(1988)1988November17 [STYUANIDES,J.] INTHEMATTEROFARTICLE146OFTHECONSTITUTION NEOPHYTOSTRAKOSHIS, Applicant, v. THEREPUBLICOFCYPRUS,THROUGH 1.THEATTORNEY-GENERAL, 2.THESPECIALSERVICEFORTHECARE ANDREHABILITATIONOFDISPLACEDPERSONS, Respondents. (CaseNo.505/84). Legitimateinterest—Analysisofprinciplesapplicable. Legitimate interest—Schemeforfinancialassistance to refugees—Applicant hasnolegitimate interesttoimpugnarefusaltogrant himassistancebecausehisincomeexceededthelimitsetdownbythescheme. ConstitutionalLaw—Equality—Constitution,Art. 28—Doesnotexclude reasonabledifferentiations—Treatinginsamemannerunequalsituationsmay resulttoinequality—Schemeforfinancialassistancetorefugeemarriedafterthe invasion—Refugee, whose wife isnotarefugee, notqualifiedfor assistance—Suchdifferentiationsdidnotexceedpermissiblelimits. Theapplicantisarefugee.Hiswifeisnot Hisapplicationforaloanfor erectionofafamilyhousewasturneddownonthegroundthathewasnot qualified undertherelevantscheme,becausehiswifewasnotarefugee.It mustbenotedthattheapplicant'sgrossemolumentsexceededthelimitset downbytheschemeasaqualificationfortheloan. Held,dismissingtherecourse:
(1)Theapplicanthasnolegitimateinteresttochallengethesubjudicerefusal,becausehisgrossemolumentswere~ beyondthelimitprovidedforintherelevantscheme. 2118 3 CX.R. Trakoshis v. Republic
(2)Inthelightoftheaforesaidconclusion,theissueofdiscriminationis examined incaseitisfound thatthisCourterredasfarasthequestionof thelegitimateinterestisconcerned.
(3)Theprincipleofequalityoftreatmentisviolatedifthedistinctionhas noobjectiveandreasonablejustification.Bareequalityoftreatmentregardlessoftheinequalityofrealitiesisneitherjusticenorhomagetotheconstitutionalprinciple.
(4)Inthiscasethedifferentiation isnotonagenderbaseclassification. Thedifferentiation isbetweendisplacedandnotdisplacedwivesorfiancees.Thefactsdiscloseadifferential treatmentbetweenthesetwoclasses. TheSchemewasintendedtoassistdisplacedpersonsinrehabilitationand housing. Theassistance,however,isgivenonthebasisof thefamily asasocial unit. Recoursedismissed. Nooderasto costs. Casesreferredto: Kritiotisv.MunicipalityofPaphos
(1986)3C.Lk. 322; ConstantinidouandOthersv.Republic
(1974)3CL.R.416; Republicv.Demetriaaes
(1977)3C.LA. 213;· Mainsv.Republic
(1969)3CLJ*.245; -Mikrommatisv.TheRepublic, 2R.S.C.C.125; Fekkasv. TheElectricityAuthorityofCyprus
(1968)1 C.L.R.173; Panayidesv. TheRepublicofCyprus
(1965)3C.L.R.107;' PapaxenophontosandOthers v.Republic
(1982)3 C.L.R.1037; Johnstony.ChiefConstableoftheRoyal UlsterConstabulary(Case222/ 84)C.MJL.R.,Vol.47(1986:3),p.240;paras.
(18)and
(38); 2119 Trakoshis v. Republic
(1988)StateofKeralav.HajiK.KuttyNanaAIR. 1969 SC378. Recourse. Recourse against thedecision of therespondents whereby ap plicant's application for financial assistance for theerection of a family house under theGovernmentScheme was rejected on the 5 ground thathis wife'is nota refugee. P. Angelides, for theapplicant. D. Papadopoulou (Mrs.), for therespondents. Cur. adv. vult. STYLIANTDES J.read thefollowingjudgment. Theapplicant seeks theannulmentof the decision of theRespondents, whereby his application for financial assistance for erection of a family house undertheGovernmentSchemewas rejected, ontheground that his wife is nota refugee. -« Due tovery acutehousing conditions,thatwere created incon- <<sequence of theTurkish invasion and theoccupation of 37% of the country by theTurkish forces, theGovernmentof theRepub lic approved a Schemefor assistance for housing of the refugees. Under such Scheme grant andlong term loan with avery low interest aregiven to,interalia, new families, i.e. families created after theinvasion, for erection of ahouse on self-owned building sites. The applicantwas bornin 1955 atPhiliavillage,where hehad his residence. In 1974, the year that brought the catastrophe to this island, he and his co-villagers were uprooted from their homes and chased to the south by the Turkish invading forces. Hejoined thePoliceForceandin 1977 hemarried toagirl who is not a refugee. Fromthis marriage achild was born in thefollow ing year. 2120 ~n ~ς 3 C.L.R. 5 Trakoshis v.Republic Stylianides J. The applicant on 9th January, 1984, lodged an application with the Respondents, whereby he sought a loan under the said Scheme, inorder tobuild ahouseon a building siteindicated in' the forms attached to his application, situate at Anthoupolis. Though hewas not theregistered ownerof thebuilding site, the condition withregard tobuildingsitewasconsidered as satisfied. His such application was turned down by the Respondents No. 2 on 7th September, 1984, on the ground that assistance ceased to be given to a displaced person whose wife was not a refugee.. 10 Counselfor theapplicant submitted thatthesubjudicedecision is tainted with illegality, as it violates the principle of equality safeguarded byArticle28oftheConstitution. < 15 Counsel for the Respondents, on the other hand, contended that thisrecoursecould notbeentertained bytheCourt,astheapplicant hadnolegitimateinterest,inthesensethathedidnotsatisfy the financial qualification set down by the said Scheme and that,though thereisadifferential treatment/it wasmadeafter reasonable classification by the Authorities and Article 28 was not infringed. 20 Legitimate Interest: · Paragraph 2 of Article 146 of the Constitution provides that "...a recourse may be madeby aperson whose any existing legitimateinterest... isadversely anddirectly affected...". 25 30 Expression isthereby giventothebasiccondition precedentof theannulmentjurisdiction of anAdministrativeCourt,viz.theexistenceof aninterestofanapplicant Arecoursefor annulmentrequiresin respectof theapplicant a legitimatio adcausam. Acitizen can .contest the validity of an administrative act if he possessesthequalityof legitimateinterest Arecourseisadmissible by an Administrative Court only if theapplicant possesses a direct,present,concretelegitimateinterest.Lack of legitimatein2121 StylianidesJ. Trakoshisv.Republic
(1988)terest deprives theCourt of thepower todeal with arecourse(Kritiotisv.MunicipalityofPaphosandOthers
(1986)3 C.L.R. 322). Itisupontheapplicanttosatisfy theCourtthathehasalegitimateinterest. 5 Astheexistenceoflegitimateinterestisasinequanonforthe exercisebytheAdministrativeCourtofitsjurisdiction,thepresenceof anexisting legitimateinterest hastobeinquiredintoby theCourtevenexpropriomotu-(MaryConstantinidouandOthers v.Republic(PublicServiceCommission)
(1974)3C.L.R. 416). The Scheme wasestablished by Decision of the Councilof Ministers;RespondentsNo.2—Authority—was setuptooperate it Inordertoqualify forassistance—grant,orloanpayablewith- 15 in a longperiod withvery lowinterest—for erection ofa family houseonaself-owned buildingsite,certainfinancial criteriawere laiddown. UnderaDecision of theCouncilofMinisters,No.21.264,of 14thJanuary, 1982,theceilingofthegrossannualincomefor a 20 person toqualify is£4,000.-;forafamily consistingofthreepersons—the couple and a child aged under twelve—the income should notexceed£2,700.-,plus£180.-for thechildand anallowance up to£600.- for loanscontracted for housing purpose payableannually.Inthecase,therefore,ofthepresentapplicant, 25 if his gross annual family incomeexceeded£3,480.-, hewould not qualify. . On 19th June, 1984,the figures wererevised.The grossincomewasincreasedto£4,500.-;for afamily ofthree,to£3,150.and for achild under twelve £17.- per month, i.e.£204.-. To 30 qualify, thetotalgrossincomeshould notexceed,includingthe allowanceforloancontractedforhousingpurpose,£3,954.-. 2122 10 3C.L.R. Trakoshis v.Republic StylianidesJ. The applicant is a member of the Police Force. His gross emoluments from hisserviceinthePoliceForce,calculatedon the basis of his salary advice of March 1984, which wasproducedasanExhibit,was£4,136.
- 5 Heappliedon9thJanuary, 1984.Theapplication wasdeterminedandtheapplicantwasinformed ofthesubjudicedecision on7thSeptember,
- Thefinancial criteriais,eithertheoneobtainingwithinreasonabletimefromthedateof thefiling of theapplication,oratthe 10 dateofthesubjudicedecision.Onanyviewofthematter,hedid notqualify, ashisgrossincomeexceededtheincomeprescribed bytheScheme. * ' • Inviewoftheabove,theapplicant hasnolegitimateinterest. "fhisCourthasnojurisdictiontoentertainthisrecourse. 15 In case,however,thisCourterred on theissueof legitimate interest,Iconsiderpertinenttoexaminethegroundofviolationof theprinciple'ofequality. . - • - - . · On8thAugust, 1979,itwasdecided todiscontinuethegrant. offinancial assistanceforhousingonself-owned buildingsitesto displacedpersonswhosewife/fiancee isnotdisplaced. * 20 . • r! Thisassistance is given to.cases as theoneof theapplicant, •onlyifthewifeoffiancee isadisplacedperson;Thequalityofa husbandasadisplacedpersonornotiscompletelydisregarded. • . ' - • ' ' • •' - : 25 Counselfortheapplicantsubmittedthatthisisadiscrimination whichviolatestheprincipleofequalityasenshrinedbyArticle28 oftheConstitution. ••« Counsel for the Respondents,on the other hand, thoughadmined thedifferentiation, submitted that the State had a very broadpowerofclassification inthefieldof taxationandinsocio30 economicpolicy.RelyingonpronouncementsinRepublic(Min2123 Stylianides J. Trakoshis v.Republic
(1988)ister of Finance andAnother) v.DemetriosDemetriades
(1977)3 C.L.R.213 andAndreas Matsis v.Republic (Minister of Finance and Another)
(1969)3C.L.R.245,she submittedthat the differ ent treatment is noteitherunreasonable,orarbitrary andthe right of equality was notinfringed. 5 Article 28 pronounces and safeguards therightof equality.It is notonly equality before theLaw, but equality of treatmentin Law andby the Administration. This Article was judicially considered in a numberof cases, startingfromArgiris Mikrommatis and theRepublic (Minister of \§ Finance andAnother), 2 R.S.C.C. 125 -(see,interaha, Andreas Matsis v.Republic (Minister of Finance and Another)
(1969)3 C.L.R. 245; Yiannis Fekkas v. The Electricity Authority of Cy prus
(1968)1C.L.R. 173;loannis Panayides v. TheRepublic of Cyprus
(1965)3 C.L.R. 107;Republic (Minister of Finance and 1 5 Another) v. Demetrios Demetriades (supra); Papaxenophontos and Others v.Republic
(1982)3 C.L.R. 1037). Article 28 does notforbid every difference in treatment.The principleof equality of treatment is violated if thedistinction has no objective andreasonablejustification. Theexistenceof such 20 justification must be assessed inrelationtotheaimandeffects of the measureunderconsideration,regard being hadtothe princi ples which normallyprevail indemocratic societies.Article 28 is likewise violatedwhenitis clearly established thatthereisnorea sonablerelationshipof proportionality betweenmeansemployed ~s and theaim sought to be realized -(see EuropeanCourtof Hu man Rights Belgian Linguistic Case,Series A, Volume 6,p. 34, paragraph 10,withregard toArticle 14of theEuropeanConven tion. See,also,Johnston v. Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (Case 222/84) C.M.L.R., Volume 47 (1986:3),p. 3 ϋ 240, paragraphs
(18)and
(38). InMikrommatis caseit was said atp. 131:"In theopinionof the Court theterm'equalbefore thelaw' 2124 3 C.L.R. 5 Trakoshis v.Republic Stylianides J. inparagraph 1 of Article 28doesnotconvey thenotion of exactarithmetical equality butitsafeguards onlyagainst arbitrary differentiations and does not exclude reasonable distinctions which have to be made in view of the intrinsic nature of things. Likewise, the term 'discrimination' in.paragraph 2 of Article 28 does not exclude reasonable distinctions as aforesaid.". Bareequality of treatmentregardlessof theinequality ofrealities is neitherjustice nor homage tothe constitutional principle. JQ Classification isfor governmental orlegislativejudgment Itordinarily becomes ajudicial question only when it has been drawn andisthen subject torelevantconstitutional tests.Where objects, persons ortransactionsessentially dissimilar aretreated uniformly, discrimination may result, for, in our view,refusal tomake a ,(• rationalclassification mayitself insomecasesoperateasdenialof equality -(StateofKerala v.Haji K.Haji Kutty Nana AIR 1969 SC 378, as per Shah, J.). 2Q The differentiation is noton agender baseclassification. The differentiation isbetween displaced wivesorfianceesandnotdisplaced ones. The facts disclose a differential treatment between these twoclasses. The Scheme was intended to assist displaced . personsinrehabilitation and housing. Theassistance,however, isgivenonthebasisof thefamily as a social unit. 25 30 Havingregard totherealitiesoflife inthiscountry since 1974, I am of theview that sofar thediscrimination had not exceeded thereasonableproportionality,though apparently thereisa differentialtreatmentbetween amaleandafemale displaced person. Having regard toall the circumstances, I amof the view that thedifferentiation wasreasonablyjustifiable andthe classification neitherunreasonable,norarbitrary andthefactor of proportionalityhas sofarbeen satisfied. 2125 StylianidesJ. Trakoshis v.Republic
(1988)Inviewoftheforegoing,therecoursefails.Itisdismissed. Inall thecircumstancesofthecaselettherebenoorderasto costs. Recoursedismissed. Noorderastocosts. 5 2126