(1988)1988 September30 [STYLIANIDES, J.J INTHEMATTER OFARTICLE 146 OFTHECONSTITUTION DEMETRAKIS HADJISAVVA, Applicant, v. THE REPUBLIC OFCYPRUS,THROUGH THEREVIEW PERMITSAUTHORIΙΎ, Respondents. (CaseNo. 459/86). Motor Transport—Hierarchical recourse to the Permits Review Authority— identificationof the act attacked bythe recourse—Principlesapplicable— Thesameasthoseapplicableto identify thesubjudice act inarecourse for annulment. Recoursefor annulment—identification ofsubjudice act—PrinciplesapplicaWe. . TheLicensing Authority dismissed theapplicant's application for are placementof his rural taxi by a new oneand,atthesametime,revoked the licenceas regards theold taxi.Therespondentsdismissed applicant's hier archicalrecourseontheground thatitdid notattack therevocation,butonly 10 therefusal toreplace theonetaxi by another.Hencethisrecourse. Having stated theprinciples applicable inordertoidentify the subjudice actin arecourse andon thebasis thatsuch principles are,also, applicable asregards theact,subject-matter of thehierarchicalrecourse,theCourtan nulled die subjudice decision, as it was based onan interpretationnotrea- - <sonably opentotherespondents. Subjudice decisionannulled. No orderas to costs. 1820 5 3 CX;R. u . HadjiSavva v. Republic Casesreferredto:l'>-l, ;· ' 'J ·,,>,'„ / Μ · ,: ·• · •' \ > .· < , ' ' , -ί .ι r , ·.: ' Papaefstathiou v.ReviewLicensingAuthority,
(1988)3CL.R. 1102. ,., . Aristidouv.Republic
(1984)3' C.L.R.
- ^ . •; 1 ·. • Recourse. · ' ;* .* ,.Recourse,againstthe dismissal, by.therespondents,of appli cant's hierarchical recourse against therefusal of the Licensing Authority togrant applicant arural taxi licence inrelation tohis vehicle J.E.,262inreplacementof thelicenceof hisruraltaxiNo. M.J. 383 * . ' . Λ ',/ 3 S.A. Karqpatakisy for theapplicant. · - ™ , ' . · . - . * 1 . , . * ; . • , M.Tsiappa (Mrs.), for the respondents. Cur. adv. vult. 15 γ 20 25 .SXYLIANIDES J.readthefollowingjudgment.Theapplicant by this recourse seeks theannulmentof thedecision of the Re-, spondents, dated 25th June, 1986, whereby his hierarchicalrecourse against thedecision of theLicensing Authority, dated 5th June, 1984, was dismissed. . Theapplicantcomesfrom Peristeronavillage.Atallthe materi altimeshewas theowner of alicensed rural taxi under Registration No.MJ383,stationed atthevillageof Peristerona.Hewas, also theownerof private vehicle, Registration No.JE
- Theapplicantapplied totheLicensing Authority,on28thMay, 1984 for thegranting of aruraltaxi licenceinrelationtohisvehi cleJE262 inreplacementof thelicenceof hisrural taxi Registration No.MJ383 , Jnthemeantimeacertain Adonis,Constantinou,a.bus driver, applied for alicence for arural taxi atPeristerona.Thereportof 1821 Stylianides J. HadjiSavva v. Republic
(1988)the police in respect of the application of Constantinou, dated 12th April, 1984, mentioned that taxis MJ 383 and JC 919, do notcirculate for theserviceof thepublic. The Licensing Authority heard the application on 5th June, 1984, andquestioned theapplicant about theuse hewas making 5 of thetaxi MJ383.Onthesameday-5th June,1984—they issued theirdecision which was communicatedtotheapplicant by letter dated 15thJune,1984.Thematerial partof thatdecision reads as follows: "... να απορρίψει την αίτηση για αντικατάστασηκαι ίο παράλληλα να ανακαλέσει την άδεια οδικής χρήσης του οχήματος MJ 383 γιατί ο ιδιοκτήτης του ομολόγησε ότι χρησιμοποιείτοταξίαυτό στην Λευκωσία αντίστηνέδρα τουγιαχρονικό διάστημαπέραντων 2 μηνών.... Επίσης υπάρχειεπιστολήτηςΑστυνομίας ότι τοταξίαυτόδενκυ- γ$ κλοφορείγιατηνεξυπηρέτησητου κοινού." Againstthis decision of theLicensing Authority theapplicant raised an hierarchical recourse under section 4 of the Motor Transport Regulation Laws,1982-
- In noless than two years the recourse was heard by the Re- 20 spondents. Thecounsel appearing for himattacked therevocation of theli cenceof taxi MJ383 andthefailure and/orrefusal tolicense and/ orsubstitute thelicence for themotorcarJE
- On25th June,1986, thesubjudice decision was taken. Icon- 25 sider pertinenttoquoteit: "Η Αναθεωρητική Αρχή Αδειών έχοντας υπόψη την ισχύουσα νομοθεσία καιόλαταπραγματικά περιστατικά της υποθέσεως πουέχουν τεθεί ενώπιοντηςκαιαφού με λέτησε όλα τα στοιχεία των σχετικών φακέλων και όλα 30 όσαέχουνλεχθεί από μέρουςτουπροσφεύγοντος,αποφα1822 3 G.L.R. Stylianides J: σίζει ν'απορρίψει την προσφυγήγιατί οπροσφεύγων πα ρέλειψεναπροσβάλει την απόφασητης Αρχής Αδειών με την οποίαανακαλείτοηάδειατουαγροτικούταξί MJ383, και αντί αυτού υπέβαλε.προσφυγή εναντίον αρνητικής απόφασης της Αρχής Αδειών να του χορηγήσει άδεια αντικατάστασης του MJ 383 με το JE
- Επομένως εφόσο ηανακλητική απόφαση της Αρχής Αδειών δεν'έχει προσβληθεί στην Αναθεωρητική ΑρχήΑδειών, δεν υπάρ : χει αντικείμενο προσφυγής." ' 5 10 HadjiSavva v. Republic Thepowerof theReviewLicensingAuthority is set outinsec tion4A -
(4)asfollows:' ' "
(4)Ηαναθεωρητικήαρχήαδειών δύναται να εκδώσει μίαντων ακολούθωναποφάσεων: (α)ναεπικύρωση τηνπροσβληθείσαν απόφασιν· 15 (β)ναακύρωσητηνπροσβληθείσαν απόφασιν (γ)νατροποποίησητηνπροσβληθείσαναπόφασιν; (δ) να προβή η ιδία εις έκδοσιν νέας αποφάσεως εις αντικατάστασιντης προσβληθείσης- _Π , ' (ε) να παραπέμψητην υπόθεσιν εις την αρχήναδειών, διατάσσουσα ταύτηνναπροβήεις ωρισμένην ενέρ- ("The Review,LicensingAuthority may issueany of thefol t lowing decisions: .· 25 (a)toconfirm thechallengeddecision; ,_ (b)toannul thechallenged decision; (c)tomodify thechallenged decision; 1823 _ l( Stylianides J. HadjiSavva v. Republic
(1988)(d)toissue anewdecision in substitution ofthechallenged one; (e) tosend the case back totheLicensing Authority ordering thelattertodocertainact"). Itisthecontention of theapplicant thatthesubjudice decision iscontrary tolaw, thereasoning isdefective anditistheresultof misconception bothof lawand fact. Thenatureofhierarchical recourseand itsattributeswere stated in anumberof decisions of thisCourt. Suffices tociteoneof my recent Judgments -KaterinaPapaefstathiouv.ReviewLicensingAuthority, Ministry of Communications and Works-
(1988)3C.L.R. 1102 in which Isaidat p.1105. 5 10 "A hierarchical recourse is not intended toreview thecorrectness of the hierarchically subordinate organ's decision by reference to the soundness of the reasoning propounded in support thereof but, toestablish asecond tier inthedecisiontakingprocess,designed toeliminatemistakesaswellasabuse of authority by subordinates. Both organs in thehierarchy are charged with thesameduty -topromotetheobjects of thelaw by theapplication of itsprovision inparticular cases.General- 20 ly, it is competent for thebody exercising powers in a hierarchicalrecourse,toreview thelegalityof thethedecision taken in thefirst instance -(Tsoutsos -Administration and theLaw,
(1979), p. 63; Stassinopoulos - Law of Administrative Acts,
(1951), p. 177 et sequence)." 25 The hierarchical recourse was made on a cyclo style form, which apparently is given out to aggrieved persons by the Authorities. It has to be noted that the hierarchical recourse on the form is stated that it is based on the preexisting legislation - the Motor Transport Regulation Laws 1964 - 1972 and is addressed tothe Minister of Communications and Works.Thisrecourse is quoted verbatim and the parts which were filled in handwriting areunderlined: 1824 30 3 C.L.R. HadjiSavva v. Republic Stylianides J. "ΠΙΝΑΗ ΤΕΤΑΡΤΟΣ (Κανονισμός 24) ΤύποςΙεραρχικήςΠροσφυγής ΟΙΠΕΡΙΡΥΘΜΙΣΕΩΣ ΤΗΣΤΡΟΧΑΙΑΣ ΜΕΤΑΦΟΡΑΣΝΟΜΟΙ ΤΟΥ 1964 ΕΩΣ (ΑΡ. 2) ΤΟΥ 1972 ΙΕΡΑΡΧΙΚΗ ΠΡΟΣΦΥΓΗ Υπουργόν Συγκοινωνιών καιΈργων, Λευκωσία, Έντιμε Κύριε, lft 15 2 0 Δυνάμει τουεδαφίου(Ι)τουάρθρου6των περί Ρυθμίσεως της Τροχαίας Μεταφοράς Νόμων του 1964 έως (Αρ.2) του 1972 καταθέτω ενώπιον υμών την παροΰσαν Ιεραρχικήν Προσφυγήν κατά της αποφάσεως της Αρχής υπό ημερομηνίαν 15/6/84 Φακ.MJ 383 -JE 262 επί του κάτωθι θέματος:* άρνησιςχορηγήσεωςαδείας αντικαταστάσεως του αγροτικού ταξί υπ' αριθ.MJ383 με το ιδιωτνχόν όχημα υπ' αριθ. JΕ262. Οι προς υποστήριξιν της παρούσης Ιεραρχικής Προσφυγής λόγοι είναι οι ακόλουθοι:** θααναπτυχθούν κατάτην εξέτασητηςπροσφυγής. , Όνομακαι διεύθυνσις .. - Προσφεύγοντος *ΔώσατεπεριγραφήντουθέματοςχαιτηςεπίτούτουαποφάσεωςτηςΑρχής . Αδειών **Δώσατεπλήρηπεριγραφήντωνλόγωνεφ'ωνστηρίζεταιηΙεραρχικήΠρο σφυγή. ·. 1825 Stylianides J. HadjiSavva v. Republic
(1988)ΔΗΜΗΤΡΗΣ Χ" ΣΑΒΒΑ ΠΕΡΙΣΤΕΡΩΝΑ-Λ/ΣΙΑ ΗμεοοατινΙα26/6/84 ΥπογραφήΠροσφεύγοντοςΔ.Χ" Σάββα Δι'επίσημονχρήοινμόνον ΑπόφασιςΥπουργού Ημερομηνία Εξεδόθητη.. Υπογραφή ΥπουργόςΣυγκοινωνιώνκαιΈργων» A recourse before the Administrative Courtis construed in such a way in order to ascertain at what it is aimed. Inthere course theact,decision oromission sought tobe annulledmust bedescribed with certainty asthewholeprocedureandjurisdic- 15 tion of the Courtis with reference toa specific act attacked.If from thecontentsof therecourseitmayemergeclearly that anoth erdecision was intendedtobethesubject-matter of therecourse and thatby oversight therecourserefers toanotherdecision,the Courtmay construetherecoursesoastotreatitas attacking the 20 decision intendedtobe.attacked, thatis tosay,otherthantheone which appears to have been challenged by it. (Decision of the GreekCouncilof StateNo.702/1954.) 1826 3 C.L.R. 5 HadjiSavva v. Republic Stylianides J. In order toascertain exactly thesubject-matter, therecourse hastobeconsidered as awhole:Thisis settled by thejurispru dence of theGreek Councilof State. (See Case Law of Greek Council of State, 1929-1959', p. 271; Cases set out in the "ΕυρετήριονΝομολογίας"of theGreekCouncilof,State19611970, Vol. 1p. 305 and "Ευρετήριον Νομολογίας"'of the Greek Council of State 1971-1975 Vol. 1p. 181;Aristidouv. Republic
(1984)3C.L.R.503). Thereasoning of thesubjudice decision is thattheapplicant 1Q didnotattackinthehierarchicalrecoursethewithdrawalof the li cenceof hisruraltaxiMJ383. ' f 15 20 Ireferred tothedocumentcontainingthehierarchicalrecourse. Thedecision attacked was issuedon5thJune, 1984.Itwas one decisioncontainingtwolegs. TheLicensing Authority whendealing with the application of this applicant asked him'questions abouttheway hewas usinghisruraltaxiMJ383andissuedtheir decision,whereby theydismissedhis applicationfor substitution of thelicenceandwithdrew sameatthesame time. Was theinterpretation placedontheprayerof therecourseby theRespondentsreasonably opento them? Did the applicant appeal totheReview Licensing Authority onlyfor thepartof thedecisionof theLicensing Authority,which referred totherefusal togrant tohimthesubstitution of theli cenceforruraltaxiΜJ383 and JE262? 25 30 Theprinciplesgoverningtheinterpretationofarecoursebefore the Administrative Court apply, also, to theinterpretationof a hierarchicalrecourse. * Applyingthoseprinciples, theconclusionisinevitably reached. that noreasonable manwould interpretthehierarchicalrecourse intheway theRespondentsdid. Theapplicantinthehierarchicalrecourseattackedthedecision 1827 Stylianides J. HadjiSavva v. Republic
(1988)of 5thJune, 1984. Thatwas onedecision.Inthedetails hewrote: "άρνησις χορηγήσεως αδείας αντικαταστάσεωςτου αγροτικού ταξίυπ'αριθ.MJ383 με το ιδιωτικό όχημαυπ' αριθ. JE 262." This leaves noroom thattherecourse aimed at therefusal to substitute his licensed riral taxi and,also,therevocationof theli cenceof therural taxi sought tobe substituted. 5 The contentionof counsel for theRespondents that -as they, undersection4A
(3)of the law, hadnopower toexamine andde cide onany matterotherthantheparticularhierarchicalrecourse, 10 and as the applicant limited his recourse to the refusal to grant leavetosubstitute hisrural taxilicence underRegistration No.MJ 383 with theprivate vehicle underRegistration No.JE262 - they rightly did notexamine therecourse of the applicantas there was no hierarchicalrecourse attacking alsothedecision of theLicens- 15 ing Authority to revoke the licence of thevehicle sought to be substituted, is based onpremises impermissible andoninterpreta tion of a hierarchical recourse which was notreasonably opento the Respondents. It was so unreasonable, that nobody could reach it. 20 The Licensing Authority hadtoconsider thechallenged deci sion and issue their own decision under sub-section 4 cited above. They did notcarry theproperinquiry. Theydid notexam ine therecourse as they were duty bound todo.They acted in a manner contrary to thestatutory provisions and theprinciples of 25 Administrative Law governing theexerciseof powers by a body in a hierarchical recourse. Thereasoning of the subjudice deci sion was a misconceived in law reasoning and thesubjudice de cision cannotsurvivejudicial scrutiny. Itwould be annulled for this reason too. ~« Thedecision of theLicensing Authority truly consisted of two legs, which, however, wereso closely linked andconnected that thechallenge of thevalidity of theonebrought intothepicturethe 1828 3 C.L.R. Stylianides J. HadjiSavva v. Republic examinationofthevalidityoftheother. Foralltheforegoing, thesubjudice decision isdeclared null andvoidandofnoeffect under-Article146.4(b): Lettherebenoorderastocosts. Subjudicedecision annulled.Noorder astocosts. " . • * : . ' . v.· .V. 1829 K • 'i