3 C.L.R. 1988May21 [STYUANTOES,J.] INTHEMATTEROFARTICLE146OFTHECONSTITUTION M.J.LOUISIDES&SONSLTD., Applicants, v. THEMUNICIPALITYOFLIMASSOL, Respondents. (CaseNo. 134186). Fee—Definitionof—Itissupposedtobebasedonthe costsofrendering the services, though in many cases the costs are arbitrarily assessed— Municipalities—Refusecollectionfees—Theyarefees,nottaxes. 5 General principlesof administrative law—Discretion ofadministration— Absence ofcriteriafor itsexerciseinthe laworregulation—Whetherthe competentorgan can laydowncriteriafor itsownguidance—Questiondeterminedintheaffirmative. Generalprinciplesofadministrativelaw—Presumptionthatanadministrative decisionwastakenaftercorrectascertainmentoftherelevantfacts—How rebutted. Reasoningofanadministrativeact—Due reasoning—Questionofdegreedependingonnatureofdecision—Municipalities—Notexpectedtogivevery detailedreasoningfor thedeterminationofrefusecollectionfees. The facts of this case appear sufficiently from thejudgment of the Court. 15 Recoursedismissedwithcosts. 1017 Lousides & Sons v. L' ssol Municipality
(1988)Casesreferredto: Georghallides v. TheVillage Commission ofAy.Phyla andAnother, 4 R.S.C.C. 94; Constantinidesv.ElectricityAuthorityofCyprus
(1982)3 C.L.R. 798; ApostolouandOthersv. TheRepublic
(1984)3C.L.R.509; Kyriakides andSonsLtd.v.Municipal Committee ofLimassol
(1985)3 C.L.R.607; LamiGrovesLtd. v.TheRepublic
(1986)3 C.L.R. 2378; Loizouv. SewageBoardofNicosia
(1988)1 CJL.R.122; TheRepublic v. Ekkeshis
(1975)3CLi*.548; 10 Skaros v. TheRepublic
(1986)3C.L.R.
- Recourse. Recourse against the imposition on applicants of the sumof £110.-refuse collection feesfor
- C.Tsirides,fortheapplicants. 15 Y.Potamitis, for therespondents. Cur. adv. vult. STYLIANIDESJ.readthefollowingjudgment.Theapplicant company is the occupier of an office situated at 101A Spyrou AraouzouStreet,inLimassoltown,wheretheycarryonthebusi- 20 nessofashippingagency.Thesaidpremisescomprisefiveofficesandsixpermanentemployees.areworkingthere. The Respondent Municipality imposed on the applicants 1018 3 C.L.R. Loiilsides & Sons v. L' ssol Municipality Styllanides J. £110.-refuse collection feesfor 1985for theabovepremises.By noticedated 10.12.85,payment thereof wasdemanded. 5 Applicants being aggrieved filed this recourse, whereby they seek adeclaration that theactordecision of theRespondents,by which the applicants were asked topay the sumof £110.- as tax refuse collection isnullandvoidandwithout anylegal effect. The.grounds on which theapplicants seem tobase theircase, as setoutin therecourseandexpounded inthewritten addressof counsel are:- 10 (a)That theRespondentslaboured undermisconception oflaw believing thatthey wereentided toimpose taxand notareasonablefee for services rendered. (b)That theyfailed tocarryoutadueinquiry;theydidnottake into consideration all material facts, including the extent of the premises and thevolumeof the refuse. 15 (c) That the sub judice decision was arbitrary and not reasoned. 20 25 30 Havingregard totheprovisionsof thestatuteempowering the Municipality toimposethisform of "tax",therelevant Regulation and the nature thereof, there is nodoubt that it isafee and not a tax. A fee isgenerally defined tobeachargefor a special service rendered to individuals by some public authority and it is supposed tobe based on the expenses incurred in rendering the service,though inmanycasesthecostsarearbitrarily assessed -(see Haris E. Georghallides v. The Village Commission ofAy. Phyla &Another, 4 R.S.C.C, 94;Aleccos Constantinides v.The ElectricityAuthority of Cyprus
(1982)3C.L.R., 798;Apostolou and Others v. The Republic
(1984)3 C.L.R., 509; Kyriakides and Sons Ltd. v.Municipal Committee of Limassol
(1985)3 C.L.R., 607;Lami Groves Ltd. v. The Republic
(1986)3 C.L.R., 2378; 1019 Stylianides J. Louisides & Sons v. L' ssol Municipality
(1988)MeropiMichaelLoizouv.SewageBoardofNicosia,
(1988)1 C.L.R. 122. TheLaw—relevantRegulations—empowerstheRespondents toimposeafeeupto£1,000.-inrespectof offices. The Respondents, as neither the Law, nor the Regulations, 5 contain anycriteriafortheexerciseoftheirdiscretionarypower, theylaiddownthefollowingcriteria: 1.Thevolumeofthepremises. 2.Thenumberofthepersonnelemployedtherein. 3.Thenatureoftheworkcarriedout. 4.Thecostsofcollection,transportandburyingoftherefuse, whichincreaseseveryyear. 5.Thedesireof theRespondentsnottoreducethestandardof theservicesrendered. 6.Theamountoftheexpensesrequired andactuallyincurred bytheRespondents for thecollection,transport, andburying of 15 therefuse ingeneral,andforanoccupierinparticular,whichthey are indeed higher than the amount collected from the fees imposed;and 7.Generallytheservicesrendered. Itiswithinthepowerofapublicbodytolaydowncriteriafor 20 the exercise of its discretionary power. This is salutary and is conducive to good and proper administration. Furthermore,the judicialcontrolof theadministrativeactsinthatsphereiseasier andmoreeffective. TheTownClerkandTreasurerinswornaffidavit gavedetails 25 ofthecostofcollection,transportandburyingofrefuse for1985; 1020 3 C.L.R. Lousides & Sons v. L' ssol Municipality Sty]IanIdes J. Thetotalamountofrefuse collection feesfor 1985;andtheassessment of costs for the collection of refuse from an ordinary dwellinghouse. 5 Removalofrefuse from premisesinatownisanecessaryservicerenderedintheinterestofpublichealthforwhichtheauthority,havingthedutytoprovidesuchservice,mustbeindemnified todoso,orbeable to,bycharging thetownsmen with afee to coverthecostsofrenderingsuchservice.Thefee,however,cannot bean arbitrary one and should bebased proportionately on thecostofservicesrenderedtothecitizen. 10 j5 20 25 . Anadministrativedecision bypresumption isreached after a correctascertainmentoftherelevantfacts.Thispresumptionisrebuttable.Theburden ofestablishing thatanadministrativedecisionwasreachedonthebasisofmisconception aboutamaterial fact restsonthepersonchallenging thevalidity ofsuchdecision in that ground. This burden isdischarged,even if the applicant raisesadoubtinthemindof theCourt.Aprobabilitythatamisconceptionhadledtothetakingofthedecisioncomplainedof, is sufficient tovitiateanadministrativeact-(Republicv.Ekkeshis
(1975)3C.L.R.,548;Skarosv.TheRepublic
(1986)3C.L.R., 2109,atp.2115). Havingregardtothematerial beforeme,theapplicants failed todischargetheburdencastonthem.Theyfailed toshowthatthe subjudicedecisionistaintedbyanymisconceptionoffact,orany failure tocarryoutdueinquiry.TheRespondentsexercisedtheir discretionary poweron thebasisofreasonable criteria.Theassessmentwasnotarbitrary;thefeewasbasedproportionatelyon thecostoftheservicesrenderedtotheapplicantscitizens,includingtheextentofthepremisesofthesebeneficiaries.Itwasactuallyassessed byreference tothecostof processing theservicein general. Whatisduereasoningisaquestionofdegreedependingupon thenatureofthedecisionconcerned. 1021 Stylianides J. Louisides & Sons v. L' ssol Municipality
(1988)Havingregardtothenatureofthesubjudicedecision,itisnot expectedfrom aMunicipalCorporation togiveverydetailedreasoningforthedeterminationofthefeespayableforrefusecollection. Therewasnomisconceptionoflaworfact. 5 Fortheforegoing, thisrecoursefails. It would be inequitable to burden the Municipality with the costsofdefending thisrecourse. In theexercise of mydiscretion,in thecircumstances ofthis case,Iseenoreasonwhytheapplicantsshouldnotpaythecosts oftheRespondents. Casedismissed.Subjudicedecisionconfirmed. Applicantsto paythecostsoftheRespondents. Recoursedismissedwith costsagainstapplicants. 1022 *