(1988)1988December3 [HADJTTSANGARIS, J.J INTHEMATTER OFARTICLE 146OFTHECONSTITUTION A - Z TRAVEL LTD., Applicants, v. THEREPUBLICOFCYPRUS,THROUGH THEPERMITSREVIEW AUTHORITY. Respondent. (CaseNo. 533/85). Motor Transport—TheMotor TransportRegulationLaw, 1982 (Law 9182), section5
(9)—Cars hiredwithoutadriver—Applyingpolicy criteria*which do not appearanywhere insection5
(9)—Groundforannulmentof therefu sal to grant the licenceappliedfor—Kyriacou v. The Republic
(1986)3 ΟΖ.Λ. 1845 adopted. 5 Thefacts of thiscase sufficiently appearintheJudgmentof theCourt Subjudicedecision annulled.No order as tocosts. 10 Casesreferredto: Kyriacou v. Republic
(1986)3 C U R . 1845. Recourse. Recourseagainst thedecisionof therespondentstoannul the decisionof thelicensing Authority whereby.licences forcars for *(Thecriteriatakenintoconsiderationappearatp. 2390post): 2386 3 C.L.R. A- ΖTravel v. Republic hirewithoutadriver weregrantedtoapplicantsinrelationtofour vehicles. . A.Panaybtou, for the applicants. M. Cleridou -Tsiappa (Mrs.), for therespondents. Cur.adv. vult. 5 10 15 20 25 30 HADJITSANGARISJ.read thefollowingjudgment.Bythe presentrecoursetheapplicantsseek adeclarationoftheCourtthat thedecision of therespondentauthoritydated 17.4.84and com municatedtothemby aletterdated2.5.85by whichthe respondentsannulledtheLicensing Authotiry's decisiondated27.12.84 togranttotheapplicantslicencesforcarsforhirewithoutadriver in relation to4vehicles is null andvoidandof noeffect what soever. Thefacts of thiscasearebriefly asfollows: Theapplicantsby applicationstotheLicensing Authority dated28.9.82soughtthe grantoflicencesforcarsforhirewithoutadriver inrelationto30 vehicles.TheLicensing Authority heardtheapplicantsatits meet ingof the17.4.1984andatitsmeetingof the27.12.84itdecided togranttotheapplicantslicencesforcarsforhirewithoutadriver in relation to 4 vehicles. On 22.1.1985, 23.1.1985 and 28.1.1985 hierarchical recourses were filed to thePermits Re viewAuthority by Panayides Travel Agency Ltd., Thames Rent CarsLtd., Christos Papageorghiou andG.Drakos respectively againstthesaiddecisionof theLicensing Authority. Atitsmeetingof the16.3.1985the PermitsReviewAuthority heardtheAp plicants andall theabove persons onthehierarchical recourses filed against theaboveLicensingAuthority's decisionofthegrant licences totheapplicants andonhierarchicalrecoursesfiledby thesamepersonsagainst thedecisionof theLicensing Authority torefuse togranttothemoflicencesfor thehireofvehicles with outadriver. At itsmeetingof the 17.4.1985thePermitsReview Authority, decided to accept the hierarchical recoursesfiled against theLicensing Authority's decision tagrant tothe appli2387 Hadjitsangaris J. A- ΖTravel v.Republic
(1988)cantslicencesfor carsfor hirewithoutadriverinrelationtothe4 vehicles. The above decision of thePermits Review Authority dated"17.4.85was communicatedtotheapplicantsandallcon cernedby aletterdated 2.5.85. Against thisdecision theappli cantshavefiledthepresentrecourse.Themaingroundsputfor- 5 ward by theapplicantsfor theannulmentof theabove decision areasfollows: (a)ThatthedecisionoftheLicensingAuthoritytogranttothe applicants4licencesforcarsforhirewithoutadriver in re lationto4vehicles didnotconstitutediscriminationagainst JQ theinterestedparties. * ""• / ^ (b)ThattheRespondentAuthority actedwrongly andagainst theprovisions of thelaw inconsideringthatthe applicant company is related with thecompanyHoliday ToursLtd. towhich licences for othercars for hire without adriver 15 weregranted./ (c)The criteria on which thesub-judice decision was based wererelied uponby therespondentsinexcessorabuseof power. Thelastgroundforward for theannulmentof thedecisionhas 20 beendealtwith inaseries of decisions theSupremeCourtto the effect thatdecisions of thePermitsAuthority basedonsuch crite ria constituted grounds for Annulment. In Vassos Kyriakou v. Republic
(1986)3 C.L.R. 1845 Pikis J. had this to say atpp. 1850, 1851,1852: 25 "Inevolvingtheirpolicy decision theyderived authorityas may bepresumed from thecontent of thedirective-from the provisions of sub-section
(9)of s. 5 of the law -Law 9/82 (amendedby Law 84/84).Nows.5
(9)doesnotinterms con fer power ontherespondentstoimprovise criteriaotherthan 30 thoselaiddowninthelaw intheexercise oftheirduties.What itprovides is thatnooneshouldbelicensedtocarryonaZ-car hire business unless he exercises or intends tocarry onthe 2388 C.L.R. A- ΖTravel v.Republic Hadjitsangaris J. businessandhismainoccupation. Itisamatterof factwhether thisfactual requirementis satisfied inanyonecase.Certainly theaforementionedprovision ofthelaw doesnotempowerthe respondentstolay down general criteriafor theresolutionof individualapplications. An Administrative authoritycannotintheexerciseof its ad ministrativepowers overridethelaw bytheevolutionofcrite riaotherthanthoselaiddown intherelevant statute.Theone thingtheycannotdoistoneutralisetheirdiscretiontorespond , tothemeritsof theindividualcase. Thesweepingnatureof thedirectives laiddowninthiscase aredesigned tointroduceabody of rules outsidethe context of thelaw andinsome areas inoppositiontoit.They are not confinedtolayingdown theproceduralmeansof elicitingthe factualbackground totheapplicationparticularly thegenuiness of theintentionof thepursuerto start aZ-carbusinessashis mainoccupation.Rules (c)and(d)inparticular seem tolay downcriteriaunknowntothe law andestablish principles that mayleadthe Administration todecidewithoutreference to the individualmeritsofthecase.Inparticulartheassertionthatthe objects of thelaw would not beservedby grantinglicencesto alargenumberof personsbecausethereareobjecting difficul ties intheestablishmentofsmallviablebusinessesdoesnotre flect in any way thepolicy of thelaw. Furthermorethelaw does notin any way suggest thata balance should be struck between big andsmallerZ-carbusinesses. Inessence thepolicy directivepurportedtolimitaswellas streamlinetheexerciseofthediscretionof therespondentsina mannerunwarrantedby the law,introducingcriteriaunknown tothelaw intheexerciseoftheirdiscretionarypowers». 2389 Hadjitsangaris J. A -ΖTravel v. Republic
(1988)TTiesameprinciples whichwerelaiddown by theabovejudg mentareapplicableinthepresent case. ThePermits ReviewAu thorityexerciseditsdiscretionary powerbasedoncriteriawhich donotderivefrom thelaw, whichare unknown tothelaw and whichareinconsequence arbitrary.Hieabovecriteria whichthe 5 respondents laiddown in (γ)and(δ)ofthis decision are asfol lows: "*(γ)γιαναμπορούνναπροσφερθούνκατάτρόποικα νοποιητικό οιυπηρεσίες που εξυπακούονταιαπό την εκμίσθωση οχημάτων άνευοδηγού είναι απα- 1 0 ραίτητοόπωςοιυπηρεσίες αυτέςπροσφέρονταιαπό γραφεία που είναι καλά οργανωμένα και διαθέ τουν ένα ικανοποιητικό αριθμό οχημάτων.Όμως δεν πρέπει ναχορηγείται σταγραφείααυτάμεγά λοςαριθμόςαδειών,πέραντωναναγκώντους,ώστε , 5 οιάδειεςνακαταστούναντικείμεναεμπορίας. (δ)παράλληλα, ένας ικανοποιητικός αριθμός αδειών θαπρέπειναχορηγείταικαισεμικρές επιχειρήσεις οι οποίες ασκούν αποδεδειγμέναή προτίθενταινα ασκήσουν το επάγγελμα του εκμισθωτή οχημάτων 2ο άνευ οδηγού ωςκύριο τους επάγγελμα ώστε αφ' ενός μεν ναλειτουργούν ως βιώσιμες επιχειρήσεις αφ' ετέρου δε να παρέχεται σ'αυτές ίση ευκαιρία κτήσεωςκέρδους.Όμωςθαπρέπειεδώνα τονιστεί ότι δενεξυπηρετείται ο σκοπός του νόμου μετη ^ διασποράτων αδειών,δηλαδήμετηνχορήγηση μι κρούαριθμούαδειώνσεπολλά άτοματαοποία εξ αντικειμένου δεν θα μπορούν ναδιεξάγουν κατά τρόπο βιώσιμο την επιχείρηση αυτήμε αναγκαία συνέπεια είτε να χρησιμοποιήσουν τιςάδειες ως 30 μέσοεπενδύσεως διάτηςυποεκμισθώσεως τωνοχη μάτωντουςείτενατις εμπορευθούν". Theabovecriteria donotappearanywhereintheprovisions of sub-section9ofsection 5ofLaw 9/82. 2390 3 C.L.R. 5 10 A-ΖTravel v.Republic Hadjitsangaris J. Basing themselves on the above "criteria" the respondents reached theconclusion thattherewas discrimination against the interestedparties.Thedecision of therespondentsinthepresent case is in my opinion wrong in law. Their discretionary power was notexercised inaccordancewith theprovisions of thelaw butagainst suchprovisions, andby theintroductionof "criteria" which were notprovided,by thelegislator theymisconceivedthe facts of thecaseandtheproperenforcementof thelaw. Intheresultpursuanttotheprovisions of Article 146
(4)(b)of theConstimtionthesub-judice decision is declared nullandvoid. Lettherebenoorderastocosts. * Subjudicedecisionannulled. Noorderas to costs. 2391