(1988)1988OctoberIS IPIKIS,J.] INTHE MATTER OFARTICLE 146 OFTHECONSTITUTION ELEOURGIA PETTEMERIDES LIMITED, Applicants, v. THE REPUBLIC OFCYPRUS,THROUGH 1.THEMINISTRY OFCOMMERCE AND INDUSTRY,
- THEDIRECTOR-GENERAL OFTHE MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY,
- THE MINISTEROFCOMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, Respondents. (ConsolidatedCases Nos. 494186 and224/87). Constitutional Law—Right toproperty—Constitution, Art. 23—Refusingper mit to import goods—The right of property is not violated thereby— MeridianTradingCo.Ltd. v.Ministerof CommerceandIndustry
(1987)3 CLM. 1930 adopted. ConstitutionalLaw—Rightto exerciseatrade—Constitution,Art.25—Refusal topermit import of goods—Does not amout to violation of the aforesaid right—MeridianTrading Co. Ltd. v.Ministerof CommerceandIndustry
(1987)3 CLA. 1930 adopted. Constitutional Law—Equality—Constitution,Art.28—Refusalto issuepermit toimportolive-oilintendedtobesold in themarketincompetitiontooliveoilproduced in Cyprus—Complaintofdiscriminationbasedonfact that im port permits hadbeen granted to two other legal entities—Suchother im porterspossessed arefineryandtheirpurpose was tomixforeign olive-otl with Cyprusolive-oil inordertoreducetatter'sacidity—Suchpurpose was withintheambitof governmentpolicy andLaw24/68(The Olive Products * MarketingLaw, 1968)—Ροήάοη of suchother importerswhollydifferent thanthatofapplicants—Complaintfor discrimination unfounded. 1*80 3 C.L.R. ' Eleourgia Pettemerides v. Republic Importation ofgoods-^The Imports Regulation Law,1962(Law 49162), as amended,byLaw 7/67-r-Refusal toissue permitfor theimportation of olive-oil, which hadbeendeclaredasacontrolledproduct—As regard. olive-oil thesameobjectivewaspursuedbyThe OliveProductsMarketing Law1968(Law24/68)—Therefusalcannotbefaultedfor abuseofdiscre tionexercisedinfurtheranceofthestatedends' " 5 Omission toreply—Constitution,Art. 29—When thelawdoes notcast upon theadministration the dutytoact, theomissionisnot,assuch,justiciable, butthefailuretocomplywithArt. 29canbemade thesubjectofareview under Art.146.1—With theissuance ofanegative decision, the earlier omissiontoreplyceasestobecognizable. 10 ThelegalprinciplesexpoundedbytheCourtindismissingboth recours essufficiently appearinthehereinaboveheadnote. • ν'' 1 ι . '- 15 Recoursesdismissed. Noorderas.tocosts. "" Casesreferredto: ι ' <- .. , ι*. • • , -.· ., . ~ MeridianTradingCo. Ltd. v.MinisterofCommerceandIndustry
(1987)3 X.L.R. 1930.' · · •/ J Recourses.. •. . 20 · '.:*• . - . t J ·... •• · Recoursesagainsttherefusal oftherespondentstoallowap plicantstoimportaquantityofvirginolive-oilandrefinedkerneloil. •••' " '· ', -. · - Chr. Clerides,fortheapplicants.··' G.Frangou (Mrs.), fortherespondents/. 2 5 ' ι • ' •- '.i.-.· Cur.'adv. vult. PIKIS J.'read thefollowing judgment. AtissueinRecourse' 224/87is thevalidityofadecision takenon 21/1/87refusing an applicationmadebyapplicanttoimportaquantityofvirginoliveoil and refined kemel-oil. Bythefirstrecourse the applicants 1881 Pikis J. Eleourgia Pettemerides v. Republic
(1988)treatedthedelayof therespondentstoreplytotheirapplication as a refusal andanticipated in someway thedecision that forms the subject matterof the second recourse.In theabsenceofastatutory duty casting a positive obligation on therespondents toactin thematterof theapplication foranimport licence,theomission to 5 replytotheapplicants wasnotinitselfjusticiable; thoughthe failuretoobservethedutycast upontheAdministration by article29, could bemade thesubject ofreviewunderarticle 146of theConstitution. With the issuance of the negative decision the earlier omission toreplyceased tobecognizableas such.Consequently, «t Recourse494/86cannot butbedismissed for failure todisclosea litigablecause under article 146oftheConstitution. And as such itmust bedismissed. What wearerequired toreview is thevalidity of thedecision, subject matterof Recourse 224/87. The applicants are licensed tooperate amill for the extraction of olive-oil from olives and own aplant for thepacking of oliveoilproducts.They applied for licence toimport 20 tonsof virgin olive-oil and 50 tons of kernel-oil for sale in the local market. They sensed areal need for imported oil,considering that locally produced oil was selling athigherprices.Theapplication wasrefused in exercise of the powers vested inthe respondents by the Imports Regulation Law (Law 49/62,as amended by Law 7/67) and Regulations made thereunder*. The Minister, in exercise of thepowersvested in himby law,declared olive-oil and kemel-oil tobecontrolled products and, on that account, their importation became subject tocontrol.Theorderwasmadeintheinterestsof theCypruseconomy, especially theprotection of home producers and themarketing oftheirproducts. The Olive Products Marketing Law 1968(24/68) wasanother ·* pieceof legislation enacted for thepromotion and achievement of thesameobjectives. Provision wasmadefor theestablishment of *(R.A.A.7/83- 21/6/83). 1882 I ,·: ; 3 C.L.R. . J . Eleourgia Pettemeridesv. Republic Pikis J. a marketing board with responsibility, interalia,topromotelocal production of olive-oil andthemaking of provision for thepack ing and marketing of olive-oil products(s.26). Theobject of the - law is tostimulatelocal production by theadoptionof avariety of 5 measuresdesigned toensureappropriatemechanismsfor thepro cessing of olive-oil products and the assurance of a market for them. SEKEP was established within theframework of the law, an organisation charged with responsibility for thecreationof a properadmixtureof different qualities of oil for purposes ofmar,Q keting with a view to safeguarding the interests of thepublic in theconsumptionof olive-oil of acceptablequality. TheOrganisa tionis allowed toimportperiodically virgin olive-oil for purposes of admixturewith olive-oil of local extraction. Theadmixture is madein'ordertocounterbalancetheacidity of Cyprus olive-oil. 15 20 Besides SEKEP, UnitedCyprus Oil IndustriesLimited were periodically allowed toimportvirgin olive-oil for purposes of ad mixturewith Cyprus kemel-oil,again intendedfor theproduction of a certain variety of olive-oil intended for localconsumption (εδώδιμο ελαιόλαδο). They,own arefinery suitable for the pur pose. Moreover, import licences were issued within thecontext of thepolicy topromotelocal manufactureof acceptablequalityof olive-oil. ' The applicantsquestion thevalidity of thedecision mainlyon thefollowing five grounds: 25 (A) Forviolation of theprovisions of Article 23 andthe right to property safeguarded thereby. •J ' 30 ' ' · ' (B)Forbreaches of article 25 of theConstitution. The refusal of a licence toimportamounts, inthecontention of appli cants, to a restriction of the right to trade of carry on a business. \ (C) For violations of article 28 deriving from the unequal treatment accordedtoapplicantscomparedtoSEKEP and United Cyprus Oil Industries Limited. . 1883 PikisJ. Eleourgia Pettemerides v. Republic
(1988)(D)For breaches of the Association of Agreement between CyprusandtheEuropeanEconomicCommunityconcluded on22 May, 1973.*TheAgreement hassuperior forcein virtueofarticle 169andonthataccountshouldprevail,as submitted,overanyprovisionsoftheCypruslawthatcon- g flictorareinconsistentwithit. (E)Forfailure toobserve thenormsofproperadministration specifically emanatingfromfailuretocarryoutaproperinquiryandabsenceofduereasoning.Theinquirywasallegedlyincompletebecauseoffailuretoelicitthefactsrelevant 10 tothelicensingpolicyofthe respondents. Counsel for therespondents supported thedecision onevery ground.In her submission, article23hardly comesintoplayat all,whereasthelimitationstotherighttoimportwerereasonably opentotherespondentsintheinterestsoftheCypruseconomy. ,,Recently, Ihad occasion toreview theprinciplesrelevant to the application of articles 23 and 25 to import restrictions. It would,Ibelieve,beawasteofeffort toparaphrasewhatwassaid onthesubject inMeridianTrading Co.Ltd. v.MinisterofCommerceandIndustry
(1987)3C.L.R. 1930.1content withciting 20 relevant extractsfromthejudgmentinthatcaseatp.1934: "Lastly, the law and theorder made thereunder arechallenged asbad for breach of theprovisionsof Articles23, 25 and28oftheConstitution andsequentiallythereonthesubjudicedecision as founded onthe provisions of theimpugned 25 legislation.ItrulyfailtoseehowArticle23comesintoplayat allinthecircumstancesof thiscase.Thesubjudicedecision doesnotlimittherightoftheapplicantstoownproperty.Art. 23doesnotsafeguard arighttoimportgoodsintothecountry, whereaspara.3of Art. 23allowslimitationsnecessary,inter 30 alia,forthepromotionofpublicbenefit.Ishallconcernmyself nofurther withthisaspectofthecase. *(Publishedunder 1022No.921.p. 381). 1884 3 C.L.R. 10 25 30 35 Eleourgia Pettenterides v.Republic PikisJ. Art.25safeguards therightofeverypersontopracticeany profession orcarryonanyoccupation,tradeorbusiness. NeithertheImportRegulationLawnortheordermadethereupon purporttolimitthefreedomoftheapplicantstoestablishthemselvesastraders.In'fact, theytradewithouthindrance.Thealleged grievancedoes not,to mycomprehension, affect their freedom toengageintheimporttradeassuchbutthecircumstancesofcarryingonthattrade,aseparateanddistinctquestion.Thisappreciationoftheimplicationsofs.3oftheImports Regulation Lawhasbeenjudicially acknowledged andsanctionedinImpalexAgenciesLtd. v.'Republic
(1970)3 C.L.R. 361.Moreover,inanearliercase,namely,HousseinIrfanand 4 OthersandTheRepublic (MinisterofCommerce &Industry, 3R.S.C.C.39,theSupremeConstitutionalCourttookthe viewthatregulation oftheimporttradeisinanyevent apermissible cause for limitation of the freedom safeguarded by Art. 25.1..." ' Forsimilarreasonstothoseindicatedabove,articles23and25 areofnoassistancetotheapplicants.Limitationsimposedonthe importation of agricultural productsarepartof awidergovernmentpolicytopromotelocalproductionofolivesandsequentially theretotheproductionofolive-oilofappropriatequalityforlocal consumption.Law24/68provided thenecessary framework for thepromotionoftheaboveends.Therestrictionstotheimportation of olive-oil andkindred productswereimposed in furtherancetothepromotionoftheabovepolicy.Thepolicy,therefore, cannotbefaulted forabuseofdiscretionexercised in furtherance tothestatedends. OnexaminationofthefactsplacedbeforetheCourtintheirtotality,itemergesthatlicencestoimportoilweregrantedsolelyfor thepurposeofachievingtheproductionofolive-oilofappropriate qualityfor consumption bythepublic.TheOrganisation ofSEKEPwastheprincipalagencyforthepromotionoftheobjectives ofthelawwhereasthelicensingofUnitedCyprusOilIndustries Limitedtoimportlimitedquantitiesofvirginolive-oil wasincidental to thepromotion of government policy. Those manufa1885 Pikis J. Eleourgia Pel!emerides v. Republic
(1988)cturers had an oil refinery, a fact that made possible the use of theirplant for thepurposeof producing olive-oil ofproperquality. The licences given to United Cyprus Oil Industries Limited cannotbedivorcedeitherfromthegeneralpolicyoftheAdministration ortheamenity of themanufacturers toputtheirplanttouse 5 for theattainmentof thatpolicy. Applicants were in a wholly different position from that of United Cyprus Oil Industries Limited. Their application for the importation of virgin olive-oil wasnotintended orassociated with the promotion of government policy for the production of local JQ olive-oil;,on thecontrary, they wanted toimport foreign oil inorder tocompeteinthelocal market with Cyprusolive-oilproducts. The circumstances of both SEKEPand United Cyprus OilIndustries Limited were, in consequence of the above, dissimilar to those of the applicants. No violation of article 28.1 was estab- ,c lished. TheAssociation Agreementwith EuropeanEconomic Community exempted agricultural products and noprovision tothe contrary has been introduced since its conclusion. No violation of thatagreementhasbeen established either. Icannot sustain thecomplaint thatthedecision isvulnerable to besetasidefor lack of eitheraproperinquiry orduereasoningof thedecision.The inquiry wasthorough andformed partof apolicyconsistently pursued over theyears, whereas thereasons given for the refusal were adequate and left nodoubt why the licence ~<was refused. Theapplication isdismissed with noorderastocosts. Recourse dismissed. Noorderas tocosts. 1886 ~«