3 C.L.R. 1989April 21 [DEMETRIADES.J.] INTHE MATTER OFARTICLE 146OFTHE CONSTITUTION. SAWASPASTELLIS, Applicant, v. THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS,THROUGH THE REVIEW LICENSING AUTHORITY. Respondent. (CaseNo.752/85) Judicial control — Assessment of facts — Arbitrary, asbeing contrary to evidence—Annulment ofsubjudiceact. 5 10 The hierarchical recourse against the decision of the Licensing Authority, whereby the applicant was granted for licences for "Z" cars succeeded on the ground that the applicant did not intend to have the business of renting "Z"cars ashismain occupation. Asit appears from the relevant minutes the statement of the applicant that hehad no other work and was,at the time,an unemployed person wasnot contradicted or questioned. In thelight of thisfact the Court concluded that theconclusion of the respondents wasan arbitrary one. 15 Subjudicedecision annulled. Noorderas tocosts. Recourse. 20 Recourse againstthedecision oftherespondent annullingthe decision of the Licensing Authority whereby four "Z" licences weregranted to applicant. 491 Pastellis v.Republic
(1989)A. Andreou,fortheApplicant. G.Erotokritou(Mrs),SeniorCounseloftheRepublic,forthe Respondent. 5 Curadv. vult. DEMETRLADES, J. read the following judgment. By this recourse the applicant challenges the decision of the Review LicensingAuthority,whichwascommunicatedtohimbyletter 10 dated the 4th July, 1985, and by which the decision of the Licensing Authority granting to him four "Z" licences was annulled. Itistobenotedthat"Z"licencesarethoseissuedtopersons 15 entitledto ownvehiclesrentedforselfdrive. Theapplicant isarepatriated Cypriot whoreturnedin 1981 for permanent residence here. Onthe 12thJanuary, 1983,the applicant applied to the Licensing Authority for ten "Z" 20 licences, which, at its meeting of the 27th December, 1984, granted four "Z"licences to him.Against this decision,seven hierarchical recoursesbypersonsorcompanieswhoseinterests wereaffected, werefiledtotheReviewLicensingAuthority. 25 Asit appearsfrom thefactsbefore me,inSeptember, 1984, the applicant started a business of a souvenir shop, which, however,heclosed down inApril 1985,asitwasnot apaying business. 30 Atthehearingofthehierarchicalrecourses,whichtook,place on the 7th May, 1985,allpartieswere heard andtheapplicant gave evidence stating -that he had closed his shop and was unemployed. 35 The Review Licensing Authority, after considering the matter, allowed the recourses and annulled thedecision of the Licensing Authority on the ground that it had not been persuaded that the applicant intended to have the businessof "Z" carsashismainoccupation. 40 Byletterdatedthe4thJuly,1985,theapplicantwasinformed 492 3C.L.R. Pastellis v. Republic Demetriades,J. accordingly andasaresult hefiledthepresentrecourse. Counselfor theapplicantarguedthatthesubjudicedecision isarbitrary andcontrarytotheevidenceandthatthefactswhich 5 were before the Review Licensing Authority were not contradicted. Counsel for the respondent Authority argued that the Authority hadactedinaccordance withtheLawandthatthesub 10 judice decision was reasonably opentoit. Thesubjudice decision readsasfollows: 15 20 25 30 "Η Αναθεωρητική ΑρχήΑδειών αφού μελέτησε όλα τα στοιχεία των σχετικών φακέλλωνκαιόλα όσα έχουνλε χθεί εκμέρουςτωνπροσφευγόντωνκαιτου ενδιαφερομέ νου, αποφασίζει την αποδοχή των προσφυγών γιατί η ΑναθεωρητικήΑρχήΑδειών δενέχειπεισθείότι οκ. Παστελλής προτίθεται ναασκήσειτηνεπιχείρηση ενοικιάσεωςοχημάτων "Ζ" ωςκύριοεπάγγελμα." ("TheReviewLicensing Authority,having consideredallthe materialintherelevantfilesandeverything thathasbeensaid onthe partoftheapplicantsandtheinterestedparty, decides to allow the recourses because the Review Licensing Authority has notbeen persuaded that Mr.Pastellis intends to have the business of renting "Z" cars as his main occupation.") Asitappearsfromtherecordoftheirmeetingthesolereason which led the respondent Authority in reaching thesub judice decision was thatit hadnot been persuaded thattheapplicant was goingtohave thebusiness of renting·"Z" cars as hismain occupation. 35 However, at thehearing of thehierarchical recourse before the respondent Authority, the applicant gave evidence and answered questions put to him regarding, amongst others,his employment or occupation.As it appears from theminutesof 40 thehearing, thestatementof theapplicantthathehadno other work and was an unemployed person at the time was not contradictedorquestioned. 493 Demctriades, J. Pastellis v. Republic
(1989)In the light of the material before me and especially the uncontradicted evidence of the applicant, I have come to the conclusion that the finding oftherespondent Authority that the applicant did not intend to have the business of renting cars as hismain occupation wasunwarranted bytheevidence before it 5 and,therefore, arbitrary. In the result, this recourse succeeds and the sub judice decision ishereby annulled withcosts. 10 Subjudice decision annulled with costs. 494