(1989)I9S9March4 [MALACHTOS J] INTHE MATTER Oh ARTICLE 146 OFTHECONSTITUTION MICHAEL MAYRONICHIS. Apphcani. v THE REPUBLICOF CYPRUS. THROUGH THE DIRECTORΟΓ CUSTOMS AND EXCISE AND ANOTHER Respondents (Case So 9Ϊ2/87) Executon act — Confirmatory act— Rejection of application for the dun freeimportation of amotor vehicle on thesamegroundsasthose. v>rhich had formed the basis of a previous decision — A'e» decision lacks executory character— Recourseasmissed 5 The application of the applicant for a duty free importation of a motor cai as arcpauiated Cypnoi was dismissed on theground thatthe applicant did not satish thepicrcquisiic of 10years permanent residence abioad prior totheicpatnation Theapplicant slecoursc was dismissed Following the dismissal, applicant submitted 3 affidavits as legarcb the 10 aloicsaid issue and requested re-examination By letter dated 22/7/S7 respondent 1dismissed the application on the ground that no new facts were invoked and that, m am event the importation was not effected v\ ithin a reasonable period of time following the repatriation 15 By letter dated 1/9/S7 counsel of applicant explained the reasons for the delay B> letter dated 12/9/S7 theapplication was onceagain rejected on the same grounds as set out in the letter of 22/7/87 The Court dismissed the new lecourse on the ground thai the decision communicated by the lettei of 12/9/S7was of aconfirmatory nature 20 Rccouisedismissed i\o oidcrasto costs 316 3 C.L.R. Ma\ronichis y.Republic & Another Recourse. 5 Recourse against the refusal of the respondents to allow applicant to import a duty free motor vehicle as a repatnated Cypnot. Chr. Clendes. for the Applicant. 10 A Evangdou, Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the Respondent Cur. adv \nj]t MALACHTOS. J read the following judgment. By the 15 present recourse the applicant claims, as stated therein- 20 25 A A declaration thatthe decision of the Director-Department of Customs and Excise, the Ministry of Finance as it appears in the latter's letter dated 12th September, 1987. addressed to the applicant is null and void and of no effect whatsoever being contrary to the Constitution andthe Law and taken inexcess and/orabuse of power, and Β A declaration that the rejection of respondents 1and 2 to acceede to applicant's request for authority for the free importation of a car as embodied in the letter of his advocates dated 1st September. 1987 is null andvoid andof noeffect v\hatsoever being contrary totheConstitutionand thelaw andha\ins beentaken inexcess andabuse of power 30 The factual background inthis recourse is as follows* 35 40 The applicant on 28.7.82 submitted an application as a '"repatnated C\pnot" for the dut\ free importation of amotor carwhich was turned dowηon theground thathe didnot satisfy the prerequisite of ten years permanent residence abroad prior to such repatriation As against this decision the applicant filed Recourse No 271/S3.which was dismissed by thecourt as it was found thattherespondent correctly found that he didnot satisfy the requirement of a continuous penod of at least ten years abroad An appeal was filed as against this decision which was subsequently withdrawn 317 Malachtos. J. Marronichis v. Republic &Another
(1989)Byletterofhiscounsel dated30.6.S7,applicant requestedthat his case be reviewed in the light of three affidavits attached thereto purporting to support his allegation that he had been "permanently residing"abroad and has not lived there only asa student but hewas working asaprofessional musician. 5 Byletterdated22.7.87theapplicantwasinformedthatthethree affidavits did not add any new facts to his case to satisfy the prerequisiteofpermanentcontinuousresidenceofatleasttenyears abroad. Hewasalsoinformed thathefailedtoimport acarwithin 10 a reasonableperiod oftimefrom thedateofhisrepatriation. By letter dated 1.9.S7. counsel for applicant informed the respondent authority thattheapplicant hadimprotedavehiclein respect of which relief was requested under the relevant 15 legislative provision and also attributed his client's delay to import a car. to the practice of the Department to invite applications for relief to be filed prior to the importation. Therespondent byletter dated 12.9.S7rejected onceagain the 20 application of the applicant onthe samegrounds as thoseset out in theletter of 22.7.S7.As a result,the applicant filed the present recourse contending that the court in Recourse No. 271/83 had reached itsdecision not havingbefore itthethree affidavits which introduced new facts justifying the granting of the order applied 25 for. As rightly submitted by the respondents in the form of a preliminary objection, their sub judice letter of 12.9.S7 is confirmatory of their decision contained intheir letter of22.7.87 30 wliich in their subsequent letter is referred to and repeated. Therefore, it was contended that this latter letter lacks the necessary-· executory" character to be the subject matter of a recourse under Article 146ofthe Constitution. Furthermore,as regards the decision of the respondent of 22.7.S7 the applicant 35 was on the23.11.S7.when thepresent recourse wasfiled,clearly out ofthetime limit of 75days. For these reasons,this recourse fails and isdismissed with no order asto costs. Recoursedismissed. No orderasro costs. 31S 40