clr/1988/1988_3_811.pdf

(2)—Must be in writing. Revisional jurisdiction Practice—Recourse for 811 annulment—Parties— Constant! & Others v. Republic

(1988)CompulsoryacquisitionofimmovablepropertiesbyBritish'Administration beforeIndependenceforpurposewhich wasneverearnedout-Recourse challenging omission ofrespondents toofferback theproperties—As, in the lightofsection 16oftheCyprusPorts OrganizationLaw, 1973 (Law 38173), theOrderofthe CouncilofMinisters168of31.7.76inconjunction withtheevidence, the CyprusPortsAuthority,createdafterIndependence, 5 invirtue ofthesaidlaw, the secondrespondentshavenothing todo with thepropertiesinquestion, theywerewronglyjoinedasparties. Certainpropertiesoftheapplicantswerecompulsorilyacquiredbythe BritishAdministrationbeforetheestablishmentoftheRepublic,forthepurposeof improving and extending the then Limassol port(hereinafter referred toastheoldport). 10 Asin fact suchpropertieswerenever usedfor thepurposefor which theyhadbeenacquired,theapplicantsfiledtheserecourses,challengingthe omissionof therespondentstooffer backtotheapplicantsthesaidproper- 15 des. Thequestion thatarosefordetermination waswhetherrespondents2,a PublicCorporation created by theCyprusPortsOrganizationLaw, 1973 (Law38/73),wererightlyjoinedaspartiestotherecourses. Held,dismissing therecoursesasagainstrespondents2:

(1)Theevidenceshowedthatthepropertiesinquestionhadneverbeentransferred to respondents2.

(2)Havingregardtothewordingofsection 16*oftheLawandofOrder 168of31.7.76oftheCouncilofMinistersrespondent 1 wereunderno dutytotransfer inthenameofrespondent2alloranyofthepropertycompulsorilyacquiredbytheBritishAdministration. 20 2<

(3)Moreover,theevidenceshowedthatthepropertiesinquestionwere nevermadeapartoftheOldPortofLimassol.

(4)Inenactingsection 16

(2)oftheLawtheLegislatorintendedthatthe agreementenvisagedbyitmustbeinwriting.

(5)Theconclusion isthat respondents2havenothingtodowiththe propertyinquestion. 3\J Recourseagainstrespondent2 dismissed. Costsagainstapplicants. *Quotedalpp.815-817post. 812 3 C.L.R. Constant! & Others v. Republic Recourses. Recoursesagainsttheomissionoftherespondentstoreturnto applicants properties compulsorily acquired by theBritish Administration before theestablishmentoftheRepublicforthepurposeofimprovingandextendingtheLimassolport. M.Kyriakideswith1.Avraamides,for theapplicants. M.Chappa (Mrs.), for respondents No.

1. N.Papaefstathiou, forrespondentNo.
2. Cur. adv. vult. DEMETRIADESJ.readthefollowingjudgment.Thesecases presentcommon questionsof lawandfacts andbythem theapplicants challenge theomission of therespondents toreturn to thempropertieswhichwerecompulsorily acquiredbytheBritish Administration before theestablishmentoftheRepublic,forthe purposeofimprovingandextendingthethenLimassolport(hereinafter referred toastheoldport)andwhichwereneverusedfor thatpurpose! Thepropertiesoftheapplicant,thesubject oftheserecourses, aredescribedintheattachedschedule. ' The second respondent is a Public Authority established in 1973bytheCyprusPons Organization Law, 1973(Law38/73), forthepurposeoftherunningandmanagementoftheportsofthe Republicandby way of preliminary objection it challenges the right oftheapplicantstojoinitintherecoursesasrespondent,on thegroundthattheproperties,thereturn ofwhichisclaimedby the applicants, was never transferred by the Republic into its name. Thefactsthatledtotheseproceedingsareinbriefthefollowing:TheBritish Administration haddecidedtoimproveandex; tendtheoldportofLimassolandinfurtherance ofitsintentions proceededtoacquireanumberofimmovablepropertiessituated 813 Demetriades J. Constant! & Others v. Republic

(1988)in thevicinity, amongst which the properties of theapplicants. Theownershipofthepropertiesof theapplicantswastransferred intothenameofthethenGovernmentin1957. However,theproject, bothduring theBritish Administration andlaterafter theestablishment oftheRepublic,wasnotcarried 5 out. Infact, the Republicconstructed anentirely newharbourto thewestoftheoldone. Asthepurposefor whichthepropertieswereacquireddidnot materialize,theapplicantsinthefirst fourrecourses,astheseappear inthe headingof theRuling, applied tothe2ndrespondent 10 in 1978claimingthereturnoftheirproperties,onthegroundthat they werenot used for thepurposefor whichthey had beenacquired.Asaresultthesecondrespondentinformed themthatasit wasanewlyestablished Authority,itwasunabletotracethenecessary material and suggested to the applicants to apply to the 15 MinistryofCommunicationsandWorks. Similarletterswerein 1980addressedtorespondent No.2by theapplicantsinthelasttworecoursestowhichthelatterreplied thatthepropertiesinquestion hadnotbeentransferred totheAuthoritybytheRepublicandthattheyoughttoapplytotheMinis- 20 tryof CommunicationsandWorks. The applicants in all cases then filed the present recourses againsttheomission of bothrespondentstooffer backtothemthe aforesaid properties. After severalapplicationsfortheamendmentofthegroundsof 25 lawandfordiscoveryofdocumentsandfurther andbetterparticulars, which wereopposed,itwasdecided thattheobjection of respondet No.2,whetheritshouldremain apartytotheproceedings,oughttobeheard asapreliminary pointandthecaseswere heardonthispreliminarypoint,thefirstrespondenttakingnopart 30 intheseproceedings. The legislation relevant to these proceedings is the Cyprus 814 3 C.L.R. Constant) & Others v. Republic Demetriades J. Ports Organization Law, 1973 (Law 38/73),section 16 of which reads as follows: 5 10 15 20 "16.-

(1)Τηρουμένων των διατάξεων του εδαφίου

(2)άμα τηκαθιδρύσει του Οργανισμού το Υπούργικον Συμβούλιον, διά διατάγματος αυτού δημοσιευομένου εν τη επισήμω εφημερίδι της Δημοκρατίας,μεταβιβάζειτω Ορ­ γανισμοί εις ημερομηνίαν καθοριζομένην εν τω τοιούτα) διατάγματι (εν τοις εφεξής αναφερομένην ως 'ηκαθωρισμένηημερομηνία ' ) τα εν τω τοιούτω διατάγματιπερι­ γραφόμενα περιουσιακά στοιχεία και υποχρεώσεις των υφισταμένων προ της ενάρξεως ισχύος του παρόντος Νόμουλιμένων: Νοείταιότιτηρουμένων τωνδιατάξεωντουεδαφίου

(2)το Υπουργικόν Συμβούλιον κέκτηται εξουσίαν εκάστοτε μετά την καθωρισμένην ημερομηνίαν, διάδιατάγματος αυτούδημοσιευομένου εντηεπισήμω εφημερίδι τηςΔημο­ κρατίας, να μεταβιβάζητω Οργανισμώ εις ημερομηνίαν καθοριζομένην εν τω τοιούτω διατάγματιοιαδήποτεεπι­ πρόσθετα ή έτερα τοιαύτα στοιχεία ήυποχρεώσεις περι­ γραφόμενα εν τω διατάγματι.

(2)Προ εκάστης εκδόσεως διατάγματος δυνάμει του εδαφίου (ί) δέον όπως συναφθή σύμβασις μεταξύ του Υπουργικού Συμβουλίουκαιτου Οργανισμούήτις να περιλαμβάνη, μεταξύάλλων,ταεξής: 25 (α)Περιγραφήντων μεταβιβαζομένων τω Οργανισμώ περιουσιακών στοιχείων.και υποχρεώσεων ως και την αξιαντων στοιχείων τούτων καιτουποσούτωνυποχρεώ­ σεων άτιναήθελον καθορισθήκατόπινπροσηκούσης απο­ τιμήσεως, 30 Φ)τ ο ν τρόπον και τον χρόνον της μεταβιβάσεως των ωςάνωστοιχείων καιυποχρεώσεων,και (γ)πρόνοιανπερίαντιπαροχήςκαιτουτρόπουκαιχρό815 Demetriades J. Constant! & Others v. Republic

(1988)νουκαταβολήςαυτήςενσχέσειπροςοιανδήποτετοιαύτην μεταβίβασιν.

(3)Ταενοιωδήποτε διατάγματι εκδοθένταδυνάμει του εδαφίου

(1)περιγραφόμεναπεριουσιακάστοιχεία ή υπο­ χρεώσεις περιέρχονταιτωΟργανισμώδυνάμειτων διατά- 5 ξεων τουπαρόντοςΝόμου.

(4)Εάν εντός τριών ετών απότης εν διατάγματιεκδι­ δόμενα)δυνάμειτου εδαφίου

(1)καθοριζομένηςημερομη­ νίαςτο Υπουργικόν Συμβούλιον ικανοποιηθή ότιοιονδή­ ποτε περιουσιακόν στοιχείον ήυποχρέωσις εσφαλμένως περιήλθε τω Οργανισμώ δυνάμειτων διατάξεωντου πα­ ρόντος άρθρου,τούτοδύναταιναανακαλέσηήτροποποίη­ ση το εν λόγω διάταγμακαθ ήν έκτασιν αφορά εις την τοιαύτην εσφαλμένην μεταβίβασιν." ίο (16.-

(1)Subject to theprovisions of sub-section

(2),upon 15 establishment of the Organization the Council of Ministers shall by anorder tobe published intheofficial Gazetteof the Republic transfer tothe Organization on adate specified in that order (hereinafter referred to as 'the vesting day') the assets and liabilities of the ports existing prior to the 20 commencement of thisLaw asdescribed inthatorder Provided that subject to theprovisions of sub-section

(2)the Council of Ministers may from time to time after the vestingday by ordertobe published intheofficial Gazetteof the Republic transfer to the Organization on a date to be 2$ specified in such order any additional or other assets or liabilitiesdescribed intheorder.

(2)Before the issue of an order under sub-section

(1)an agreement shall be entered into between the Council of Ministers andtheOrganization which shallinclude,interalia, 30 thefollowing: (a)description of theassetsand liabilities tobe transferred 816 3 C.L.R. Constant! & Others v. Republic Demetriades J. to the Organization and the value of such assets and the amount of liabilities as would be determined after a proper valuation; 5 (b) the manner and the time of the transfer of the above assetsand liabilities;and • (c) provision for repayment in connection with any such transfer andthemethod andtimethereof.

(3)The assets or liabilities described in an order made under sub-section

(1)shall vest in the Organization by virtue of theprovisionsof thisLaw. 10 15

(4)If within three yearsfrom'the datespecified inan order issued under sub-section

(1)the Council of Ministers is satisfied that any asset or liability was wrongly transferred to the Organization under the provisions of this section it may revokeor vary thesaidorder-totheextent that itrelates toany such wrong transfer." 20 Theapplicantscalledonewitness,whoisaSeniorClerical Officer posted at theMinistry of Communications and Works.The respondent, on the other hand, called two*witnesses, both of whom areemployed by them. 25 30 What comesout from theevidenceof these witnesses, including thedocuments which they produced and areexhibits before me, is that no written agreement was ever entered between the Council of Ministers and the respondents in the terms provided by subsection 2of section 16of theLaw and thatthereisnodecision by the Board of the respondents by which any agreement reached wasratified byit.What isclear from theevidenceof the witnesses is that before theestablishment of therespondent, the Government of theRepublic instructed afirmof experts tocarry out avaluation ofthepropertieswhich weretobetransferred into the name of the respondents. The properties of-the applicants werenotamongstthose for which theexperts wereaskedtocarry 817 Demetriades J. Constant! &Others v. Republic

(1988)outa valuation. After thevaluation of theproperties was completed by the ex­ perts, the Council of Ministers, apparently on thebasis of some sortof agreement reached betweenitand therespondents, issued on the 31st July, 1976 Order No. 168, which reads: 5 'To Υπουργικόν Συμβούλιον ασκούνταςεις αυτό ανατιθεμένας εξουσίας δυνάμει του εδαφίου

(1)του άρθρου 16τουπερί Οργανισμού ΛιμένωνΚύπρουΝόμουτου 1973 δια του παρόντος διατάγματος μεταβιβάζει απότης 1ης Αυγούστου, 1976, ταεντωΠρώτω Μέρει τουΠίνακοςπε- ίο ριγραφόμενα περιουσιακάστοιχεία καιταςεντω Δευτέρω Μέρει του Πίνακος περιγραφόμενος υποχρεώσεις εις τον Οργανισμόν ΛιμένωνΚύπρου. ΠΙΝΑΞ ΜΕΡΟΣΙ 15 Περιουσιακά στοιχεία Οι εν τη Δημοκρατία λιμένες Αμμοχώστου, Λεμεσού, Λάρνακος, Πάφου, Κυρηνείας, Καραβοστασίου, Βασιλι­ κού,ΖυγίουκαιΛατσιού, μεθ όλων των εν αυτοίςακινή­ του ιδιοκτησίας και εγκαταστάσεων ως και της εν αυτοίς 20 κινητής ιδιοκτησίας συνισταμένης εις πλωτά μέσα και άπαντα τον μηχανικόν εξοπλισμών ξηράς. ΜΕΡΟΣ Π Υποχρεώσεις Απασαι αι υποχρεώσεις της Δημοκρατίας αι αναληφθείσαιυπαυτής,εν σχέσειπρος τους λιμένας καιτην λειτουργίαναυτών." ("The Council of Ministers, in the exercise of thepowers 818 2 s 3 C.L.R. 5 Constant! & Others v. Republic Demetriades J. vested in it by sub-section

(1)of section 16 of the Cyprus Ports Organization Law of 1973,transfer, by the present order, as from the 1st August, 1976,theproperties described in theFirstPartof theScheduleand theliabilitiesdescribed inthe Second Partof the Schedule, totheCyprus Pons Authority. SCHEDULE PARTI Properties ™ The portsof the Republic atFamagusta, Limassol, Lamaca, Paphos, Kyrenia, Karavostassi, Vassilico,Zigi and Latsi with alltheimmovable propertiesand plant situated within them as well asthemovablepropertieslyinginthemconsistingof navigableassetsandalllandmechanical equipment. PART2 Liabilities Allliabilitiesof theRepublic undertaken byitinconnection withthepons and theiroperation.") 20 30 • Itis thecase for the applicants-that the transfer of immovable property including that of the applicants' from the Council of Ministers intothe name of the second respondents has not been madein accordance with theprovisionsof subsection

(2)of section 16of the Law, that is on the basis of a written agreement in which adescription of theproperties which weretransferred was given, but that in view of the Order of the Council of Ministers which was issued on the 31st July, 1976 (Order No. 168/76) the properties of the applicants should beconsidered as having been transferred tothe2nd respondent. For thisreason,counsel for the applicants submitted the second respondent must remain aparty totheproceeding since thisrespondent isentitled toberegistered astheownerof thesaid properties. 819 Demetriades J. Constant! &Others v. Republic

(1988)The argument of counsel for the second respondent is that since the properties were never transferred to his clients, they shouldhavenever beenjoined asrespondents. It isperhaps necessary tomention here that although thefirst respondent did not take part in these proceedings, through their 5 counsel informed the Court that the properties of the applicants were never transferred by them into the name of the second respondent. Having considered theevidence,oral anddocumentary, before me, I find that the properties of the applicants have never been 10 transferred by the first respondents into the name of the second respondents. Having also regard to the wording of section 16of the Law and of the Order, I find that the first respondents were under noduty totransfer intothenameof thesecond respondents allor any of the properties which werecompulsorily acquired by 15 the British Administration for the purpose of enlarging and improvingtheOldPort of Limassol,aproject thatwasnevercarried out. I further find that there isnoevidence before methattheproperties of the applicant, after these were compulsorily acquired, 20 were transferred and registered as part of theOld Port ofLimassol. Although subsection

(2)of section 16 of the Law does not specifically provide that the "agreement" envisaged by itmust be in writing, it is my view that inthe light of its provisions it was the intention of thelegislator thatany agreementreached between -5 the tworespondents ought tohave been set down in writing and its terms and conditions approved both by theCouncil of Ministers and theBoard of thesecondrespondents,something that was neverdoneand thus theconfusion now created. Having reached my above conclusions,I find that the second respondents have nothing todowith theproperties which before they were compulsorily acquired belonged totheapplicants and, therefore, they ought not to bejoined asparties to theseproceedings. 820 ^ 3 C.L.R. Constant! &Others v. Republic Demetnades J. Fortheabovereasons thepreliminary point raised bythesecondrespondents succeeds and therecourses should proceed between theapplicants and theCouncil of Ministers only. Recourses against the second respondents are dismissed and theapplicants topay theircostsintheseproceedings. Coststobeassessed bythe Registrar. Order and order as to costsaccordingly. SCHEDULE . ' The properties, the return of which is claimed by the applicants,are:Case No. 220/79 - Property under Registration No. 27468 Sheet/Plan LIX/2.31.1. - , . . . ; . . ' - . ' . - ·* - - r • Case No. 221/79 - Property under Registration-No. 31918 Sheet/Plan LIX/2.2.1. Case No. 222/79 _- Property under Registration No. 33210 \Sheet/I?lan LIX/2.2.1. '• . . :. Case No. 79/83 - Property under Registration No. 33922, Sheet/Plan LIX/2.1. aiii;* ' *' Case No. 80/83 - Property under Registration No. 33807, Sheet/Plan LIX/2.2.1. 821 \