gives reasons, then prima facie the 15 requirement is satisfied. This presumption is not upset merely because theCourtfailed togivereasonsinrespectofalipoints,which a partyconsidered material,butifafundamental defence isignored, then the presumption is rebutted. The extent of the reasons to be given dependson thenatureand complexityofthe matterconcerned. 20
(3)Thejudgment appealed from fallsshortoftherequirement ofa reasoned judicial determination. Appeal allowed. New trial ordered. Costs of the appeal and ofthefirsttrialtobecostsin 2 5 the cause, but inany event not againstthe appellants. Cases referred to: Papaellina v. EPCO (Cyprus)Ltd. and Lion Products Ltd.(\967) 1 C.L.R.338; 30 Panayiv. The Police
(1968)2 C.L.R. 124; loannidou v.Dikeos (1969}1C.L.R.235; Pioneer Candy Ltd. and Another v. Stelios Tryfon and Sons Ltd.
(1981)1C.L.R. 540; Papageorghiou v.Hjipieras
(1981)1C.L.R.560; 52 35 1 C.L.R. Archangelos Domain v.Van Nlevelt HambouandOthersv. MichaelandAnother
(1981)1 C.L.R.618; Christou andAnotherv.AngelidouandAnother
(1984)1C.L.R. 492; ReEleftheriaCharalambous
(1987)1 C.L.R.427; 5 PsarasandAnotherv. Republic
(1987)2C.L.R.132. Appeal. Appeal by plaintiffs against the judgment of a Judge of the Supreme Court of Cyprus (Hadjianastassiou, J.) dated the 30th November, 1984 (Admiralty Action No. 42/71) whereby their 10 action for £4,147.- damages for alleged breach of contract of affreightment bydefendants was dismissed. L. Demehiades, for the appellants. A. Markides,for the respondents. Cur.adv. vult. 15 TRIANTAFYLLIDES P.: The Judgment of the Court will be delivered byMr.Justice Stylianides. STYLIANIDESJ.: The plaintiffs-appellants claim an amount of C£4,147.- {four thousand, one hundred and forty-seven Cyprus pounds) damages for alleged breach of contract of affreightment 20 by the defendants, with interest thereon at the rate of 8.5% per annum from thedateof thehanding overof thegoodstothe date ofjudgmentand legalinterest thereafter. The defendants desisted and denied the claim. Attheclose ofthepleadingsitemerged thattheissuesbetween 25 the parties were as to the terms and conditions of the contract of affreightment; whether it was embodied in a telex or it was incorporated inaBillof Lading;whetherthedeliveryofthe goods toSociete Marseillaise de Groupage was effected asper order or , instructions of the plaintiffs; whether Society Marseillaise de 30 Groupage were actingas agents of the plaintiffs and finally, if the defendants were guilty of breach, what was the quantum of damages? Periklis Manglis, one of the directors of the plaintiff company and Georghios Rocopos, one of their employees, testified for the 53 Stylianides J. Archangelos Domain v. Van Nlevelt
(1988)plaintiffs; Nikiforos Panayi, Manager of the Cyprus Shipping Co. Ltd.,who were actingasagentsofthedefendants inCyprusatthe material time, gave evidence for the defence. TheBillof Ladingand nolessthan 16otherdocuments, mainly telexes, were produced. 5 The trialJudge dismissed the action. Theplaintiffs appealed againstthesaidJudgment; inthe Notice of Appeal sixgrounds wereraised. During the hearing, however, learned counsel fortheappellantspursued onlyone ground:That theJudgment underappealisnotreasoned asrequired byArticle 10 30.2 of the Constitution and the inherent attribute of the judicial process, and therefore mustbesetaside. Prior to the establishment of the Republic and the coming into force of the Constitution, in relation to criminal proceedings, s. 113
(1)of the Criminal Procedure Law, Cap. 155 required the 15 reasons for the decisions to be recorded in writing. In civil proceedings judgments had to be reasoned as a requirement of the very notion of proper determination of disputes by judicial process. Article 30, para. 2 of the Constitution provides thatjudgments 20 determining the civil rights and obligations, or of any criminal charge againsta person shall be reasoned. Thenotion of«fairtrial»requiresreasons tobegiven bya Court for its decision and this applies to civil as well as criminal proceedings. A party must know the reasons for the failure of his case. The reasons are further necessary toenable a party todecide whether and on what grounds an appeal should be lodged. As the administration ofjustice isa publicfunction, thepeople in general are entitled to know the reasons of the judicial decisions. 30 Adequatejudicialreasoninganditssoundness upholdsfaith inthe Law and strengthens confidence inthejudiciary. In Papaellina v. EPCO (Cyprus)Ltd. and Lion Products Ltd.,
(1967)1C.L.R. 338,Stavrinides,J. observed thatthere isa need for a trial Judge to formulate clearly in hisjudgment the specific 35 issue or issues of fact arising between the parties and to state his finding for such issue or each one of such issues,and that Judges trying civildisputes should unfailingly doso. 54 25 1 C.L.R. Archangelos Domain v.Van Nlevelt Styllanldes J. The trial Court has to determine the issues which arise and to giveitsreasons for itsdetermination. The mandatory provision of para. 2 of Article 30 of the Constitution has been judicially considered by this Court in a 5 number of cases. (See inter alia Anastassis Panayi v. The Police
(1968)2 C.L.R. 124; Theodora loannidou v. Charilaos Dikeos
(1969)1C.L.R. 235;Pioneer Candy Ltd. and Another v. Stelios Tryfon and Sons Ltd.
(1981)1 C.L.R. 540; Papageorghiou v. Hjipieras
(1981)1C.L.R. 560;Androula Georghiou Hambou and 10 Others v. Maria Charalambous Michael and Another
(1981)1 C.L.R.618;MichaelChristouandAnother v.MariaAngelidou and Another
(1984)1 C.L.R. 492; In the matter of Eleftheria Charalambous of Nicosia, Civil Appeal No. 6835, Judgment deliveredon22/7/87notyetreported*andPsarasandAnother v. 15 The Republic, Criminal Appeals Nos.4715 and 4718, Judgment delivered on 15/10/87 notyet reported.** What is considered sufficient «reasoning» depends largely on the circumstances of each particular case. Article 6.1 of the European Convention on' Human Rights, 20 which, having been ratified by Law 39/62, has superior force to the domestic legislation made under the Constitution, secures to everyone therighttoafairhearinginthedetermination ofhiscivil rightsand obligations, orof anycriminalcharge againsthim. Thenotion of«fairtrial»requiresreasons tobe givenbya Court 25 foritsdecision.However,ifaCourtgivesreasons,thenprimafacie the requirements are satisfied, and thispresumption isnot upset simply because the judgment does not deal specifically with one point considered by an applicant to be material. Itdoes not follow from Article6thatreasonsgiven bya Courtshoulddeal specifically 30 withallpointswhich mayhave been considered byone partyto be essential to his case; a party does not have an absolute right to require reasonstobe given for rejecting each ofhisarguments. If, however, the Court had ignored a fundamental defence, which had been clearlyputbefore itandwhich,ifsuccessful, would have 35 dischargedhiminwholeorinpartfrom theliability,thenthiscould besufficient torebutthepresumption ofafairhearing.The extent of the reasons to be given for a decision must depend on the •Reportedin
(1987)1 C.L.R. 427. "Reported in
(1987)2C.L.R. 132. 55 Styllanides J . Archangeloa Domain v.VanNlevelt
(1988)nature and the complexity of the matter concerned. (Digest of Strasbourg Case Law relating to the European Convention on Human Rights
(1984),volume2,pp.424-427.) In the present case the learned trial Judge, after stating the plaintiffs' claim, quoted seriatim the petitionand theanswer; he mentioned the names ofthewitnessesand, havingdisposed the question ofjurisdiction,inaverybriefparagraph hesaid:- 5 «Thenextissuefordeterminationisthequestionofwhether there hasbeen a breach ofthesaidcontractof affreightment or not. Ido not intend togo into a detailed analysis of the 10 evidence,buthavingseenthewitnessesinthewitnessboxin conjunction withthedocumentsproduced,Ihavecometothe conclusion that there has been no breach of contract. In consequence ofthis,thepresentcasehastobedismissedand Ineed notdealwiththeissueofdamages.» 15 Weareoftheopinion thatinthecircumstancesofthiscasethe Judgment under appeal is not reasoned; it falls short of the requirementsofareasonedjudicialdeterminationinthesenseof Article30.2oftheConstitution. We, consequently, hold that, in view of the expressed 20 mandatoryprovisionsofArticle35oftheConstitution,whichlays down, interalia,thatthejudicialauthoritiesoftheRepublicshall be bound to secure, within the limits of their respective competence,theefficient applicationoftheprovisionsofPartIIof the Constitution, which safeguards fundamental rights and 25 liberties,one ofsuchprovisionsbeingArticle30.2,theJudgment underappealshouldbesetaside. TheJudgment under appealisherebysetaside.Anewtrialof theactionisordered before anotherBench. Thecostsofthefirsttrialandthecostsofthisappealtobecosts 30 in the cause in the new trial, but in any event not against the appellants. Appealallowed. Retrialordered. Orderforcostsas above. 56 35