clr/1988/1988_3_475.pdf

(1988)Thefacts of thiscasesufficiently appearfrom thejudgmentofthe Court Recoursedismissed. Noorderastocosts. Casesreferredto: AristodemosReal Estate AgencyLtd. v.TheRepublic

(1987)3C.L.R. 767; ^ VassosEliadesLtdv.TheRepublic

(1976)3 C.L.R. 293; Petrides v.TheRepublic

(1983)3 C.L.R.

1. Recourse. 10 Recourse against the dismissal of applicants' hierarchical recourse challenging the refusal of the Licensing Authority to grant to applicants licences to own and manage 8 cars hired without adriver. L. Papaphilippou, for theapplicants. 15 M.Tsiappa (Mrs), for therespondents. Cur. adv. vult. LORIS J.read the following judgment. The applicant company challenges by means of thepresent recourse, the decision of therespondent Review Licensing Authority,communicated tothe 20 applicant on 1.7.85, whereby therespondent Authority dismissed the hierachical recourse of the applicant, refusing thereby, the grant to the Company, of licences to own and manage 8 cars "hired without adriver", commonly known as "Z"cars. Theapplicants initially applied,on7April 1984,totheLicens- 25 ing Authorityfor thegrant tothemof licencesfor 8"Zcars.Their 476 3 C.L.R. Rodafinia v. The Republic Loris J. said application was examined on 12February 1985 andit was eventually refused; the said refusal was communicatedtoappli­ cants on 22.2.
2. Theapplicantschallenged theaforesaid decision of Licensing 5 Authority by means of a hierarchical recourse filed on 14,3.85 with theReviewLicensing Authority, astatutory body setup un­ dersection 2of theMotorTransport (Regulation) (Amendment) Law, 1984 (Law 84/84). TheReviewLicensing Authority after hearingthehierarchical 10 recourse on 23 April 1985, decided at its meeting of 24 May, 1985 todismiss same. Thesub-judice decision was communicated totheapplicants by meansof aletterdated 1 July, 1985,which readsas follows: 15 "Η ΑναθεωρητικήΑρχή Αδειών αφού μελέτησε όλα τα στοιχείατωνσχετικών φακέλων καιόλαόσαέχουνλεχθεί από μέρουςτουδικηγόρουτηςπροσφευγούσης Εταιρείας, αποφασίζει νααπορρίψει τηνπροσφυγήγιατίη προσφεύ­ γουσαΕταιρείαδενπληροίτιςπροϋποθέσειςτουάρθρου5 εδάφιο9τουΝόμου." 20 (English Translation: 25 "TheReviewLicensing Authority having considered allthe material in therelevant files and all that have been said by counsel for theappellant company decides todismiss the re­ coursebecause theappellantcompanydoes notsatisfy the prerequisites of paragraph 9of section 5of the Law.") The applicants, filed the present recourse alleging that the respondent failed to inquire intoall the facts pertaining tothis case, and it thus acted under a misconception as to material facts; furthermore it is maintained thatthesub-judice decision is 30 contrary totheprovisions of therelevant law andthatsameisnot duly reasoned. 477 Loris J. Rodafinia v.The Republic

(1988)Therespondent authority in its opposition maintains thatthe sub-judice decision was reachedatafter dueinquiry of all relevant facts and circumstances, and proper application of all relevant laws and regulations issued thereunder;respondent further supports the subjudice decision rebutting theallegations of the 5 applicants thatsameis notduly reasoned. Themainissueinthepresentcasejevolvesontheconstruction of s.5

(9)of Law 9/82 which reads: "

(9)Ουδεμίαάδεια οδικήςχρήσεως θαχορηγήταιαναφορικώςπροςοιονδήποτεόχημαδημοσίαςχρήσεωςπρος 10 εκτέλεσιν οιασδήποτε οδικής χρήσεως δι' ην απαιτείται τοιούτον όχημα δυνάμει των διατάξεων του παρόντος Νόμου, εκτός εάν ο ιδιοκτήτης τούτου πείση την αρχήν αδειώνότι μετέρχεται ήπροτίθεται όπως μετέλθητην μεταφορικήνεπιχείρησινωςκύριοναυτούεπάγγελμα." 15 (English Translation: "

(9)Noroad servicelicence shall be granted in respect of any public service vehicle for thecarrying outof any public servicefor which such avehicle is required by virtue of the provisions of thisLaw, unless theowner thereof convinces the 20 Licensing Authority thatheis carrying onorintends tocarry outthetransportbusinessashismainoccupation.") "Itisclear from theprovisions of theabovesub-section that theapplicanthastoconvince theLicensing Authority thatheis carrying onorintends tocarry outthebusinessof transporta- 25 tionashismainoccupation" (Vide Aristodemos RealEstateAgencyLtdv. theRepublic

(1987)3 C.L.R. 767). In theirapplication totheLicensing Authority for thegrant of therelevantlicences (lodged undertheirbusinessname"Fantastic 30 478 3 C.L.R. Rodafinia v. The Republic * Loris J. * Tours Agency') applicantsdescribetheir business as "TouristactivitiesinCyprus and abroad'-; atthehearingof their hierarchical recourse (vide Appendix 7 attached to the opposition) on being specifically questioned as to their main business, applicants ad5 mined thistobethatof "tourism" andnotthatof "transport". As it transpires from the material before me, which was aiso before the respondent authority, the applicant was mainly engaged inthebusinessofexporting fruits and importing agricultural machinery and equipment and itwasengaged aswell,intrav10 el agency business under the business name Fantastic Tours Agency (vide Appendix 8attached totheopposition). It isnoteworthy in this connection that in their memorandum of association (appendix 8) the business of owning and managing cars without adriver isnowhere mentioned. 15 It is abundantly clear from the above that the applicants who were engaged in export-import business as well as Tourist activities in Cyprus and abroad, and did not own any "Z"cars, sought the grant of licences for such cars for a purpose which was incidental topart only of their above mentioned main busi20 ness. Having carefully gone through the material before me,Ihold the view, that the respondent authority after carrying out a due inquiry andascertaining thefacts, appliedcorrectly thelawtothe facts andreached atthesub-judice decision which inviewof the 25 material before me andtheprovisionsof s.5

(9)of Law 9/82 was reasonably open tothe respondent Withregard tothecomplaintof allegeddiscriminatorytreatment oftheapplicants,nomaterialwhateverwasintroduced inorderto substantiate the complaint: same was quite vague and uncertain, 30 and as suchisdoomed to failure. Before concluding Ifeel duty bound torefer toreasoning: As repeatedly stated every material factor need not bementioned in thedecision itself andthedecision may besupplemented from the materialcontained inthefile (VassosEliadesLtd., v.The Repub· 479 Loris J. Rodafinia v. The Republic

(1988)lie

(1976)3C.L.R. 293). And a laconic reasoning will not be helddefectiveifitclearlyconveysthereasonsofthedecision(Petridesv.TheRepublic

(1983)3C.L.R.216).Intheinstantcase thereasoningconveystotheapplicantthereasonoftherefusalof hishierarchicalrecourseandatthesametimecoincideswiththe 5 materialinthefileenablingthusproperjudicialscrutiny. In the result present recourse fails and is accordingly dismissed;noorderastocosts. Recoursedismissed. Noorderasto costs. 10 480