3 C.L.R. 1988July26 [PIKIS,J.] INTHEMATTEROFARTICLE146OFTHECONSTITUTION. ETERIAPIRIONAPHRODITILTD., *. Applicants, v. • THEREPUBLICOFCYPRUS,THROUGH THEMINISTRYOFCOMMERCE&INDUSTRY, Respondent. . (CaseNo.438/86). Acts or decisions in the sense of Art. 146.1 of theConstitution— Administrativepolicyoutsideitsambit—Refusaltochangeexistingimport controlsfor theprotection of local industry—The Imports (Regulation) Law,1962asamendedbyLaw7167—Doesnotcreateanobligationonthe Minister tochangeexistingregulationsupon themotionofanypartyaggrievedbythem—Minister'somissiontoactasaforesaidnotjusticiable. Bymeansofthesubjudicedecisiontherespondentrefused toaccepta requestbytheapplicants,whoarelocalmanufacturersofsafety matches,to changegovernmentpolicyandimposestrictercontrolsonimportsofsafety matchesfrom abroad.Therecoursewasdismissedonthegroundthatthe subjudicedecisionisnotjusticiableunderArt.146.1. Recoursedismissed. Noorderastocosts. , Casesreferredto: ' Savvidouv.TheRepublic
(1970)3CUR. 118;! • <-'•' Pernarosv.TheRepublic
(1975)3C.LA. 175; : - C.Carayiannisv. TheRepublic(WSOfilCLR. 39,.* Tricomitisv.TheRepublic
(1985)3CJLR.2328. 1555 . • .,_ AphroditiLtd.v.Republic
(1988)Recourse. Recourseagainsttherefusal oftherespondenttointroducefurtherrestrictionsontheimportationofforeignmanufactured safety matches. Ph.Valiantis, fortheapplicant. 5 St.Theodolou,for therespondent. Cur,adv. vult. PIKISJ.readthefollowingjudgment.Theapplicantsarethe onlylocalmanufacturers ofsafetymatches.Theyhavebeeninthe businesssince 1962.Fromthebeginningtheyweregivenprotection through importcontrols,tariffs andtheexemptionfrom dutiesof therawmaterial,used forthemanufacture of theirproducts; and they still continue to enjoy a degree of protection. Neverthelesstheyfeltdissatisfied withthelevelofprotectionaccordedtothemandpetitionedtheauthoritiesbyaseriesofrepre- 15 sentationstoimposestrictercontrolsontheimportationofforeign manufactured safety matches.They complained of adeclining marketandcorresponding increaseofthesalesoftheircompetitors.Theircompetitorstoowereaggrievedwithgovernmentpolicyandkeptcomplainingthattheprotectiongiventotheapplicants 20 wasexcessiveand unjustified. The Minister of Commerce &Industry and his department studiedthecomplaintsoftheapplicantsandinquiredintothenecessity,ifany,ofchangingtheirpolicyandimposingstrictercontrolsontheimportationofforeign manufactured safety matches. 25 Intheendhedecidedthattheintroductionoffurther restrictions wasnotinthepublicinterest Moreover,itwouldhavethe effect ofdamagingthetradingrelationsofCypruswithEuropeancountriesandcreateproblems in theimplementation of thecustoms agreementof CypruswiththeEuropeanEconomicCommunity. 30 On8thMay, 1986,TheMinisterinformed theapplicantsofhis unwillingnesstochangegovernmentpolicyandthereasonsforit. 1556 3 C.L.R. Aphroditi Ltd. v. Republic Pikis J. ThePresent'proceedings aredirected against thevalidity ofthe abovedecision. ; . · . « . . . - ' - , . · ' - 4 .. .' Ι Γ ' ' ' ' • ' • • * " ι . > Applicants challengetheassessment of theMinisterthattheec onomicinterestof thecountry'militatedagainst theintroductionof 5 furtherrestrictionsintheimportationof safety matches. Presently theapplicantsenjoy protectionthrough;.(a) Quantitativerestric tionsintheimportation1of safety matches;(b)Theimpositionof dutiesontheimportationof foreign products;and(c) Exemption from thepaymentof importdutiesoftheraw materialusedbyaplO plicants,namely, match sticks. Itis thecase for theapplicants • thannotonlytheMinistermisappreciatedtheneedsoftheCyprus economy butwas ill-motivated inrefusing theapplicationfor a changeof policy, acting-outof adesire tofavour theinterestsof theircompetitors. J r 15 2Q 23 Asidefromasserting thesoundnessof governmentpolicy, the respondentscontendedthat thedecision is notjusticiable forlack ofexecutory character.In anyeventadministrativepolicy asdis tinctfrom administrativeactionis not apropersubject forreview by theCourts.Counselfor theapplicantsrefuted thevalidityof theseobjections andmaintainedthatrefusal tochangegovernment policy affects their interests in a way entitling themtoprotect thembyrecourseunderArt. 146.1 oftheConstitution. Itis settled thatadministrative policy cannotassuchbe made thesubject ofjudicial reviewunderArt. 146.1of the Constitution Savvidou v. TheRepublic
(1970)3C.L.R. 118;Pernaros v. The Republic
(1975)3C.L.R. 175;C.Carayiannis v. The Republic
(1980)3C.L.R.39;Tricomitis v.TheRepublic
(1985)3C.L.R. 2328.Only theimplementation of administrativepolicy resulting intheissuanceofanexecutory administrativeact,foundedthereon, canbemadethesubject ofjudicial action.Foritspolicies,as distinctfromitsactions, theexecutive isonlypolitically accounta ble. The subject decision is nothingotherthantheexpression of governmentpolicy toadheretotheregimeof existingcontrol of 1557 PikisJ. AphroditiLtd.v. Republic
(1988)importsinanareaofgreatinteresttothepublic.Theinactionof theMinisterandfailureinparticulartochangeexisting regulation of importsisnotjusticiable.Thelaw,namely,ImportsRegulation (Amendment)Law 1967(Law7/67)doesnotcastanobligation ontheMinistertoactuponthemotionofanypartyaffected 5 byexistingregulations.Whattheapplicantsareinessencechallenging is theomission of theMinister toalter existing import controlsfor theprotection oflocalindustry.Hehadnostatutory obligation toact.Thesubject decision isnothingother thanthe expressionofadministrativepolicytomaintaintheexistinglegal ,( regime.Assuchitcannotbemadethesubjectofjudicialreview underArt.146. Consequently,therecoursemustbedismissedforlackofexecutorycharacterofitssubject matterandIsoorder.Lertherebe noorderastocosts. Recoursedismissed. Noorderastocosts. 1558 ,