ί 3 C.L.R. 1988 February26 ILORIS, J.] INTHE MATTER OFARTICLE 146OFTHECONSTITUTION ANDREASGEORGHIOU YENIAS, Applicant, v. THEREPUBLICOFCYPRUS, THROUGH THEMINISTEROFFINANCE, Respondent. (CaseNo. 192/86). Judicialcontrol—Experts, conclusionsof—Theircorrectness,fromthe scien tificpointofview, notsubjecttoreview. 5 Disabilityallowances—TheDependantsofPersonsKilledorIncapacitated(Al lowances)Law, 1978
(69178)andtheNationalGuard(AllowancestoDependants of Persons Kitted andtoIncapacitated Persons) Regulations, 1978—"Paritydisabled"* (Μερικώςανάπηρος)asdefinedbysection2 of saidlaw—Personal,familyandfinancialcircumstances(Reg. 11
(1))—Do notcomeintoplay,unlessapplicant qualifiesfor anallowance. TheapplicantwasinjuredinKyreniaon27July,1974, whileservingin theNationalGuardasareservistduringtheTurkishinvasion. Theapplicantappliedforadisabilityallowanceundertheprovisionsof Law69/78 andtheaforesaid Regulation.TheMedicalBoardassessedhis disabilityat10%. 15 Asaresult,andinthelightofthedefinition oftheterm"partlydisabled" insection2ofLaw69/78, theGrantsCommitteeturneddowntheapplicatoon. *(Thedefinitionreadsasfollows: "Partlydisabled"meanseveryGreekCypriot whobecame,temporarilyorpermanently,disabledatapercentagerangingbetween sixteenandninetyninepercent,bothinclusive,forthecarryingoutofanywork. 337 Yenias v. Republic
(1988)Hencethisrecourse. TheapplicantcomplainedthattheGrantsCommitteelabouredundera misconception of fact, that itdid nottake intoaccountapplicant'spersonal,financialandfamily circumstancesandthatitdidnottakeintoaccounta medicalreportbyDr.Savvides. 5 Held,dismissingtherecourse:
(1)TheMedicalBoardhadbeforeit,and itispresumedthatproperweightwasgiveninthisrespect,themedicalreportof DT.Savvides.
(2)Nothingwasputbefore theCourtsubstantiatingtheallegationthat theGrantsCommitteewaslabouringunderamisconception,whenreaching thesubjudicedecision.
(3)Thepersonal,financialand family circumstancesof theapplicant oughttohavebeentakenintoaccountincaseitwasfoundthathewasentitled,primafacie,tothegrantofanallowance,soastodefinetheamountof suchanallowance. 10 15
(4)Theassessmentofthepercentageofapplicant'sdisabilityfallswithintheexclusiveprovinceoftheMedicalBoardanditwouldbebeyondthe competenceofthisCourttoexaminethecorrectness,fromthescientificaspect,ofthereportoftheMedicalBoard. Recoursedismissed. 20 Noorderastocosts. Casejreferredto: Eraclidouv. TheCompensationOfficer
(1968)3C.L.R.44; Diosmisv.Republic
(1975)3 C.L.R.461; Stavrinou v.Republic
(1986)3C.L.R.
- ^ Recourse. Recourse against the refusal of the respondent togrant applicant a disability allowance. A. Georghiou, for the applicant. 338 30 3C.L.R. Yeniasv. Republic St.Theodoulou, for therespondent. Cur. adv. vult. LORISJ.read thefollowing judgment. Thepresent recourse isdirected against therefusal of therespondent Minister ofFinancetograntadisabilityallowancetotheapplicant _ Thefactsofthecasearebriefly thefollowing: Theapplicantwasinjured inKyreniaon27July, 1974,while servingintheNationalGuardasareservistduringtheTurkishinvasion. 10 15 Hehadappliedfor thefirst timetotheGrantsCommittee for thegranttohimofdisabilityallowanceon26August
- TheGrantsCommitteehavingexamined hisapplication anda relevantreportbytheMedicalBoarddecidedtodismisssame,becausethepercentageofhisdisabilitywasnotover 15%.Thesaid decision was communicated to the applicant on 3 November
- Theapplicant,appliedagainandsubmittedanewreportfrom hisdoctor,asaresultofwhichhewasre-examinedbytheMedical Board. On the basis of the new medical report, the Grants Committee informed him, on 30 January 1976, that his case 2Q couldnotbecarriedanyfurther sincethepercentageofhisdisabilitycontinuedtobe3%. On 11January 1986theapplicant reverted again tothesame matterandsoughtare-examination submittinganewreport from hisdoctor. 25 Asaresult hewasreferred onceagain totheMedical Board whichre-examinedhimanddecidedthatthepercentageofhisdisabilitywas10%. TheGrantsCommitteeinformed theapplicantbyletterdated5 March 1986thatsincethepercentageofhisdisabilitydidnotex339 LorisJ. Yenias v. Republic
(1988)ceed 15%,hisclaim for thegranttohimofadisability allowance could notbe accepted,pursuant totherelevant legislativeprovi sions. Therelevant legislation nowinforce istheDependantsofPer sons Killed or Incapacitated(Allowances) Law, 1978 (Law 69/ 5 78JandtheNationalGuard(Allowances toDependantsofPer sons Killed andtoIncapacitatedPersons)Regulations, 1978 (No. 281,Third Supplement totheOfficial Gazette,PartI,of 22 De cember 1978). Thedefinition, in section 2of Law 69/78, of theterm"partly 10 disabled" (" μερικώςανάπηρος"), initsmaterialpart, reads as follows: " μερικώςανάπηρος" σημαίνειπάνταΈλληναΚΰπριον όστις κατέστη,προσωρινώςήμονίμως,ανίκανος εις βαθμόνκυμαινόμενον μεταξύτωνδεκαέξκαιτωνενενήκοντα 15 εννέα τοις εκατόν, αμφοτέρων περιλαμβανομένων,προς άσκησινπάσης εργασίας,..." (" Partly disabled" means every Greek Cypriot who be came, temporarily or permanently, disabled at a percentage ranging between sixteen andninetynine per cent, both inclu- 20 sive,for thecarrying outof any work, "). Thesamedefinition is tobefound insection 2of Regulations 281/78, above. It is notin dispute in the present case that the applicant had suffered injuries, whilst serving as a reservist, which left him 25 withadegreeofincapacity,especially tohislefthand. What isindisputeis thepercentageof hisincapacity which as was assessed by the Medical Board was permanentand of per centageof 10%. Counselfor applicanthadsubmittedthattheGrantsCommittee 30 340 3 C.L.R. Yeniasv. Republic Loris J. indefining theincapacity of theapplicant atapercentage of 10% was labouring under a misconception of fact, had not evaluated correctly thefactsof thecase,and had acted inexcessorabuseof powersin that: 5 (a) The medical report of Dr. G. Savvides was not evaluated correctlyorwasnottaken intoaccount. (b)The fact thattheapplicant hasapermanent incapacity with the result that he is unable tocarry out the work he was performingpriortohisinjuries, wasnottakeninto account 10 15 20 (c)Thepersonal,financialand family circumstances oftheapplicant werenot taken intoaccount, contrary totheprovisions of regulation 11
(1)of Regulations281/78. Further, ithas been submitted that as there aremarked differencesbetween theopinion of theMedical Board andthe medical reportof Dr.SavvidestheGrantsCommittee ought tohavegiven cogent reasons as to why it accepts the opinion of the Medical Board. Itisclearthatundertherelevant legislation and the Regulations made thereunder, aperson whoclaims tobeentitled toan allowance under such legislation must be subjected toaproceduredefined by theLaw, namely hehastobeexamined by the Medical Board, established for this purpose,for the assessment of hisincapacity, which under theLaw and theRegulations,must exceed 15%. 25 Inthepresent case itappears thattheapplicant wasrepeatedly examined by the Medical Board but this incapacity was never found toexceed 15%,sotheGrants Committee haddismissed on all threeoccasions hisapplication for thegrant tohimof adisabilityallowance. 30 TheMedicalBoard hadbefore it,anditispresumed thatproper weight wasgiven inthisrespect,themedicalreport ofDr. Sav341 Loris J.
(1988)Yenias v.Republic vides, which was submitted to it by the applicant, and actually this is sostated in the letter of 5 March 1986,communicating to theapplicant thesub-judice decision. Nothing was put before me substantiating the allegation of counsel for applicant that the Grants Committee was labouring 5 under a misconception, when reaching the subjudice decision. Sincetherequirements of theLaw'were not being satisfied, once the percentage of his incapacity did not exceed 15%in performing,notthework previously performed by him, butof any work, asdefined by section 2of theLaw, theGrants Committee had no JQ alternative buttodismiss hisapplication. The personal,financial and family circumstances of the applicant ought to have been taken into account in case it was found that he wasentitled, prima facie, to thegrant of an allowance, so as todefine theamount of such an allowance. The assessment of thepercentage of applicant's disability falls within theexclusive provinceof theMedical Board and it would be beyond thecompetence of this Court toexamine the correctness, from the scientific aspect, of the report of the Medical Board (vide Eraclidou v. The Compensation Officer,
(1968)3 C.L.R. 44, 53,54 Diosmis v. The Republic,
(1975)3 C.L.R. 461, 465 and Stavrinou v. TheRepublic,
(1986)3 C.L.R. 1195, 1199, 1200). ,c _ Therefore, on the material placed before the Grants Committee, it wasreasonably open toit to arrive at the subjudice deci- ^ sion, the reasons of which appear both in the letter of 5 March 1986,as well asinall previouscorrespondence andrelevantdocumentsfiled for thepurposes of thepresent preceedings. In the result present recourse fails and is accordingly dismissed.Let there be noorder astocosts. 30 Recourse dismissed. No order astocosts. 342