clr/1988/1988_3_901.pdf

(1988)StreetsandBuildings—The StreetsandBuildingsRegulationLaw,Cap. 96, section 14

(1)(d),introducedbyLaw38/69—Leavesnodoubtthatpower vests in a municipalityto introduce restrictions affecting thevolume, heightandappearanceofabuilding. Acts ordecisionsinthesense ofArt.146.1 oftheConstitution—Townplan- •5 ning—Zoningregulatoryorder—An aggregation ofaseriesofindividual administrativeacts—The orderisjusticiableattheinstanceofanyparty adverselyaffectedthereby. Administrativeact—Regulatoryact (ZoningRegulatoryorder)—Ithastheattributesofanindividualactinsofarasjusticiabilityisconcerned,butitre- \Q tainsitscharacterasfar asitsnecessity,theusefulness,justificationand reasoningareconcerned-Itneednotbespeciallyreasoned—Theconviction oftheissuing organ initsnecessityissufficientjustification—Motivesor wisdomofenacting itcannotbeimpugnedbefore thisCourtsaveinexceptionalcircumstances, wherethelimits oflegal authorization aretrans- j g gressed. Reasoningofanadministrativeact—Regulatoryacts—Neednotbespecificallyreasoned. ConstitutionalLaw—Equality—Constitution, Art. 28—Zoning regulatory orderaffectingbuildingratioandheight—4n thecircumstancesprincipleof 20 equalitynotviolated. Thesubjudicedecision isazoningregulatoryorderissuedbytheMunicipalityofNicosiaundersection 14

(1)ofCap.96,asamended,andap: proved bytheCouncilof Ministers.TheCourt struckouttheCouncilof Ministersasaparty inrecourse613/84,whereithadbeenjoinedassuch, 25 and,havingconcludedthatdueinquiryhadbeencarriedoutpriortotheissue of the subjudice decision, dismissed the recourse. In doing so the Courtexpounded the legalprinciples,whichare sufficiently indicatedin thehereinaboveheadnote. Recoursesdismissed.No 30 orderastocosts. Casesreferredto: Hadjivassiliouv. CyprusOrganizationofAthletics

(1987)3C.L.R. 2142; Attorney-Generalv.IbrahimandOthers, 1964CX.R.195; 902 3 C.L.R. Tryphonos & Others v. Nicosia M' pality Aloupas v.NationalBank

(1983)1 C.L.R. 55; Koullapides v.TheMunicipality ofNicosia

(1970)2C.L.R. 22; ManglisandOthersv.RepublicandOthers

(1984)3 C.L.R. 351; 5 Thymopoulos v. TheMunicipal Committee ofNicosia

(1967)3C.L.R. 588; Simonis andAnotherv.Improvement BoardofLaxia

(1984)3 C.L.R. 109; CharalambidesandOthersv.TheRepublic

(1984)3C.L.R.1516; BluewaveProjectsLtd. v.TheRepublic

(1985)3C.L.R. 2522; 10 Charalambides v. TheRepublic

(1984)3C.L.R.

1. Recourses. RecoursesagainstthevalidityofZoningRegulatoryOrderNo. R.A.A.238/84,publishedon 1.9.1984affecting thedevelopment potential andexploitation ofbuilt-upproperties atTrypiotisand 15 AyiiOmoloyitesQuarters,Nicosia. P.Ioannides,forapplicant inCaseNo.603/
2. N.Panayiotou,forapplicantinCaseNo.613/
3. C.Hadjinicolaou,forapplicantinCaseNo. 614/
4. K.Michaelides,forrespondent
5. 20 A/.FlorentzoSy Senior Counsel of the Republic, for respondent
6. Cur.adv. vulL 903 Tryphonos & Others v. Nicosia M' pality

(1988)PIKIS J. read the followingjudgment. Toulla Tryphonos,Ni^cosGeorghiou andMariaMarkides: challengedbyseparateapplicationsthevalidity of aZoningRegulatory Order (R.A.A. 234/84 published on 1.9.84)affecting thedevelopment potential andexploitation ofbuilt-uppropertiesatTrypiotisandAyiiOmoloyites -5 Quarters, Nicosia. The Orderintroduced additional restrictions to thoseinforce atthe timeofthepublication oftheOrder,reducing the building ratioand height of thebuildings. The Order was made by the Municipality of Nicosia and approved bytheCouncilof Ministers.Oneof thethreeapplications, \Q notably thatofToullaTryphonos,isdirectedagainstthedecision of both organs, signifying thereby that bothdecisions areexecutory and as suchjusticiable.Thejoinderof theCouncil ofMinisters as apartytotheproceedings wasunjustified forreasons similar to those explained in Hadjivassiliou v. Cyprus Organisation 15 of Athletics

(1987)3C.L.R. 2142.The approval of thedecision of an organ trusted with competence todecideorregulateamatter merely supplements thedecision rendering itexecutory andjusticiable at theinstanceof anaggrievedparty. Approval byexternal authority isordinarily intended toensureexternal control and af- 20 ford anopportunity toacentralAuthority tocoordinatetheactions of administrative organs. (See Stassinopoulos -Law of Administrative Actions, 1951 edition, p. 223; and Kyriacopoulos Greek Administrative Law, 4th ed., Tome B', p. 110). The supplementation of the decision by the approval of an external Au- 25 thoritydoes notremove the actionfromthedomain of thedeciding body orreduce its responsibility in law for itsultimatepublication. The Council of Ministers, therefore, will be struck out as a party inRecourse No.613/84. 30 The decisionatissuewastaken inexerciseofthepowersvested in the Municipality of Nicosia byvirtue of the provisions of s.14 of the Streets and Buildings Law,asamended by s.2ofLaw 65/64 and, s.2 of Law 38/64.The restrictions were imposed in the interestsof town planning aimedtoensurethepreservation of 35 the architectural character and colourof twoold neighbourhoods of Nicosia.TheareaofTrypiotiswithin thewallcityand, thatof 904 3 C.L.R. Tryphonos & Others v. Nicosia M' patity Pikis J. AyiiOmoloyites,asuburbofthetowaiB-days"past,reflectedarchitecturaltrendsofdayslonggoneandacomplexion worthpreservinginthecontextofplansforthedevelopmentofNicosia. Commonissuesoflawandfactmadenecessarytheconsolidation e£jtfcethreerecoursesforpurposesofhearing.Furthermore, thesimilarityoftheissuesmakesitpossiblefor theCourttodisposeofthembythedeliveryofasinglejudgment.Thisbeingthe caseweshallrefertothegroundsadvancedinsupportofannulmentoftheactinthethreeseparaterecourseswithout specifically 5 referring tothecaseinwhichindividual groundswereurgedin support of annulment of the act. The grounds by reference to whichthereview ofthedecision is sought,maybesummarised asfollows:(A)DefectivecompositionoftheMunicipalCommitteeofNi10 cosia. Thesubmissionaffecting thisissueishardlyarticulatedatall. TheMunicipalitiesLawof 1964(Law 64/64) wasameasureof necessity taken in theinterestof constitutional order (Seeinter alia, AttorneyGeneralv. Mustafa Ibrahimand Others,1964 15 C.L.R. 195;Aloupas v. NationalBank

(1983)1C.L.R. 55). Someaspectsofthelegislation wereexaminedandfound tobein orderinAndreasKoullapidesv.MunicipalityofNicosia

(1970)2 C.L.R.22. Weshallconcernourselvesnofurther withthis aspectofthe 20 casedisposedasIamtorulethatthesubjudicedecisionwastakenbyacompetentorgan. (B)Abuseofthepowertoimposerestrictionsorlimitationsto theuseandexploitationofimmovableproperty. Therestrictions imposed are soextensive,according to this 25 submission, as to amount in effect to deprivation of property. Consequently,thepowerconferred bypara.3ofarticle 23toim- 905 Pikis J. Tryphonos & Others v. Nicosia M' pality

(1988)pose limitations in the interest of town planning, was abused andinfact employed toachieveanotherobjective tantamounting to deprivation of property. The submission is patently illfounded.Notonlytheapplicantsarefree tousethepropertyinits presentform; theyarealsoatlibertytoexploititinfuture, albeit 5 subjecttoadditionallimitationstothoseinexistenceatthetimeof thepromulgation oftheorder,entailingfurtherrestrictionstothe building ratio and the height that potential development may reach.Onlywheretherestrictionsimposedneutraliseinsubstance therighttotheuseandenjoymentofpropertycanavalidcaseof 10 abuse of the power to introduce limitations be made out. The caselaw makes thisproposition abundantly clear(see,interalia, Ioulia Manglisand Others v.Republicand Others

(1984)3 C.L.R. 351; and Demetrios Thymopoulosv. TheMunicipal CommitteeofNicosia

(1967)3C.L.R.588).Itisworthrecalling 15 thattherighttopropertydoesnotcarrywithitanunfettered right toitsdevelopment -SimonisandAnotherv.Imp.BoardofLatsia

(1984)3C.L.R. 109.Thisground,too,mustnecessarily fail. Anothergroundincidental totheuseofthepowertoimpose limitations, also untenable,is theone suggesting that theorder 20 mustbeannulledforfailuretocompensatethepartiesaffected by theorder.Theconstitutionalrequirementofpromptcompensation is not synonymous with advance compensation. Moreover, the applicants are free to pursue, in case of failure to compensate them,anactionbeforeanappropriatecivilcourtfor anymaterial 25 lossoccasionedbyrestrictionsorlimitationstotheuseandenjoymentoftheirproperty. (C)Abuseorexcessofthepowersvestedbys.14. Attheendofthecaseitwassubmittedonbehalfofoneofthe, applicantsthats.14doesnotconferpowertoimposebuilding re- 30 strictionsintheinterestoftownplanning;particularly,aplanning designed to preserve the character of special localities. Similar argumentswereraisedandresolvedbytheFullBenchoftheSupremeCourtinIouliaManglisandOthersv.RepublicandOth- \ ers,supra.ItwasheldthatitiscompetentfortheMunicipalityto 35 906 3 C.L.R. Tryphonos & Others v. Nicosia M'pality PikisJ. imposeinexercise ofthepowers conferred uponthebody bys. 14

(1)oftheStreets andBuildings Law,building restrictionsaf­ fecting thenumberofstoreys, theheightofthebuilding and the materialoutofwhich itshould beconstructed.Theplain provi5 sions of s. 14(l)(d) (introducedbys.2ofLaw 38/69)leave no doubtthatpowervestsinamunicipality tointroducerestrictions affecting thevolume, heightandappearanceofabuilding. In thelight oftheauthoritative statementofthelawin Man­ glis, supra,we shall dwellnofurther onthisaspectofthecase. 10 What remainstoresolveisthevalidity oftheorderonreview of itsmerits, thethemeoftheissuedefined below: (D)Invalidityof thedecisionfor lackofadequate inquiry, the absenceofproperreasoningandbreachoftheprincipleofequali­ ty, safeguardedbyarticle28.2ofConstitution. 15 Inordertodeterminethequestions raised intheirproperper­ spective, wemust first address the natureof theactand legal framework. Notwithstandingitsexternal trappings, bearing the insigniaoflegislation, azoningorderaffecting.directly individual rightstopropertyisjusticiable - CharalambidesandOthersv.Re20 public

(1984)3C.L.R. 1516. Anorderofthespecies undercon­ siderationhasbeendescribed.as anaggregation ofaseries ofin­ dividual administrativeacts.(Seealso,BluewaveProjectsLimited v.Republic

(1985)3C.L.R.2522).Inordertocompletethisin­ troductionitmay beaddedthatzoningrestrictionsofthenature 25 envisaged bys. 14

(1)of Cap.96may beimposed consistently with the powers vested bythe Constitutiontoauthorities with competencetoregulatetownplanning- Charalambidesv.Republie.

(1984)3C.L.R. 1516. Zoningordersdirectly affecting individualrights,justiciable at 30 theinstanceofaparty adversely affected thereby,cannotbedi­ vorcedfromtheirregulatory characterorthepurposetheyaim to achieve.Town planningorders areintendedtopromoteawider objective designed toserve public interest (δημόσια οφέλη). 907 Pikis J. Tryphonos & Others v. Nicosia M' pality

(1988)They are made on the basis of express statutory authorisation and,likelegislation,theidentification ofthepublicinteresttobe servedbytheenactmentoftheordercannotbemadethesubject ofreviewbycourtsoflaw.Infact,themotivesorwisdomforthe enactmentoftheordercannotbeimpugnedbeforetheCourt,save - 5 inexceptional circumstanceswherethelimitsof legalauthorisationareevidentlytransgressed.ThejudgmentoftheAdministrationforthenecessityofthemeasureintheinterestoftownolanningisbeyondthereviewingpowersoftheCourt.Greekcaselaw andjurisprudenceonthenatureandimplicationsofregulatoryor- 10 ders,justiciable at the instance of an aggrieved party, arereviewed byKyriacopoulos-GreekAdministrativeLaw,4thed., TomeC,p.376.Whatemergesfrom thestudyisthatregulatory administrative actsofthisnaturehavetheattributesofindividual administrative acts in sofar astheirjusticiability isconcerned; 15 whiletheyretaintheirregulatorycharacterinsofarasthenecessity of the measure isconcerned,its usefulness,justification and reasoning.ProfessorDagtoglouexplainsinhisworkofGeneral AdministrativeLaw, 1977ed.,Part A',p. 167that,likegeneral regulatory ordersofanindividualcharacterneednotbespecifical- 20 lyreasoned.Theirjustification liesintheconvictionoftheappropriateauthorityin theirnecessityasmeasurespromotingpublic interestintheareaunderconsideration.Examinationofthematerial bearing on the subjudice decision leavesnodoubt that the MunicipalityofNicosiadidcarryoutathoroughinquiryintothe 25 necessityofthemeasureundertakeninthecontextofwiderplanningpolicyforthetownofNicosia.TheviewsoftheTownPlanningDepartmentweresolicited,afactorinitselfsuggestiveofthe thoroughnessoftheinquiry.ThereasonsforthedecisionareevidentfromthematerialbeforetheCommitteeandthespecificrea- 30 sonsindicatedfortheadoptionoftheregulatorymeasure(see,inter alia, Minutes of the Meetingof the Municipal Committee, dated 16.8.84and26.4.83). Inmyjudgmentthedecisioncannotbeimpeachedeitherforinadequacyoftheinquiryorthereasonsthatjustified themeasure, 35 astheyemergefromexaminationofthematerialbeforetheCourt. 908 3 C.L.R. Tryphonos & Others v. Nicosia M*pality Pikis J. Equally unfounded is the submission that thedecision is bad for discriminatory treatment. One 01theallegations made is that recentdevelopment altered toanextent thecharacter of theaj=eas affected by the zoning order. Obviously, the Municipality took 5 theview that notwithstanding thepresence of buildings recently erected,theareasretainedasufficiently distinctcharacter,a factor thatshould guide theminlayingdown future planning specifica-. tions.The submission,.on theotherhand that,the zoning walnut as extensive as it ought to be, has not been substantiated. The 10 Municipality were the arbiters of the areas that merited distinct zoning and theform it should take.Nothing produced before the Court shows thatthey abused thispowerin any way. Iconclude thattherecourses-eachoneof them-must bedismissed and soIdirect. 15 Thesubjudiceorder-Order238/64-isherebyconfirmed pursuanttotheprovisionsofarticle 146.4(a)ofthe Constitution. Recourses dismissed. 909