clr/1989/1989_3A_185.pdf

(2)of thesaidLaw— Whetherprinciple of equalitycontravened— Questiondeterminedm thenegative— .An 28 of the Constitutiondocsnotprecludereasonable differentiations CustomsandExcise— Motor Vehicles — Disabledpersons — Relief from import duty— The Customs andExciseDutiesLaw, I97S (Law 1S/7S) section 11

(2)— Ambit of power of Councilof Ministersthereunder — Order221/1979of theCouncil of Ministers — Order221 limits theright torelieffrom import dutvto petrol andaesel motor vehicles of ahorse powernot exceeding2000ccand2300ccrespectively"—Submission thattheorderwasultra viresthepowerof theCouncilof Ministers under section 11

(2)— The interpretation Law, Cap 1, section 11 — application andambitof The applicant a paraplegic who did noi and could not possess a driving licence, applied ioi ihe Duty Tree importation of an ordinar) motoi vehicle Inthelightof paragraph (bjof ihepiovisotoitem 09of class01 of theafoiesaidFouith Schedulewhich appealsal page 189ofthe 1S5 Stavrou v.Republic &Others

(1989)Judgment, theapplication was rejected. The Court found that the differentialion in the treatment between invalid persons,who holdorcan hold avalid drivinglicence,andinvalid persons, who cannot hold a valid driving licence, is reasonable. Therefore, the Court rejected thesubmission astotheconstitutionalityof the said provision. 5 The issue of Order 221/79 didnot affect thesubstratum of the sub judice decision. Inthelight ofsection 11ofthe Interpretation Law.Cap. ]0 1 andofthefact that theprovisionsofparagraph (b)ofitem09ofclass 1 of ihe Fourth Schedule remained unaffected, theCourt didnot acceptthe submission asregards theinvalidity ofOrder221/79. Recourse dismissed. No order as to 15 costs. Casesreferredto: Miltiadous v.Republic (19S3)3CL.R. 590. 20 Kalliv.Republic

(1984)3CL.R.443. Mikrommatis v.Republic.2R.S.C.C. 125, 25 Republic v.Arakian

(1972)3CL.R.291. Skyfrost Co.Ltd. v.Republic

(1979)3CL.R.

1. Anstidesv.Republic (I9S3) 3CL.R.
2. 30 Recourse. Recourse against the refusal of the respondents to allow applicant to import a motor vehicle free of duty. 35 C. derides, for the Applicant. D. Papadopoulou (Mi's). Counsel of the Republic B, for the Respondent. Cur. adv. vult. 186 40 3 CL.R. Stavrou v. Republic & Others DEMETRLADES. J. read the following judgment. In the present casetheapplicant iscomplaining against the decisionof the director of the Department of Customs (the second respondent),datedthe 1lthDecember, 1985.bymeansofwhich 5 his application for theimportation of avehicle free of dutywas rejected. At the material time the applicant was thirty-one years old. In 1973he was involved in amotor car accident, as a result of 10 which hesuffered veryseriousinjuries andbecause ofthem heis a paraplegic. The applicant is arefugee from the district of Kyrenia anda freelance contributor in dailynewspapers. In any event, heisa 15 person, like any other, that is entitled to circulate and move about at hiswill. On the 5th November, 19S
3. the applicant applied to the second respondent for a permit to import into the Republic a 20 motor vehiclefree ofimport dutybuthisapplication was.onthe 1lth December. 1985.rejected by the second respondent, who isthe appropriate organ to dealwith applications of thisnature. on thegroundsthatbecauseofhisseriousdisability(a)hedidnot andcouldnot possess a drivinglicence and (b)he could not, in 25 the opinion of a Senior Technical Examiner, drive any type of vehicle. It is not m dispute that the applicant does not possess a driving licence and that because of his serious disability he 30 cannotobtain alicencetodriveamotorvehicle. Itisfurther not in dispute that he didnot apply for the importation of a motor vehiclesuitablefor usefor hisdisability. In fact what he applied for is for the importation of an ordinary car which is to be available for hisown usebut which willbe driven by somebody 35 else. The statutory provisions on which counsel based their respective arguments in this recourse were section 11 of the Customs and Excise Duties Law (Law 18/78) and item 09 of 40 class 01of the Fourth Scheduleto it. Section 11,asoriginally enacted,reads:- 187 Demetriades, J. Stavrou v. Republic & Others

(1989)"11.-

(1)Ανεξαρτήτως οιασδήποτενομοθετικήςδιατάξεως δυνάμει της οποίας είναι δυνατήηατελής εισαγωγή ειδι­ κώς καθοριζομένων εμπορευμάτων προς χρήσιν αυτών υπό ωρισμένων προνομιούχων προσώπων, οργανισμών, αρχών και οργανώσεων, και υφ'ους όρους ο Διευθυντής 5 ήθελεν επιβάλει προς διασφάλισιν των δημοσίων προσό­ δων,εμπορεύματατουεντωΤετάρτωΠίνακι καθοριζομέ­ νου είδους απαλλάττονται.υπόταςεντω ειρημένω Πίνα­ κα οριζομένας περιστάσεις και όρους εκτός εάν άλλως προνοήται εντητετάρτηστήλη του ιδίουΠίνακος.του ει- 10 σαγωγικού δασμού ή φόρου καταναλώσεως όστις άλλως θα επεβάλλετο δυνάμει του παρόντος Νόμου, νοουμένου ότι ηαίτησις απαλλαγήςυποβάλλεταιυπόή διάτονεισα­ γωγέα πριν ήτα εμπορεύματααπομακρυνθώσιτου τελω­ νειακού ελέγ/ου. εκτός ως άλλως ρητώςπρονοείται εντω 15 παρό\πιΝόμω.

(2)Διά Διατάγματος αυτού δημοσιευθησομένου εν τη επισήμω εφημέριοι τηςΔημοκρατίας, τοΥπουργικόν Συμβούλιον δύναταιναπροσθετή, διαγραφή,μεταβάλληή άλ- 20 λως τροποποιήταςκλάσεις ήοιασδήποτε τούτων,ωςαύ­ ται εκτίθενται εντωΤετάρτω Πίνακι." ('Ί1.-

(1)Notwithstanding any other legislative provision permitting the duty free importation of specified goods for 25 the use by certain privileged person, organizations. authorities and associations, andsubject to any terms which the Director may impose for safeguarding public revenue. goods of the class specified in the Fourth Schedule are exempted under the conditions and circumstances set out 30 therein unlessotherwise provided inthefourth column ofthe same Schedule from the payment of import or excise duty which otherwise would have been imposed under this law, provided that the application for exemption is submitted by orfor theimporter beforetheclearance of thegoods, except 35 as otherwise expressly provided by this law.

(2)The Council of Ministers may by Order published in theOfficial Gazetteadd,delete,alter or otherwise amendthe classes or any of them as thesame are set out in the Fourth 40 Schedule.") 188 3 CL.R. Stavrou v. Republic & Others Demetriades, J. Item 09 of class01 of theFourth Schedule then read: 5 '•Μηχανοκίνητα οδικά οχήματα κατάλληλα προς χρήσιν υπόπροσώπωνπασχόντωνεκσωματικήςαναπηρίαςεισαγόμεναυπόαναπήρωνπροσώπωντωνοποίωνηαναπηρία πιστοποιείται δεόντως υπό επί τούτω συγκροτουμένου Κυβερνητικού Ιατρικού Συμβουλίου: Νοείταιότι ηαπαλλαγήαύτηδεν τυγχάνει εφαρμογήςεπί 10 αναπήρων προσώπωνάτινα (α)Είναι ιδιοκτήταιή κάτοχοι ετέρου ούτως ατελώςεισα­ χθέντος οχήματος- ή 15 20 (β)Δεν κέκτηνται άδειαν οδηγού, νοουμένου ότι οσάκις ανάπηροι κέκτηνται άδειαν μαθητευομένου οδηγού ο Διευθυντής δύναται να παραχωρήσει απαλλαγήνυπό τον όοον ότι θαεξασφαλισθήάδειαοδηγού'εντός ενός έτους από του τελωνισμού του οχήματος ή εντός τοιαύτηςετέραςπεριόδουωςούτοςήθελεκρίνει εύλογον." 25 ("Motor vehicles suitable for use by person suffering from body disablement imponed by disabled persons whose disability is duly certified by a Government Medical Board constituted for this purpose: Provided that this exemption is not applicable to disable persons who: 30 35 40 (a) Are the owners or possessors of another thus duty free imported vehicle; or (b) Are not the holders of a driving licence provided that when disabled persons are the holders of a learner's driving licence the Director may grant exemption on condition that a driving licence will be obtained within one year from a vehicle's clearance from customs or within suchotherperiod ashemay consider reasonable.") By virtue of an Order of the Council of Ministers published in the Official Gazette of the Republic on the 14th September, 1979, under Notification 221, the type of motor vehicles 189 Demetriades,J. Stavrou v.Republic & Others

(1989)disabled persons were entitled to import free of duty were limitedto"petrol anddieselmotorvehiclesofahorsepowernot exceeding 2000 cc and 2300 cc respectively". All other provisions ofitem09ofclass01oftheFourth Schedulestillread as they originally appear inthe saidSchedule. 5 The issue originally raised by counsel for the applicant was theunconstitutionality of paragraph (b)ofitem09ofclass01in the Fourth ScheduletotheLaw.Withregardtothisissuecounsel for the applicant submitted that theprovisions of paragraph (b) 10 aforesaid offend Article 28 of the Constitution of the Republic which safeguards equality before thelaw andthe administration in that it makes a differentiation between classes of disabled persons and wholly excludes relief from being granted to a particular class of disabled person, like the applicant, whose 15 condition is much more serious than others and which makes him unable to drive avehicle. Counsel for the applicant contended that the spirit of the exemption provided by the lawis to give a financial benefit to 20 all incapacitated persons in order to assist them in their transportation by enabling them to purchase their own vehicle at a price much lower than that paidby healthy persons. Therelevant provisionsofthelawwerethesubject ofjudicial pronouncement and reference in this respect may be made to 25 the case of Miltiadous v. The Republic

(1983)3 CL.R. 590, where at p.592the following are stated byPikis,J.: "The plain provisions of the law confine relief from import duty to the importation of vehicles specially adapted to the 30 condition of incapacitated persons, in other words, vehicles suitablefor invalids. Nor isit difficult to discern the purpose of the law,to facilitate by means of vehicular transport the movement of disabled persons not otherwise possible. Evidently, it was not theintention of thelaw to afford relief 35 from import dutyto disabledpersons,atthediscretion ofthe Minister for the importation of any car. In other words,the law did not purport to grant relief from import duty to disabled persons; only to those who imponed vehicles specially adjusted to theneeds of incapacitated persons." 40 190 3 CL.R. Stavrou v.Republic &Others Demetriades, J. In the case of Kalli v. The Republic

(1984)3 CL.R. 443, Pikis.J., at p.445,saidthat 5 "The object of the law is not, as pointed out, to bestow a privilege upon handicapped persons merely by reference to their disability,butto improvetheir amenityto move bythe use of vehicles adjusted to their needs whenever reasonably necessary, on account of their condition." 10 Regarding this aspect of the case, that is the unconstitutionality ofparagraph (b)totheprovisoof item09of class 01 of the Fourth Schedule to the Law, it has been repeatedly stated by this Court that Article 28 of the Constitution safeguards only against arbitrary differentiations, 15 but it permits reasonable distinctions which have to be made because of the intrinsic nature of things (see. inter alia, Mikrommatis v.TheRepublic.2R.S.CC 125,131: Republic v.Arakian

(1972)3 CL.R.294.298,299: Skyfrost Co.Ltd. r. The Republic

(1979)3 CL.R. 1, 7, 8; and Aristides v. The 20 Republic

(1983)3CL.R. 1507.1522). Following the approach adopted in the cases of Miltiadous and Kalli (supra) I am also of the view that as the law stands. exemption form import dutyunder itsprovisions couldonlybe 25 granted to disabled persons who possess a driving licence and could drive amotor vehicle suitable to their disability. From the facts of the present case, I find that a reasonable differentiation between the applicant and the other classes of 30 incapacitated persons who, because of their condition, may satisfy the aforesaid requirements, iscreated and, therefore, the subjudiceproviso, Ifind, isnot unconstitutional. The matter, however, does not stop here as when early in 35 February 1987counsel were informed that judgment was to be delivered, counsel for the applicant filed, on the 13th February, 1987an application bysummons,prayingthere-opening ofthe case on anewground oflaw,whichwasnot originally raisedby him,namelythat proviso (b)ofitem 09ofclass01ofthe Fourth 40 ScheduletotheLaw,on whichthesubjudicedecisionwasbased, was imposed by the Council of Ministers ultra vires the provisions of the Law. 191 Demetriades, J. Stavrou v. Republic &Others

(1989)As a result oftheapplication ofcounsel for theapplicant and withtheconsent ofcounsel for therespondents,thecasewasreopened. Supplementary written addresses on the new issue raised bythe applicant werefilled and after counsel wereheard in clarification of their written submission, judgment was again 5 reserved. Counsel for the applicant argued, in this respect, that under section 11

(2)of the Law the Council of Ministers was empowered to add.delete.alter orotherwise amendtherelevant 10 class set out in the Fourth scheduled, namely the class referring to motor vehicles imported by incapacitated persons,but could not impose by Order the subjudice condition asit hasdonein the present case,namelythelimitation ofthehorse powerofthe vehicles incapacitated persons can import. 15 On the other hand, counsel for the respondents submitted that the Council of Ministers hadsimply specified, bymeansof paragraph 2 of the relevant Order, which types of vehicles are exempted and that, asthe remaining part of item 09of class 01 20 of the fourth Schedule had remained unaffected and is identical to its original wording, it cannot be said that the restrictions contained inproviso (b)of section2 of theOrderwere imposed bv the Council of Ministers in excess of powers. 25 Having considered the arguments advanced bycounsel. Iam of the opinion that under the provisions of section 11

(2)above, which arevery-clear andunambiguous,the Council of Ministers was empowered to add. delete, alter or otherwise amend the classes set out in the Fourth Schedule to the Law, and in the 30 present case, could amend the description of the type of motor vehicles imported by incapacitated persons, by limiting the horse power of the vehicles intended to be imported. Assuming,however,that theCouncil of Ministers actedultra 35 vires in amending by its said order item 09 of class 01 of the fourth Scheduleto Law 18/78.itismy view that the provisions of section 11 of the Interpretation Law Cap. 1 apply in the present case and the original provisions of this item continue to begood and valid. 40 Section 11of the Interpretation Law, Cap. 1 reads: 192 3 CL.R. 5 Stavrou v. Republic & Others Demetriades, J. "Whenever any Law has already been or shall hereafter be repealed and other provisions are substituted by the repealing Law all public instruments, forms and appointmentsmadeorissuedundertherepealed Law, and in force at the time of such repeal, shall, until revoked or replaced, continue good andvalid in so far as they arenot inconsistent with thesubstituted provisions." In other words, the provisions of paragraph (b) of the 10 proviso, thatis thatthedisabled person must be theholderetc. of adriving licence, continue to be good andvalid as they are not inconsistent with theamendmentmadeby theOrderunder Notification 221 of the 14thSeptember. 1979. 15 Whilst Iwas studying the supplementary addresses (written andoral)tothesecondissue which was raised by counsel forthe applicant.Ifound thatsub-section 2of section 11of Law 18/78 had. by section 2of Law50/85. whichcameintoforce on the 1st May, 19S5. that is prior to theapplication of the applicant for 20 theimportation of thecar,been amendedandit now reads:- 25 30 35 40 "

(2)ToΥπουργικόν Συμβούλιονδύναται,διά Διατάγμα­ τος αυτού εκδιδομένου δυνάμει Κανονισμών εγκρινομέ­ νων υπό της Βουλής των Αντιπροσώπων, ναπροσθετή, διαγραφή, μεταβάλλη ή άλλως τροποποιήτας κλάσεις ή οιασδήποτε τούτων, ως αύται εκτίθενται εν τωΤετάρτω Πινάκι.Οι Κανονισμοίαυτοίδύνανται ναπρονοούν περί τοιούτων όρων, περιορισμών, προϋποθέσεων καικριτη­ ρίων ταοποία ήθελον καθορισθήεν αυτοίςδιάτουςσκοπους ασκήσεως της εκχωρούμενης εις το Υπουργικόν Συμβούλιονεξουσίας. ΠαντοιούτοΔιάταγμα εκδιδόμενον δυνάμει τουπαρόντοςεδαφίου δημοσιεύεταιεν τη επίση­ μα) εφημερίδιτηςΔημοκρατίας." (1ί

(2)Thecouncil of Ministers may,by Order issued onthe basis of Regulations approved by the House of Representatives, add, delete, alter or otherwise amend the classes or any of them, as they are set out in the Fourth Schedule. These Regulations may provide about such conditions,limitations,prerequisites andcriteria as may be specified therein for the purposes of the exercise of the power vestedintheCouncilof Ministers. Every suchOrder 193 Demetriades, J. Stavrou v. Republic &Others

(1989)issued on the basis of this section ispublished in the Official Gazette ofthe Republic") Counsel werethen invitedto addressme on theeffect of the above amendment to the present case. 5 Having heard the arguments of counsel on this issued and having in mind that as yet the Council of Minisrers have issued no Order as provided by the provisions of the new sub-section 2 of section 11of the Law, Ifind that the original provision in 10 the Fourth Schedule to the Law, as amended by the Order published under Notification 221 of the 14th September, 1979, in view of section 11of the Interpretation Law Cap.1. towhich I have earlier referred, isstill inforce andvalid. 15 Before I dismiss this recourse, Ihave to say that it does not escapemymindthedefinition ofwhatisa"disabledperson"that was given by the United Nations General Assembly on the 9th December, 1975 (No. 3447(XXX)) andwhichis: 20 "The term 'disable person' means any person unable to ensure by himself or herself wholly or partly the necessities of a normal individual and/or social life, as a result of a deficiency, either congenital or not, in his or her physical or mental capabilities." Having inmindthe aforesaid definition oftheterm "disabled person". I feel that it is my duty to suggest that the Executive and/or the Legislature should, as early as possible, enact legislative provisions by which disabled persons suffering from 30 the same disability as that ofthe applicant must be afforded the same benefits as other disabled persons suffering from less incapacitation than that of the applicant. In the result, this recourse is dismissed but, in the 35 circumstances. Imake no order asto costs. Recourse dismissed. No orderas tocosts. 194 25