(1988)1988May21 [STYLIANIDES.J] INTHEMATTEROFARTICLE146OFTHECONSTITUTION ANDREASKALAVAZIDESLTD., Applicants, v. THEMUNICIPALITYOFLIMASSOL, Respondents. (CaseNo.368/86). Municipalities—Refuse collectionfees—Principles governing their assessment. Misconceptionoffact—Presumptionastocorrectnessofthefindingsoffactby theadministration—Displacementof—Theburdenliesontheapplicant— Doubtshould,atleast,becreatedinthemindoftheCourt—Courseswhich 5 theCourtmayfollow,ifsuchdoubtiscreated. Generalprinciplesofadministrative law—Evaluationofprimaryfacts—The provinceoftheadministration. Bymeansofthisrecoursetheapplicantsimpugnthevalidityofthedecisiontoimposeonthem,inrespectoftheircarpentryworkshop£100refuse collectionfees. Theapplicants'maincomplaintisthatthefeeisexcessive,ifjudgedon thebasisof theonlycriterion applicable,i.e.thevalueoftheservicesrenderedbytherespondentstotheapplicants. Held,dismissingtherecourse:
(1)Thefeesshouldbebasedproportion- j ^ ately onthecostsof theservicesrendered tothecitizen,havingregardto thecostsforprovidingtheserviceingeneral.Thedistributionofthecosts forprovidingtheserviceshouldbefairly distributedamongthebeneficiariesbyequitablecriteria. 1012 jn 3 C.L.R. Kalavazides v. L' ssol Municipality S
(2)Theevaluationoftheprimaryfacts,isingeneralwithinthepowerof theadministration.Thereisapresumptionastocorrectnessofthefindings offact madebytheadministration.Thepresumptionisdisplaced,ifanapplicantsucceedsincreatingadoubtinthemindoftheCourtaboutsuchcorrectness.
(3)Inthiscasetheapplicantsfailedtorebutthepresumption. Recoursedismissed. Noorderastocosts. Casesreferredto: '9''': SentOnarisv.TheGreekCommunalChamber, 1964C.L.R. 300; ^'Republic v.Georghiades
(1972)3C.L.R.
- Recourse. Recourse against thedecision of therespondents toimposeon applicants thesumof £100.-refuse collection fees for
- P.I. Soteriou, for the applicants. Y.PotamitiSy for the respondents. Cur. adv. vult. STYLIANIDES J. read the following judgment. Applicants areoccupiers ofpremises at Kefallinia Street, No.30,Limassol, which they useascarpentry work-shop.Respondents imposedan amount of £100.- refuse collection fees in respect of the above premises for theyear 1985.Asagainst thedecision imposing the aboveamountapplicantsfiled thepresentrecourseprayingfor:"Adeclaration of theCourt that the actand/ordecision of the Respondents whereby there was imposed on Andreas Kalavazides and after an amendment of the charge sheet on applicant company an amount of £100.- asrefuse collection fee in respect 1013 Stylianides J. Kalavazides v. L' ssol Municipality
(1988)of theirpremises at 30, Kefallinia Street, Limassol, is null and voidandofnoeffect whatsoever." The main submission on behalf of applicants was that the propercriterion for thedetermination of thefees isthevalueof theservicesrenderedandthatonthebasisofthiscriterionthefee 5 thathasbeenimposedisexcessive. OntheotherhandlearnedcounselfortheRespondentssubmitted:(a)That,undertherelevant Regulations,theRespondentscan impose afee upto£1,000.-in respect of premises; andthat the 10 amountoffeerepresents thereasonablyrequiredcostfortheservicesrendered. (
- b)That the assessment of the said fee wasmade within the reasonable exercise of the discretionary powers of the respondentswhohavetakenintoconsideration alltherelevantfactsand 15 reliedoncriteriawhichwerelaiddownbyrespondentsintheabsenceofanycriteriainthelaw.Thesecriteriawere: (a)Thevolumeofapplicant'premises. (b)Thenumberofpersonnel workingtherein. (c)Thenatureoftheworkcarriedouttherein. (d)theincreasedfromyeartoyearcostofcollection,transport andburyingoftherefuse. (e)Theamountoftheexpensesrequiredbytherespondent for thecollection,transportandburyingoftherefuse. (
- f)Generallytheservicesrendered. Inanaffidavit swornbytheTownClerkandtheTreasurerdetails aregiven of thecostof collection, transport andburyingof 1014 25 3 C.L.R. Kalavazides v. L' ssol Municipality refuse for 1985. 5 10 15 20 25 30 Stylianides J. .· . The fees should be based proportionately on the costs of the services rendered to the citizen, having regard to the costs for providingthe servicein general.Thedistribution of thecosts for providing the service should befairly distributed among the beneficiaries byequitablecriteria. Theevaluation of theprimary facts,on which thecriteria laid down by the Respondents were applied, isin general within the power of the Municipality. The Court cannot substitute its own evaluation for that of the Administration. There is along lineof cases which decide that there is a presumption in favour of the correctness of the findings of fact by the Administration. This presumption isweakened,once theapplicant succeeds in renderingpossible theexistenceof misconception of fact onthepartof the Administration, even by creating doubts in the mind of the Court about the correctness of such findings of fact. In such a case, the Administrative Judge, finding himself in doubt, resorts tooneor twocourses: Either (
- a)directs production of evidence, of (b)heannuls theact sothat theAdministration may ascertain theactual circumstances in a way not leaving doubts - (Stavros Sentonaris v.The Greek CommunalChamber, 1964C.L.R. 300; Republic (Public Service Commission) v. Lefkos Georghiades,
(1972)3 C.L.R. 594). Themistaken evaluation oftherealfacts andthemistakensubjection or non-subjection of those facts to the said legal provisions,constitutescontravention ofthelawfor thepurposesofArticle 146. Misconception of fact by the Administration is an indirect contravention of the law, and provides areason for the annulment of suchdecision of theAdministration -(TsatsosApplicationfor Annulment Before TheCouncilof State,3rdEd.,p. 31 >· The burden lies on the applicant to satisfy the Court, or to createadoubtinthemindoftheCourtofwrongevaluation ofthe facts which ledtomisconception of fact. Itisupon the applicant, 1015 Stylianides J. Kalavazides v.L' ssol Municipality
(1988)also, tosatisfy that theprinciple of proportionality hasbeeninfringed. Theprincipleofproportionality, which isrecognizedin theAdministrativeLawofseveralcontinentalcountries,isoneof theheadsofgroundsonwhichadministrativeactionissubjectto controlbyjudicialreview. Havingconsideredwithcarethematerialbeforeme,Ihavenot beenpersuaded thatthesubjudicedecisionmaybedeclaredvoid for any reason. The fact that the applicants run a carpenter's workshop,byitself isnot sufficient todischarge theburdencast ontheapplicants. In the result, the case is dismissed, subjudice decision cofirmed, but,inallthecircumstancesofthecase,therewillbeno orderastocosts. Recourse dismissed. Noorderastocosts. 1016 \