clr/1988/1988_3_1483.pdf

(1987)3CJLR.290-ilX 1483 |.tj,rt1 " "' ^ r : i '' Sophoclides v. Republic

(1988)Anastatisv.MinisterofFinance

(1987)3C.L.R. 200; Matsasv. TheRepublic

(1985)3C.L.R. 54; Ioannou v.TheRepublic

(1986)3C.L.R. 1263; Michaelv.theRepublic

(1986)3C.L.R.

1. Recourse. ^ Recourseagainst therefusal oftherespondent toallowapplicanttoimportamotorvehiclefreeofdutyasarepatriatedCypriot. K.Michaelides,for theapplicant. S. Georghiades, SeniorCounselof theRepublic, for there- ^Q spondent. Cur. adv. vult. SAVVIDESJ.readthefollowingjudgment.Theapplicantby thepresentrecoursechallengesthedecisionoftherespondentDirector oftheDepartmentofCustomsandExcisenottoaccedeto 15 applicant'sapplication toimportamotor-vehiclefreeofdutyunder the provisions of sub-heading 19of item0.1 of theFourth Schedule to the Customs and Excise Duties Law, 1978which wascommunicated to theapplicant byletterdated 8thOctober,
2. Applicant wasborn in Cypruson 12thMarch, 1963.Her fatheris aGreek Cypriot borninCyprus andhermotheraBritish citizen.Applicant'sfather, aCivilEngineerbyprofession,joined the firm of Joannou &Paraskevaides Ltd.and in 1965hewas seconded bythelattercompanytoLibyaasProject Managerand 25 therehestayedtill 1967.Asfrom1967applicant'sfathermoved toEngland andeversincehetook up,togetherwithhis family, permanent residence there.Applicant whowasatalltimeswith 1484 20 3 C.L.R. ' SophocIides v.Republic SavvidesJ. herfamily resided permanetly inEngland;she went toprimary and secondary schools in England'and later she attended'atwo years' course onceramics attheHarrogate College of Art.Her special subjectinthe'final yearwas ancientCypriotpottery." *5 Applicant was comingtoCyprusfor shortvisitsafter 1977on holiday. InJuly, 1984, when applicant was again in Cyprus for holiday shearrangedthroughtheDirector-Generalof theMinistry of CommerceandIndustrytotakeacourseattheHandicraftCen­ tre''on Cyprus pottery. Sheattendedthecourse which startedin J'Q early September, 1984 and continued till late February,
3. Having completed hercourse she prolonged her stay in Cyprus untilafter summerwhen shereturnedtoherhomeinEngland. On the 12th'July, 1986;applicantwentthroughacivil marriagewith aCypriotandreturnedtoCyprus aboutthe middleofJuly, 1986, ,c with1theintentiontosettle'permanently in Cyprus. She brought with her for'her own use'a Mercedes Saloon-car, type 190E, which she placed in-a general bonded warehouse on the 31st' July,Ί986.Applicant appliedonthe*30thJuly, 1986, totheDi­ rectorof CustomsandExciseof theRepublicof Cyprusforper­ mission toimportdutyfree heraforesaid carbeing, accordingto herapplication/qualified undertheprovisions of s'ub;heading:19, , . of item0.1of theFo'urhSchedule'tothe CustomsandExcise Du­ tiesLaw, 1978,ontheground'thatshereturnedtotakepermanent residence-in-Cyprus after a permanent settlement.abroad for a ( continuousperiodof atleasttenyears.' ' ' · Therespondentby letterdated8thOctober,1986,'decliried her " ' request andgave his reasons for'so deciding,"The contentsof ,r llj , J M suchletterread'asfollows: ' ' "Irefer toyourtapplicationof 30-7-86 andregret toinform , • youthatitwas notfoundpossible,toaccedetoyourrequest ; for afduty r free car'because^your permanentsettlement { t .abroadwas notcontinuous. 1 i 30 ' l Ithasbeenestablished thatyouwere"fesidinginCyprus from 11th'July, 1984to4thSeptember,'
4. - 1485 SavvidesJ. Sophoclidesv.Republic

(1988)Applicantthroughheradvocaterequestedare-examinationof the case alleging that there was amisconception of fact in the presentcaseasthefact thattheapplicanttemporarilycametoCyprus for studiesdid not in anyway affect herpermanent settlementinEnglandormanifest anyintentionofreturningtoCyprus 5 forthepurposeofstayinghere. The respondent by letter dated 28th November, 1986, informedcounselforapplicantthathecouldnotreconsiderthematterasitwasnotpossibletochangehisdecisionalreadycommunicatedtotheapplicant. Counsel for respondent raised thepreliminary objection that the subjudicedecision isnotanexecutoryadministrativeactas theapplicationforaduty -freecarwasnotfor acaralreadyimportedintheislandbutonlyanexpressionofintentiontoimporta new car. This objection, however, was later withdrawn after 15 counselfor therespondent wassatisfied thatthecarhadalready beenbroughtintotheislandandtheapplicationwasinrespectof thatparticularcar. Theonly issue which posesfor consideration in thepresent caseiswhethertheapplicantwaspermanentlysettledabroadcon- 20 tinuously for the period of the last ten years.This is theonly groundonwhichthedecisionwasbasedasappearingintheletter oftherespondenttotheapplicant. Counselforapplicantinarguinghiscasesubmittedthattheapplicanthasprovedthatshesatisfied theprerequisitesoftheOrder 25 i.e.permanentsettlementabroadoveracontinuousperiodofthe ten years andrepatriation toCyprusafter thecompletion often yearssettlementabroad.Itwashiscontentionthatthestayofthe applicant during theperiod 11thJuly, 1984,to4th September, 1985, was of a temporary nature for the purposes of pursuing -Q further her studies and it did not in any way interfere with her permanentsettlementinEnglandassheneverintendedtosettleto Cyprus permanently atthetime.Itisfor thisreason thatduring herstayinCyprusshedidnottrytosecureanyworkortakeany 1486 10 3 C.L.R. ,( f Sophoclides v. Republic l Savvides J . ,r i - i ' v i e ' ι ! · ι i'~' '. · " • '" *> " ΐ ' *J ι '' 'i' " '' 0 other steps from which anintentionmight be inferred thatshere'•!-j*if.: ^.,-ςπ-.ηο τ ^ « v . u r , , . - · . - • -»*:.;» o . . . .· •• h - ' ' " • u* turned toCyprus tosettle permanently. , Lr tr ι .*..; ' UCi^lf. Λ ':'~C\ 5 10 ,c ?I 20 2SJ ^ -^ .Thequestion of temporary interruptionof permanentresidence abroad was raised recently inHadnGeorsi v. TheMimster ofFi· nancethroughthe Customs'Department

(1987)3C.L.R.280, but itwas notdecidedas therecourse failed onthe.groundthatthedecision challenged was found tobeof aninformatory.or advisory nature and,as such not,amenable,to a recourse.under Article 146.2.The'matter was raised again in A/iastasis v.The Minister of Finance

(1987)3 C.L.R.

1. Theapplicant™'that caseemmi.grated totheU.K. in 1956 where hesettled andstayed until.30th June, 1984 when hereturnedtoCyprus with his wife with the ιηtention tosettle herepermanently.His stay in England, however, was interruptedbetween 15th August, 1982 and 2nd June, 1983, during which period heresided inCyprus. His applicationto.import aduty -free carhadbeenrejected by theDirectorof.the Departmentof CustomsandExcise ontheground that ms.permanent settlementabroad was notcontinuous"sinceheresided in Cyprus from the 15thrAugust,. 1982.to.the.2nd.June,
2. Thatrecourse, however, was dismissed on the ground.that it did not O.HWI uto: j'V tiltis.- Λ .?*r0rr:..MVi6 TSJli.rri ?:ii :*."- f^ViMuzevi/Jiai 'purport tochallenge anexecutory administrative act as,applicant did notimport thecar in Cyprus when heapplied tothe Director of Customs andExcise. Inmyjudgment,.however, in the.above case,atρ.2051 said thefollowing:.. , • . rMt^ryil't-ilfMiio^H ncnny'i .*."'° iK'i ΤΟΊ Μοην'ύ θυίι3ΰιχο1: Ρ:';.η'Γίf-f'ir.tn'«.'K.ni.rit v»rin.·* '.*„"/^'^iii" v:il.^.j u eMfoib Beanng in mind,however, all thecircumstances,of the case .andonthebasis of the material before me which,prima facie, discloses a.good case for theapplicanthadit been acase.of an application for relief in thecase of avehicle already imported, uOiiri'if.j* ΊΟ:*tif).Vit! 7:1 ΐιαΎΜ ;:\iatsny .wr:>:yn -ν ΓΚ';.. ΙΪ^ ( , the appropriateauthoritymay,in theexercise of its discretion, .considerfavourably, an applicationonthepartof.the applicant incase heapplies for relief inrespectof acaractually imported by him. , : . . : .4 Λ·; . M:?.rffJ)W 35 ,> · -. JT i i-'V M'J .- - ".i ) . '.'J" 'V. i.l <'.. pJLJc fi"''2 fll'v. -.'M^i£j«UOiiOIli". J'.:. " ^ I i h l O J 'Jii> · I J l t It is an.undisputed fact in thepresent case that the applicant had settled permanenly in England with her parents,,(herhome was inEngland where she hadbeen residing since 1967; thatthe 1487 SavvidesJ. Sophoclidesv.Republic

(1988)object of stayingin Cyprusduringtheperiodof 11thJuly, 1984 to4thSeptember, 1985,wasforthepurposeofattendingspecial studies in Cyprus and shereturned back hometoEngland after thecompletionofherstudies.Sheformed theintentionofpermanently settlingin Cyrpus after shegotmarried andcametoCy- 5 prusinJuly, 1986,for suchpurpose. Thequestionofpermanentsettlementhasbeenconsideredand theprinciples underlyingwereexpounded byA.Loizou,J,ashe then was,inMatsasv.TheRepublic

(1985)3C.L.R.54where heconcluded asfollows atp. 61: \Q *Tomymindpermanent settlementcarrieswithitthenotionof arealorpermanenthomeandshouldbedistinguishedfromthe notionofordinaryresidence." Theaboveconstruction of theprovisions of theorderof the words "permanent settlement" was adopted in loannouv.The 15 Republic

(1986)3C.L.R.,1263. InMichaelv.TheRepublic

(1986)3C.L.R.2067,after anextensiveanalysisof thematter,Stylianides,J., saidthe following atp.2075: «'Permanentestablishment'isnot synonymous to'residence'. 20 Residencealoneisnotsufficient. Permanentestablishmentindicatesaqualityofresidenceratherthanitslength.Thedurationoftheresidence,i.e.regularphysicalpresenceinaplace, isonlyoneof anumberofrelevantfactors.Anelementofintention toresideandestablishisrequired.Evidenceofinten- 25 tionmaybeimportantwheretheperiodorperiodsofresidence aresuch astopoint tobothdirections.Itisnotpossiblefora persontobepermanentlysettledintheRepublicandinanother country.Theintentionofpermanentlysettlingmaybegathered fromtheconduct and actionconsistent with such settlement. 30 Thoughpermanent settlementcannotbeassimilated todomicile,itisakintoitandpronouncementsondomicilearevery relevantandhelpful." 1488 3i C.L.R. -n 5 , ΙΟ 15 Sophoclides v. Republic SavvidesJ. Bearinginmindall thecircumstancesof thepresentcase and havinggivendueconsideration tothematterIamof the opinion thatthestay of theapplicantin Cyprus from July, 1984 toSep­ tember, 1985 was notsuchastoindicateanintentionto abandon herpermanentsettlementih'Englandof from whichan inference maybedrawnthattheapplicantgaveuphersettlementinEngland andrepatriate,toCyprus.withanintentiontosettleherepermanet- Ihave,therefore,cometotheconclusion thatonthematerial placedbeforetherespondentit'wasnotreasonablyopentohimto decide ashedidand,therefore,thesubjudicedecision hastobe andis hereby-annulled butinthecircumstances Imakeno order for costs. · t ,, Λ Subjudicedecisionannulled. . «•f-,«\u* a . " Noorderas to costs. .*». ..·· ΜΛ .'* η ' ', ι' .1 ' 1489 '„c * /d*'