(1988)1988December31 [A.LOIZOU,P.] INTHEMATTEROFARTICLE146OFTHECONSTITUTION THEODOROSSCHINIS, Applicant, v. THEREPUBLICOFCYPRUS,THROUGH 1.THEDIRECTOROFCUSTOMS DEPTARTMENTAND EXCISEDUTY, 2.THEMINISTEROFFINANCE, Respondents. (CaseNo. 734187). CustomsandExciseDuties—Motorvehicles,dutyfree importation ofbyCypriots—Order188/82oftheCouncilofMinisters—"Permanentsettlement" abroad—Reviewofauthoritiesconcerningitsmeaning—Effectofrestrictionsimposedonapplicantsresidenceinaforeigncountrybysuchcountry. 5 Bymeansofthisrecoursetheapplicantimpugnsthevalidityoftherefusaltoallowhimanexemptionfromimportdutyinrespectofacarunderthe provisionsofOrder 188/82oftheCouncilofMinisters.Thesubjudicedecision wasjustified onthegroundthattheapplicantdidnotcompleteten continuousyearsofpermanentsettlementabroad. 10 Itmustbenotedthattheapplicanthadinfactcompletedtencontinuous yearsofstayabroadandinparucluarintheU.K.,theEmiratesandSaudi Arabia.However,hispresenceinU.K.wassubjecttoyearlytimerestrictionsandco-extensivewiththetenureofhisemploymentthere.likewise, hispresenceintheEmiratesandinSaudiArabiawasforarestrictedtime 15 andforalimitedpuipose,viz.,toworkinsuchcountriesforaslongashis employmentlasted,andhehadnorighttosettlepermanenltyinsuchplaces. 2692 3>C.L.R. Schinis v. Republic Havingreviewedthecaselawregardingthenotionof"permanentsettlement"inOrder 188/82oftheCouncilofMinisters,theCourt, Helddismissingtherecourse: 5 10 Permanentresidenceisaquestionoffactandhastobedecidedhaving in mind,inter alia, whether theforeign country in which the applicant claimstohavepermanentlysettledintendedtoreceivehimasapermanently establishedimmigrant,inwhichcasehisstaytherewouldbeunrestricted, oronatemporaryresidentbasis,whereuponhisresidencewouldbesubject lbrestrictions,asitisthecasewithallthecountriestowhichtheapplicant hasworkedTherestrictionsimposedonapplicant'sresidenceintheaforesaidcountriesnegativethecontentionofpermanentsettlement Recoursedismissed. Noorderastocosts. Casesreferredto: 15 Matsasv.TheRepublic
(1985)3C.L.R. 54; Mavronichisv.TheRcpublic
(1985)3C.L.R.2301; Constantinidesv.TheRepublic
(1986)3C.L.R.822; hannou v. TheRepublic
(1986)3C.L.R. 1263; Ellinav.TheRepublic
(1988)3C.L.R.2651. 20 Recourse. Recourse against thedecision of the respondent rejecting applicant's application toimport a dutyfree notor vehicle as a repatriated Cypriot AS. Angelides, for the applicant. 25 Y. Lazarou, for the respondents. Cur. adv. vulu 2693 Seninisv.Republic
(1988)A- LOIZOUP.read thefollowingjudgment. By thepresent recourse theapplicantchallenges thedecision of therespondents toreject his application toimportadutyfreemotorvehicle in ac cordancewith theprovisions of sub-heading 19ofitem0.2of the Fourth Schedule to the Customs andExcise Duties Law 1978 5 (Law No. 18of 1978) hereinafter tobereferred toastheLaw. Onthe17thOctober1985,.theapplicantappliedtotheDirector of theDepartmentof Customs,respondent 1, for exemption from importduty of his salloon carunderReg. No.311V85,onthe ground that he was a Cypriot who after permanent settlement \Q abroad for a continuousperiod of atleast tenyears, returnedto Cyprus inordertosettlepermanendy. As stated by theapplicant in his application, he went tothe United Kingdom in 1968 to study andhe obtained a degree in Electrical Engineering in 1973.HethenreturnedtoCyprus and jg stayed until March, 1974, when heleft for Scotland in orderto settlepermanentlyinthatcountry.Therehetookupemployment - with theSouthof ScotlandElectricity Board (SSEB).Twoyears later heleft Scotlandfor theEmirates uponhishavingbeenem ployed by A. andP.Paraskevaides where hestayeduntil 1981, 2η with his wife who hadjoined himthereimmediately after their marriage in
- Infact his sonwas borninAbu Dhabiin
- HethenwenttoworkinSaudiArabiaandin 1983hereturnedto Cyprus inordertosettlepermanently. By letterdatedthe4thJuly 1987, therespondentrejected the 25 application of theapplicantontheground thathis absencefrom Cyprus "did notconstitutepermanentsetdement abroad aspro videdby Law". It is thecase for theapplicant thatall theprerequisites of the Law andinparticularOrder 188/82aresatisfied andthatthesetdementof theapplicant andhis whole family abroad areanele mentestablishing permanentsetdement Thepointinissueis whethertheapplicanthadsettledperma2694 ™ 3 C.L.R. Schinis v. Republic A.Loizou P. 5 nendy for acontinuousperiodof atleasttenyears beforereturn ingtosetdepermanendyinCyprusasisrequiredbysection 11 of theLaw andOrder 188/82,published inSupplementNo.3(Π) to theOfficial Gazetteof theRepublicof the 11thJune, 1982 under Notification 1783,whichreads: lO "Vehicles importedby Cypriots whoafter permanent settlementabroadfor acontinuousperiodof atleast tenyears, return, and setde permanendyintheRepublic,provided that theimportationismadewithinareasonabletimesincetheirarrival accordingtothediscretionof theDirector " Thenotionpermanentsettlementabroadreceivedjudicialinter pretationinteraliainMatsas v.TheRepublic
(1985)3C.L.R.54 atp.61,1said thefollowing: 15 20 25 30 "Tomymindpermanentsettlementcarrieswithitthenotion .of arealorpermanenthomearidshouldbedistinguished from thenotionofordinaryresidence." Thesameviewwas expressed inMarvonichisv. TheRepublic
(1985)3C.L.R,2301;Constantinides v. TheRepublic
(1986)3 C.L.R. 822 andIoannou v.TheRepublic
(1986)3C.L.R. 1263, wherePikis J.,stated thefollowing atp. 1266: "Thequestion thatmustbe answered is whetherten years stay inaforeign countryimmediatelyqualifies thestayer asa permanentsettlerinthatcountryfor thepurposesoftheOrder.. Ithinknot. Theconceptofpermanentsetdementis nottiedto thelengthof stay buttotheelementofpermanenceassociated withphysical stay." A similar situationarose inthecaseofReveccaEllina v. The Republic of Cyprus
(1988)3 CL.R.2651 where I said inrela tion tothedecidedcases whichIreviewedthat arelevantconsiderationindeterminingwhatconstitutedpermanentsetdementis whetherthecountryinwhichthepersonclaims tohavesosettled permanendy,hasallowed apersontoremainthereinasaperma2695 A.Loizou P. Schinisv.Republic
(1988)nentresident,orwhethersuchcountryhasgrantedonlyatemporarypermitunderconditions.. The respondents submission is that the applicant could not makeUnitedKingdomhispermanenthomeashispresencethere was subject toyearlytimerestrictions andor wasco-extensive 5 with thetenureofhisemployment.Likewise,hispresenceinthe Emiratesandin SaudiArabiawasfor arestrictedtimeandfora limitedpurposeviz.,toworkinsuchcountriesforaslongashis employmentlasted,andhehadnorighttosettlepermanendyinsuch places.This is clear from hispassport, extracts of which IQ wereproduced,andfromtheletterwhichisattachedtohiscounsel'swrittenaddressasAppendix "E"wherebytheapplicantwas informed thathisleavetoentertheUnitedKingdomwasdueto expireinApril1976. Permanentresidenceisaquestionoffactandhastobedecided 15 havinginmind,inter alia,whethertheforeign countryinwhich the applicantclaimstohavepermanently settled,intendedtoreceivehimasapermanently established'immigrantinwhichcase his staytherewould beunrestricted,oronatemporary resident basis,whereupon hisresidence would be subject torestrictions, 20 asit isthecase with allthecountriestowhich theapplicanthas worked. Therestrictions which wereimposed on theapplicant'sresidenceinUnitedKingdomwhichneedlesstosay,heleftforemployment in the Arabcountriesbyanotheremployer, aswellas, 25 andparticularly so,thoseimposedfor residenceintheEmirates andSaudiArabia,negativethecontentionthathesettledorcould havesettledpermanendyinsuchcountries. Foralltheabovereasonsthepresentrecourseshouldfailand isherebydismissed.Thesub-judicedecisionisconfirmed onthe ^Q whole.Inthecircumstanceshowever,therewillbenoorderasto costs. Recoursedismissed. Noorderastocosts. 2696