3 C.L.R. 1988 January 27 [KOURRIS,J.] INTHE MATTER OFARTICLE 146OFTHE CONSTITUTION CHRISTAKIS LANITIS, Applicant, v. THEREPUBLIC OFCYPRUS,THROUGH THE MINISTRY OFCOMMUNICATIONS ANDWORKS, Respondent. (CaseNo.760185). Motor Vehicles—Conversion of, into another type of vehicle—Respondent rightlydemandedadditional importduty,i.e.thedutyappropriatefor type ofvehicle intowhich thevehicle was converted—The Motor Vehiclesand Road TrafficRegulations 1984 (66/84),Reg. 55
(1). The applicant opened glass windowson the body of hisvan and made additions in the inside of the van which were necessary so that the van couldbeused as what iscommonly knownas "caravan" includingthe fixingofa seat.Asaresult thevanbecame heavieranditwasalso converted intoa different typeofvehicle. Inthe lightof theaforesaid facts,therespondentclaimed additional import duty, appropriate for the typeof vehicle intowhich thevan was converted. Hence thisrecourse:
(1)The subjudicedecision iswithin theambitof Reg.55
(1)*. * Quotedatpp. 89-90 post. 87 Lanitis v. Republic
(1988)
(2)Applicant's complaint for discrimination inthat insimilar cases the Registrardidnotclaim additionalimportdutycannot,inanyevent,succeed,becauserefusal bytheadministrationto repeatanunlawful actdoes notamounttodiscrimination. Recoursedismissed. 5 Noorderasto costs. Casesreferredto: loannides v. Republic
(1973)3 OLA. 117. Recourse. Recourse against thedecision of therespondent toclaim addi- 10 tionalimportdutyontheconversion ofapplicant'smotorvaninto thetypeofvehiclescommonly known as "Caravan" A. Georghiou, for the applicant. G.Erotokritou (Mrs), Senior Counsel of theRepublic,for the respondent. Cur. adv. vult. KOURRIS J. read the following judgment. Applicant by the present recourse challenges the decision of the Registrar of the Motor Vehicles dated 4th July, 1985,whereby he approved the convention of his motor van intothe type ofvehicle,commonly 20 known as "Caravan" on condition of payment of additional import duty. Applicant istheownerofamotorvanregistration No.DE 187 and on 10th May, 1985,submitted an application tothe Registrar of Motor Vehiclestoconven hisvan intoa "Canteen"andon 1st 25 July, 1985,he submitted an application for theconversion of his motorvan intoaself-propelled "Caravan". 88 ^ 3 C.L.R. Lanitisv.Republic KourrisJ. When theappropriate authorityexaminedthevehicle inques tion,itfound out that applicant openedglass windows on the bodyofthevanandmadeadditionsintheinsideofthevanwhich werenecessary sothatthevancouldbeusedaswhatiscommon5 lyknownas"Caravan", includingthefixingofaseat.Asaresult of thesealterations, thesaid van becameheavier anditwas also converted into a different type of vehicle andtheRegistrar claimedadditionalimportdutywhichisappropriateforthetype of vehicle into which thesaid vanwas converted. Hence the 10 presentrecourse. Counselfor theapplicantcontendedthatthesaiddecisionisil legalbecausethereisnolegislativeprovision governing the con versionofacommercialvanintoa"Caravan". ThedecisionoftheRegistrarofMotorVehicleswasbasedon 15 Regulation55
(1)oftheMotorVehiclesandRoadTraffic Regula tions 1984 (KAIL) 66/84,whichreadsasfollows: - 20 25 30 35 "55.-
(1)Απαγορεύεται η αλλαγή, μετατροπήή προσαρμογήτηςμηχανής ή τουσυστήματος οδηγήσεωςή πεδήσεως ήτουκορμού κινητήρος ήτουπλαισίου ήτου αμαξώματος εγγεγραμμένουμηχανοκίνητου οχήματος ή οιαδήποτεαλλαγή,μετατροπήή προσαρμογήεπηρεάζουσα ταςδιαστάσειςήτοβάροςτοιούτουοχήματος,ήοιαδήποτε αλλαγή,προσαρμογήήμετατροπή,συμπεριλαμβανομένης και τηςπροσθήκηςκαθίσματος ήυαλοπινάκων εις τας πλευράςτουοχήματος,ωςεκτηςοποίας μετατρέπεταιτο όχημαειςάλλοντύπον ή κατηγορίαντου οχήματος, εκτός εάν τηρουμένωντων διατάξεων του Κανονισμού76 και υπότηνεπιφύλαξιν ότιθακαταβληθούν OLαναλογούντες εις τοννέον τύπον ήκατηγορίαν οχήματοςδασμοίκαι φόροι δυνάμει τωνεκάστοτε εν ισχύ περί Τελωνειακών Δασμών καιΦόρων Καταναλώσεως Νόμων, ο Έφορος, παρασχηεπίτούτωάδειανκαιτηρηθώσιν οιεκάστοτευπ' αυτούεπιβαλλόμενοι όροι.Εάνεπενεχθήαλλαγή,προσαρ μογήήμετατροπήκατάπαράβασιν όρουτεθέντος ειςτην παρασχεθείσαν υπό τουΕφόρου άδειαν,ηεγγραφή του 89 Kourris J. Lanitis v.Republic
(1988)οχήματοςακυρούται,προσέτιδεηάδειακυκλοφορίαςτου οχήματος καθίσταταιάκυρος και επιστρέφεται εις τον "Εφορον ομού μετάτουπιστοποιητικού καταλληλότητος του οχήματος". Itappears from thewording of theRegulation thattheword 5 "Caravan" is notmentioned;but,what is material is notwhether theword "Caravan" is mentionedintheRegulation but,whether theapplicant made such alterations tohis van soas toconvert it intoadifferent type of vehicle. Inthepresentcase theapplicant made such alterations in thebody of his van, i.e. opening glass \Q windows, fixing aseatandalsofixing othermaterials inthebody of thevan which madeit heavier so thattheRegistrar ofMotor Vehiclesrightlyreachedthesubjudice decision. Another point raised by counsel for the applicant is thatthe Registrar of theMotorVehicles discriminated against theappli- 15 cant contrary toArticle 28 of the Constitution in thatin similar casestheRegistrardidnotclaimadditionalimportduty. But, even assuming thattheallegation ofcounselfor theappli cantwas correct andthattherespondenthadinfact allowed con version of motor vans into "Caravans" in contravention of the 10 Regulations, such action could not amount to discrimination against theapplicant because itis nowwellsettled thatthe princi pleof equality and,therefore,refusal by theadministrationto re peat anunlawful actdoes notamounttodiscrimination. (See, in teralia,Andreasloannides v.Republic,
(1973)3C.L.R. 117 and 25 see alsoConclusionsfromthe CaseLaw of theGreekCouncilof State(1929-1959) p. 182. In thelight of theforegoing, Ifind nomerit in this recourse andaccordingly Idismissit. Veryreluctantly Ihavedecided tomakenoorderastocosts. 30 Recoursedismissed. Noorderas to costs. 90