clr/1988/1988_3_1167.pdf

(1988)N. Clerides, fortheapplicant. D.Papadopoulou(Mrs),fortherespondent. Cur. adv. vult. SAVVIDESJ.readthefollowingjudgment.Theapplicantby the present recource challenges therefusal of therespondent to 5 exempthimfrom thepaymentofimportdutyinrelationtoamotorcarfordisabledpersons. Theapplicant isacitizenoftheRepublic.Heis36yearsold and he is aradiotechnician. Onaccount of a traffic accident in 1980hesuffered afractureofthemiddlethirdoftheshaft ofthe 10 right femur whichwasfixed bypinningresultingtoadiminution by20%oftherightkneejointwithpartialweakness. Relying on the provisions of paragraph 0.9 of class 0.

1. of theFourthScheduletotheCustomsandExciseDutiesLaw,1978 (asamended)heappliedonthe 15thNovember, 1983, totheDi- 15 rector-Generalof theMinistryofFinanceseekingpermission to buy acarrequired byhimfor hiswork duty-free ontheground thatheisadisabledperson. The applicant's application was referred to a Government MedicalBoardsetupforthepurposewiththerequesttohavethe 20 applicant examined andsubmitareportastohiscondition.The applicantwasexamined bytheMedicalBoardwhichwascomposed of the Senior Specialist Orthopaedic Surgeon, a Senior Special Surgeon andtheDistrictMedical Officer ofNicosia , as members.Areport signed byallthreeof themwassubmitted to 25 the respondent on the 23rd March,
2. The opinion of the Medical Board regarding the condition of the applicant isdescribedasfollows: "Onaccountofatraffic accidentin 1980hesuffered a fractureofthemiddlethirdoftheshaft oftherightfemur. 30 1168 3 C.L.R. Hadjipanteli v. Republic Savvides J. Thefracturewas fixed bypinning. Hepresentsrestrictioninthebending of therightkneejoint by about20%with partial weakness.Theleft lowerlimband boththe upperlimbs are normal." 5 10 The apllicant was referred by therespondent to the Senior TechnicalExaminer intheoffice of Examiners for driversfor ex­ amination in thelight of thereport of the Medical Board. The _eniorTechnicalExaminerafter examining theapplicant submit­ tedhis report on 30th April,
3. According tosuch reportthe appUcantwhowas aholderof adriver'slicence whichexpiredon 28thJuly, 1982coulddriveamotorcarwithoutanyrestriction. Inconsequenceof theabovereportsrespondentrejected appli­ cant'sapplication andby letter dated 15thMay, 1984communi­ catedhisdecision totheapplicant. 15 20 Applicant reverted again tohisclaim for adutyfreecar.on the groundof hisinvalidity by submitting anew aplication dated20th December, 1985 andby letterdated30thDecember, 1985 here­ quested tobeexamined byaMedicalBoardonthegroundthatthe conditionofhisleg haddeterioratedanditwas difficult for him to driveanordinarymotorcar. Therespondentby letter dated 10th January, 1986 informed theapplicantthathisapplication was referred totheCustomsDe­ partmentandas soon as theinquiry was completedhewould be informed accordingly. 25 On 30th January, 1986, theapplicant was examined by the Medical Board set upfor thepurpose which infact consisted of thesamemedicalofficers whofound adeteriorationof hiscondi­ tioncomparedtoitsprevious reportandwhich describes the con­ ditionof theapplicantasfollows: "Τώρα παρουσιάζει ουλή.στην έξω επιφάνεια του δε : ξιού μηρούλόγωτηςεπεμβάσεως. 1169 SavvidesJ. Hadjipanteli v. Republic

(1988)Παρουσιάζει μερικήατροφία και αδυναμία στο δεξιό τετρακέφαλοσεσύγκρισημετοναριστερόπεριορισμότης κάμψηςτηςκατά γόνυαρθρώσεως κατά25%σε σύγκριση μετοαριστερό. Ο ασθενής υποκειμενικά αιτιάται για άλγη κατά το 5 κάτωτριτημόριοτουδεξιούμηριαίουκαιτογόνατουπο­ χωρεί. Το αριστερό κάτω άκροκαι αμφότερατα άνω άκρα κατά φύση." TheEnglish transaltionreads: 10 (Now he presents a scar on theouter surface of the right thighduetothe operation. Hepresents partial atrophy andweakness intherightquad­ ricepsincomparison with theleft, reductiononthebendingof thekneejointby 25%incomparisonwith the left. The patient subjectively complains of aches in the lower thirdof therightthigh andthekneegives way. Theleft lower limbandbothupperlimbs are normal). By letterdated8thApril, 1986,asitappearsintherelevant file of theadministration which was producedasexhibit l,the applicantwas called for aninterview by theDirectorof theDepartment of Customs for the26th April,

1. According tothenotesinthe said file, a Senior Collectorof Customs has madethefollowing entry addressed totheDirectorof Customsafter theinterview had takenplace: "Fromthemedical certificate andacomparisonof thenew medicalcertificate with theoldoneaswellasthestatememtsof theapplicantattheinterview with me itappearsthatthe appli­ cant does notpresent apermanentincapacity preventing him 1170 2 n 3 C.L.R. Hadjipanteli v. Republic Savvides J. fromdrivinganordinarycar. 5 The light deterioration of the condition of his,rightknee jointby5%isnotenoughtojustify thegranttohimofadutyfree carinaccordancewiththeprovisionsofparagraph0.1/0.9 andIrecommendthedismissaloftheapplication.". Thisrecommendation metwiththeapprovaloftheDirectorof Customsasaresultofwhichaletterwassenttoapplicantdated 15thMay,1986,thecontentsofwhichreadasfollows: "Irefer toyour application dated 20.12.85 for exemption 10 from importdutyfor acarfordisabled personsandIwishto inform you thaton thebasisof thereport of the appropriate MedicalBoard yourbodilycondition doesnotjustify theuse ofacarspeciallyadaptedfordisabledpersons." Onthe10thJune,1986,applicantsubmittedanewapplication 15 for re-examination ofthiscasetowhichtherespondentbyletter dated20thJune, 1986,signedonbehalf of theDirector-General oftheMinistryofFinance,informed theapplicantthathisapplicationfor re-examination wasrejected asnonewfactsappeared justifyingre-examinationorreconsiderationofthedecisioncom20 municatedtohimbyletterdated 15thMay,
2. Asaresulttheapplicantfiled thepresentrecoursechallenging thedecisionoftherespondentdated 15thMay, 1986rejectinghis application. Thelegalgroundsonwhichtherecourseisbasedarethatthe 25 Director of Customs operated under amisconception of fact in teachinghisdecisionthatthebodilyincapacityoftheapplicantas foundbytheMedicalBoarddoesnotjustify theuseofacarspeciallyadaptedfordisabledpersonsandthatthedecisionwastakeninabuseofpoweranditiscontrarytothelaw.. 30 Counselforapplicantbyhiswrittenaddressexpoundedonthe groundof misconceptionof fact andlawbycontendingthatal1171 SavvidesJ. Hadjipanteli v. Republic

(1988)though theMedicalBoarddiagnosedincapacity oftheapplicant suchfact wasnotsufficiently takenintoconsideration andnodue inquirywascarriedoutforascertainingwhethertheincapacityof theapplicantwassuchastorendertheuseofaspeciallyadapted carreasonablynecessary.Nowhereinthemedicalreport,counsel 5 submitted,anymentionismadeastotheabilityoftheapplicantto driveacarandtheconclusion reachedbytherespondentonthe basisofsuchreportisarbitraryandnotsupportedbythecontents ofthereport. Counselfortherespondentcontendedthatthesubjudicedeci- JQ sionwasproperlytakenbytherespondentwhotookintoconsideration: (a)TheMedicalReport, (b)therefusal of theapplicanttobeexamined bytheSenior TechnicalExaminerofDrivers,and (c)theinterviewattheCustomsDepartment. InthepresentcaseIfinditunnecessarytogoinlengthintothe various argumentsadvanced bybothcounsel butI shallconfine myself tothecontentsoftheletteroftheDirectorofCustomsdated 15thMay, 1986whichcontainsthesubjudicedecisionandthe 20 reasonsgiventhereinfor hisrefusal. Theonlyreason given inthesaidletterfor refusing theapplicationisthat"onthebasisofthereportoftheappropriateMedicalBoardthebodilyconditionoftheapplicantdoesnotjustify the useofacarspeciallyadaptedfordisabledpersons".Ishall,there- 25 fore,examine thesoundnessofsuchreasoning. TheMedicalBoardinitsreportdidnotexpress anyopinionas totheabilityornotoftheapplicanttodriveanordinarycar.The onlythingthatitwasmentionedwasthatthecondition oftheapplicantasfromthedate ofhispreviousexamination haddeterio- 30 rated and,infact, theincapacity ofhisrightkneejointhadgone 1172 15 3C.L.R. Hadjipanteli v.Republic SavvidesJ. upto25%insteadof20%andalsothatatrophyandweaknessof theleghaddeveloped.OnthebasisofsuchcertificatetheDirector of Customscouldnothavereasonably reached suchconclusion sincetherewasnosuggestionbytheMedicalBoardoranyopin5 ionexpressedtotheeffect astowhethertheapplicantwascapable ornottodriveanordinarycar.I,therefore,findthattheDirector ofCustomsmisinterpretedthemedicalreportwhichobviouslyled himtoamisconceptionofamaterialfact.IftheDirectorwisheda specificopinionoftheMedicalBoardastowhetherinviewofhis Q incapacity hecoulddriveanordinary carornotheshouldhave asked forsuchopinionfromtheMedicalBoardormakeanyoth'er inquiry, the result of which hecould submit tothe Medical Boardforanyobservations. c Intheresultthisrecoursesucceedsandthesubjudicedecision isherebyannulledwithcostsinfavouroftheapplicant. Subjudicedecisionannulled withcostsinfavourofapplicant. 1173