(1989)19S9Januar>21 [KOURRIS.J ] IN THE MATTER OFARTICLE 146 OFTHE CONSTITUTION CHRISTOS SIAMPETAS, Applicant ν THE REPUBLICOFCYPRUS. THROUGH THE MINISTEROF COMMERCEAND INDUSTRY .AND OTHERS. Respondents (Case?\o 794/S7) Executoryact— Confirmatoryact—Permit toimportweighing machines on condition thattheyshouldnotbeputmthe market —Rejection of newapplication tomarketthem —Intheabsenceofnew material the decisionisconfirmatory Legitimateinterest — Constitution. An 1462 — Tree and voluntary acceptance of anact— Deprives acceptor of rightto challenging — Acceptance of import permit on conation thatgoods willnot be marketed—Rejection ofnewapplication tomarket them—Applicant hasnolegitimateinterest w challengesuchrefusal 5 10 Weights andmeasures— TheWeightsandMeasuresLaws, 19/74 and 75/77, sections28and68— WhetherRegulations 126(h), 172, 178and232(b) ultra viressaidsections—Question determinedinthenegative 15 ConstitutionalLaw—Righttotrade—Constitution,Art 25 1—Meridian Trading Co.Ltd \.Ministry of Commerce andIndustry
(1987)3 C.LR 1930citedwith approval. ConstitutionalLaw—Equality— Constitution,Art.28—Does notexclude 20 reasonable distinctions — Mikrommatis v.TheRepublic 3 RSCC 125followed 76 3 C.L.R. Siampetas v.Republic & Others The facts can be roughly deduced from the above Hcadnotes. The principles applied by the Court in dismissing the Recourse sufficienth appear therein. 5 Recourse dismissed.Costs against the applicant. Casesreferredto: 10 P.M. Tsenotis v.Republic
(1984)3C.L.R. 693. Papadopoullou andAnother v.Republic
(1986)3 C.L.R. 25. Papadopoullou andAnother v.C.D.C. (19S7)3 C.L.R. 1685, 15 MeridianTrading Co. Ltd. v. Ministry of Commerce andIndustry
(1987)3 C.LR. 1930. Sofoclidesv.Republic
(1986)3 C.L.R. 1312, 20 ImpalexAgencies v.Republic
(1970)3C.LR 361. Psaras v.Ministry of Commerce andIndustry
(1971)3C.L.R. 151, 25 Marangosv.MunicipalCommittee ofFamagusta
(1970)3 C.L.R. 7, Sp\rou andOthersv.Republic(Sol).
(1973)3 C.L.R. 627. Sta\rou v.Republic
(1976)3 C.LR. 66. 30 Michaeioudes v.Republic
(1979)3C.LR. 56, Menicos v.Republic
(1983)3C.L.R. 1130. 35 Ethnikos v.K.O.A.
(1984)3 C.LR. 1150, Christodoulou v.Republic 1 R.S.C.C.1, Mikrommatis v.Republic2 R.S.C.C. 125. 40 77 Siampetas \.Republic & Others
(1989)Recourse. Recourse against the decision of the respondents to reject applicant sapplication tosellweighing machines 5 A Eftychiou. for the Applicant Ρ Clendes. Counsel of theRepublic B,for theRespondents Cur adv vuk 10 KOURRIS, J read the following judgment By the present recourse applicant challenges the decision of the respondents dated IS 8 19S7.whereby the application oftheapplicantto sell weighingmachinesΓΥΙΓΑ was reiected by therespondents. 15 Applicant on 2S 11987. applied to the Ministn of Commercefor theimport ofweighingmachines (appendix 1 to the opposition) 20 On 29.3 1987, the Director of Weights and Measures approved theapplication underthecondition thatthe weighing machines should not be put on the market, (απαγορεύεταιη χρήση στο εαπόριο) (appendix Π to the opposition). Thereupon, applicantsecuredalicencefor theimportofthesaid 25 weighing machines on 313 19S7 (Appendix III to the opposition) Applicant, on 168 19S7,applied totheDirectorof Weights and Measures to put the said weighing machines on sale 30 (Appendix IV to the opposition),andthe Directorof Weights and Measures informed him that his application cannot be approved because the weighing machines do not comply with therelevant regulations (Appendix V) Hence applicantfiledthe present recourse against therefusal of the Directorof Weights 35 andMeasures Applicant relies onthefollowing legalgrounds. (l)The decision of the Directorof Weights andMeasures is 40 contrary toArticle 25.1
(2)of the Constitution; 78 3 C.L.R. Siampctas v.Republic &Others Kourris, J.
(2)The Regulations 126
(6). 172. 178 and 232(b) of the Weightsand MeasuresRegulations 19S1areultraviresss. 2Sand 68of Weights and Measures Laws.Law 19/74and 75/77; 5
(3)The decision of the Director of Weights and Measures contravenes Article28of the Constitution: 10
(4)The sub judice decision lacks due inquiry and sufficient reasoning. Therespondents raisedthefollowing two preliminary issues: (i)thechallengeddecision isnot executory;and(ii)theapplicant hasnolegitimateinterest tofilethepresent recoursebecausehe 15 accepted toimport thesaidweighingmachines underconditions and hedid so freely and unreservedly. I agree with learned counsel for the respondents that the decision of the respondents dated 14.8.1987is not justiciable as 20 it is not executory but confirmatory. Applicant by his letter dated 16.8.1987 didnot adduce any new material. His original application dated 28.1.1987 contained all the material which is alsocontained inhisletter of 16.8.1987. Hisaddition isthat the said weighing machines are products of good quality and that 25 thevareputonthemarket inse\-eralothercountries. (See P.M. Ts'eriotis v.Republic
(1984)3C.L.R. 693at pp. 701-703.) With regard to the second point, whether applicant has a legitimateinterest ornot; Iamsatisfied thattheapplicanthasno 30 legitimateinterest to file thepresent recourse. He acceptedthe decision of the respondents under the condition not to put on the market the weighing machines and his acceptance was free and unreserved. In point of fact, after this decision of the respondents, he applied for an import permit. (See 35 Papadopoullou andAnother v. TheRepublic
(1986)3C.L.R. 25, 54 and Frini Papadopoullou and Another v. C.B.C.
(1987)3C.LR. 1685. The decision ofthesetwopoints disposes of therecourse but 40 I propose to deal with thelegalpoints raised by counsel for the applicant: 79 Kourris. J. Siampelas v. Republic &Others (19891
(1)Whether the SubJudiceDecision contravenes Article 25of the Constitution. Thispointwas tackled inthecase of MeridianTrading Co. Ltd. v.Ministry of Commerce andindustry
(1987)3C.L.R. 5 1930,where Pikis J.said the following: "Art. 25 safeguards therightof every person to practise anyprofession orcarry onanyoccupation, tradeorbusiness. Neither the Import Regulation Law nor the order made 10 thereupon purport tolimit thefreedom of theapplicantsto establish themselves as traders. In fact, they trade without hindrance. The alleged grievance does not. to my comprehension,affect theirfreedom toengage inthe import tradeassuchbutthecircumstancesof carrying onthattrade. 15 a separate and distinct question. This appreciation of the implications of s. 3of theImportsRegulation Law hasbeen judicially acknowledged and sanctioned in Impalex AgenciesLtd.r.Republic(l)· Moreover,inanearliercase. namely. HousseinIrfanand 4 others and the Republic 20 (Minister of Commerce & Industry
(2). the Supreme Constitutional Court took the view that regulation of the importtradeisinanyeventapermissible causeforlimitation of thefreedom safeguarded by Art.25.1 ". 25 With duerespect, I agree andadopttheabove passage and the limitations imposed on the importation of weighing machines are pan of the governing policy in the public interest,andfor theprotectionof thepublic.(See Sofoclides r.Republic 0986) 3C.L.R.1312- 1316; impalex Agencies 30 r. Republic
(1970)3C.L.R.361 andPsaras v.Ministry of Commerce and Industry
(1971)3C.L.R. 151. Therefore,I hold the view that there has been no violation of Article 25 of the Constitution. 35
(2)Whether Regulations 126 (Θ).
- 178 and 232 of the Weights and Measures Regulations 1981 are ultra vires ss. 28 and68of Weights andMeasures Laws No. 19/74 and75/
- The principles whether Regulations are ultra vires the 40 enabling law have been expounded in aseries of cases by the Supreme Court. (See, inter alia, Marangos v.Municipal 80 3 C.L.R. Siampetas v. Republic & Others Kourris, J. Committee of Famagusta
(1970)3 C.L.R. 7; Spyrou and Others v. Republic (Xo.2)
(1973)3 C.L.R. 627: Stavrou v. The Republic
(1976)3C.L.R.66; Michaeloudes v. Republic
(1979)3 C.L.R.56:Menicosv.Republic(\9&5) 3 C.L.R. 1130). 5 Inthecaseof Ethnikos v. K.O.A.
(1984)3 C.L.R. 1150.at p. 1156, itis stated: 10 "When asubsidiary legislation is examined with aviewto deciding onacontentionthatisultravires, theanswer tothis question depends, inevery case, on thetrue construction of therelevant enabling power concerned." Thesubordinate legislation, inordertobevalid, mustbeintra 15 vires the statute which authorised the making of it. If the sub judice administrative decision was reached under a law. which includes public instrument, which was not validly made, such decision has to be annulled and to be declared to be null and void. {Christodoulou v.Republic 1 R.S.C.C.1). 20 Section 28
(1)of Law 19/74 reads as follows:- 25 30 'ToΥπουργικόν ΣυμβούλιονδύναταιδιαΚανονισμών νακαθορίζη ταφυσικάχαρακτηριστικά,ύλην, σχήμα, μορφήνκαιλεπτομέρειαςκατασκευής,ανθεκτικότητα,αποδο τικότητα.καιενγένει ταςτεχνικάςκαιλοιπάςπροδιαγραφάς και λεπτομέρεια; κατασκευής και τα μέσα, μηχανι σμούς καιμεθόδουςή διαδικασίαν ελέγχου τούτωνκαι τα ανεκτά όρια σφαλμάτων ή διαφοράς ακριβείας, των εν κοινήχρήσει μέτρωνκαι σταθμών.' Section 68
(2)(θ) of thesame law reads as follows:- 35 40 'τα φυσικάχαρακτηριστικά, την μορφήν,τας λεπτομερείαςκατασκευής,τα υλικά,τονεξοπλισμόν,τα όρια ανοχής, τηναποδοτικότητα,τηναντοχήν,ταςμεθόδουςή διαδικα σίαςτωνπειραμάτωνελέγχου ενσχέσει προςπρότυπαμέ τραή σταθμά-'. Inviewof thewording of thesaidsections. I amsatisfiedthat the said regulations are intravires the enabling section 28 and 68<2)(θ). 81 Kourris, J. Siampetas v.Republic &Others
(1989)
(3)Violation ofArticle 28 of the Constitution. Counsel for the applicant contended that the sub judice decision contravenes Article 2S of the Constitution because there is an inequality with regard to the marketing of weighing 5 machines. Article 28 of the Constitution was the subject of a recourse as far back as in 1961 in the case of Mikrommatis v. The Republic! R.S.C.C 125.where at p. 131it isstated:10 "In the opinion of the Court the term 'equal before the law' in paragraph 1of Article 28 does not convey the notion of exact arithmetical equality but it safeguards only against arbitrary differentiations and does not exclude reasonable 15 distinctions which have to be made in view of the intrinsic nature of things. Likewise, the term 'discrimination' in paragraph 2 of Article 28 does not exclude reasonable distinctions as aforesaid." 20 Applicant failed to substantiate thispoint because he didnot produce to the Court any material indicating that the Director of Weights and Measures granted a permit to any other person to import any weighing machines similar to the machines imported by the applicant and allow him to put them on the 25 market. Therefore, thispoint fails. With regard to the points raised by applicant that there has been nodueinquiryandnosufficient reasoning ofthesubjudice decision,thisiswithout substance andfails. 30 From the totality of the material before me, I am satisfied that there has been due inquiry and sufficient reasoning of the sub judice decision. 35 For allthesereasons,therecoursefails andintheexerciseof my discretion I order applicant to pay costs. Costs to be assessed bythe Registrar. Recourse dismissed with costs 40 againstapplicant. 82