3 C.L.R. 1988April28 [STYUANIDES,J.) INTHEMATTEROFARTICLE146OFTHEINSTITUTION E.A.HADJIOANNOUANDELECTROACOUSTICSUPPLYCO.LTD., Applicants. 1 V. THEREPUBLICOFCYPRUS,THROUGH 1.THEMINISTRY OFFINANCE, , 2.THEMINISTRYOFCOMMERCEANDINDUSTRY, Respondents. (CaseNo.422179). 5 20 Executoryact—Confirmatoryact—Newacttothesameeffect,buttakenafter a newinquiry,is not confirmatory, but executory—first act loses, m suchacase,itsexecutorycharacter—Whatconstitutesanewinquiry, isa question offact—When newly emerged elements or,thoughpre-existing the formeract, wereunknowntotheadministration,aretakenintoconsid( erationfor thefirsttime,thereisanewinquiry Thefactsofthiscaseappearfrom thejudgment AstheCourt found thatanewacttothesameeffect as thesubjudiceactwasissued after a newinquiry,therecoursewasstruckoutonthegroundthatthesubjudice * actlostitsexecutorycharacter. • Recoursestruckout. No-orderasto costs. 879 Electroacoustic Supply Co. v. Republic
(1988)Casesreferredto: Mylonas v. EducationalService Committee
(1982)3C.L.R.880; Spyrou v. TheRepublic
(1983)3C.L.R.354; Kolokassides v.TheRepublic
(1965)3CX.R.542; Papadopoullosv.TheRepublic,
(1970)3C.L.R.169. Recourse. Recourseagainsttheactordecisionoftherespondentswherebytheyrefused tograntrelief toapplicants from importdutyon. theequipment necessary forthemanufactureofradiocassettesin Cyprus. P.Polyviou, for theapplicants. 10 M. Kyprianou,Senior Counsel of theRepublic, for therespondents. Cur. adv.vult. STYLIANIDES J. read thefollowingjudgment. By thisrecoursetheapplicantssoughtadeclaration thattheactordecision 15 of therespondents dated 24/9/1979 and 29/10/1979, by which theyrefused tograntrelieftotheapplicantsfrom importdutyon the equipment necessary forthemanufacture of radiocassettes, etc.,inCyprus,and/ortheiromission tograntsuchreliefisnull andvoidandofnoeffect whatsoever. 20 Theapplicantsappliedforexemptionfromimportdutyfromthe importationofradiocassettes.TheirsuchapplicationwasconsideredinthelightoftheprovisionsofTheCustomsandExciseDuties Law, 1978,(Law No. 18/78) and such application wasrejected. The letter of 24/9/1979 by the Ministry of Finance and i?5 theletterof29/10/1979bytheMinistryofCommerceandIndus880 3 C.L.R, Electroacustic Supply Co. v. Republic Stylianides J. 1 try communicated thisnegativedecision totheapplicants-(see Exhibits1 and2). This recourse, which was before another Judge, was adjournedanumberoftimesonthegroundthatthematterwastobe 5 reconsideredbytheauthorities. On14/1/1980theapplicantssenttotheDirector-Generalofthe MinistryofFinancetwodocuments-aletterandareportofoperation ofthecassettemanufacture-Exhibits 3and3A.Thefirsttwo paragraphsofthisletterread:10 15 20 "Wemustthankyouverymuchfortheinterviewyouhave granteduson5thJanuary 1980,andweareparticularlyhappy that during the discussions it became apparent a misunderstandingwhich existedregarding theoperation and statusof ourcassetteindustry, whichresulted inyourrefusal togrant usreliefsfrom importdutiesonthemachinery,equipmentand mastertapesnecessaryforouroperation.' Yourwillingnesstoreconsideryourdecisioninthelightof thefacts stated is most appreciated andcomplying with the suggestiontoprovideyouwithfurther details,enclosedplease findmodeofoperation,togetherwithmachinesandequipment necessary for theproperoperation ofourmosfsophisticated andhighlytechnicalindustry." * On11/7/1980theMinistry ofFinanceinformedtheapplicants that "your case has been reconsidered but·could not beenter25 tained"-(seeExhibit5). On 4/3/1981 counselfortheapplicantssubmittedaletterofrequest to the Ministry of Finance with copy to theMinistry of TradeandIndustryandtheCustomsDepartment.Thefirstparagraphofthiscommunicationrunsasfollows:30 "Furthertoourconversation on 19Februaryandinpursuanceofourundertakingtosetoutthebasicfactsofourclient's 881 Stylianides J. Electroacoustic Supply Co. v. Republic
(1988)casesoyoumaybeabletoproceedtoitsexecutive reconsideration prior to the hearing of the matter before the Supreme Courton2.5.81,wewishtoinform youofthefollowing:" Furtherdown thereisalongparagraphonthefactual aspect, placingfactsbeforetheAdministration,andtherearesomeparagraphsonthelegalaspect. 5 On28/5/1981theMinistryofFinancesentthefollowing letten"Iamdirected torefertopreviouscorrespondenceending with yourletterNo.442/79of2ndMay, 1981inconnection 10 withcaseNo.442/79andtoinformyouthattheclaimsubmittedbyMr.E.Hadjiloannou forconditionalrelieffromimport dutyonplantandequipmentforthemanufactureofcassettes, itwasreconsidered bythisMinistryanditwasdecidednottp reviewthepreviousdecisiontaken." 15 ThisCourt,inviewof theaforesaid documents,reopenedthe case and invitedargument from counsela*to thelegaleffect of there-examinationandthenewdecisionsoftheAdministration. Counselfortheapplicantssubmitted thattherewasnonewexecutoryact,buttherewasonlyaconfirmatory one. 20 Counselfortherespondentssaidthatareviewoftheolddecision,subject matteroftherecourse,tookplaceandthatnewmaterial wasputbefore theAdministration,buthedidnotwant,as hestated,totakeunfair advantageovertheapplicants.After the adjournment of thecase on hisown motion, hegave a slightly 25 different version. Whetheranewdecisionissimplyconfirmatory, oranewexecutoryact,thelawissetded.(SeeCharalambosMylonasv.EducationalService Committee
(1982)3C.L.R.880;Spyrouv. The Republic
(1983)3C.L.R.354). .30 882 3 C.L.R. Electroacustic Supply Co. v. Republic Stylianides J. Aconfirmatory actordecisionisanactordecisionoftheadministration which repeats thecontentsof aprevious executory actand signifies theadherenceof theadministration toacourse alreadyadopted;itisnotinitselfexecutorybecauseitdoesnotit5 selfdeterminethelegalpositionofanindividualcase,andcannot, therefore, bethesubject of arecourse.Anactwhichcontainsa confirmation of anearlieroneisanexecutory oneifithasbeen madeafter anewinquiry intothematter-(Kolokassides v. The Republic
(1965)3C.L.R.,542;Mylonas andSpyrou (supra)). 10 Whendoesanewinquiryexistisaquestionoffact. Thetakingintoconsiderationofnewsubstantivelegalandfactualelements,notusedbefore,amountstoadecisionreached afteranewinquiry.Thereisanewinquirywhen,before theissue of the subsequent act, an investigation takes place of newly 15 emergedelementsoralthoughpre-existing-wereunkowntothe administrationatthefirstdecision-aretakenintoconsiderationin addition toothers,butfor thefirst time.When new substantive factualelementsaretakenintoconsiderationinarrivingatasubsequentdecision, theseconddecision isnot aconfirmatory act 20 butanewexecutoryact. Havinggonethrough thedocuments before me,Ifindthata newinquiry tookplace.Inmyviewitisclearthatthenewdecisionshavebeenreachedafterthere-examinationofthematterby the Administration, on the basisof new factors and, therefore, 25 theyareofanexecutorynature. Oncetherehasbeentakenanewexecutorydecision, regarding theclaimoftheapplicants,theearlierone-(duetowhichthese proceedingshavearisen)-hasbeendeprivedofitsexecutorynatureandcannolongerbethesubject-matterofarecourseforan30 nulment -(see,interalia,theConclusionsof theGreekCouncil . of State 1929 - 1959,pp.241-242;Miltiades Papadopoulos v. Republic(CouncilofMinisters)
(1970)3C.L.R.169). Consequently,thisrecoursewhichchallengesthevalidityofa 883 Stylianides J. Electroacoustic Supply Co.v.Republic
(1988)decision which has,in the meantime,lostitsexecutorynature, mustbetreatedashavingbeendeprivedofitsobject,andshould, accordingly,bestruckout. In theresult, thisrecourseis struck out with noorder as to costs. Recoursesturckoutwith noorderastocosts. 884