|
ΠΑΓΚΥΠΡΙΟΣ ΔΙΚΗΓΟΡΙΚΟΣ ΣΥΛΛΟΓΟΣ
|
|
|
(1989) 3A CLR 491
1989 April 21
[DEMETRIADES, J.]
IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 146 OF THE CONSTITUTION.
SAVVAS PASTELLIS,
Applicant,
v.
THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS, THROUGH THE REVIEW
LICENSING AUTHORITY,
Respondent.
(Case No. 752/85)
Judicial control - Assessment of facts - Arbitrary, as being contrary to evidence - Annulment of sub judice act.
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 as his main occupation. As it appears from the relevant minutes the statement of the applicant that he had no other work and was, at the time, an unemployed person was not contradicted or questioned.
In the light of this fact the Court concluded that the conclusion of the respondents was an arbitrary one.
Sub judice decision annulled. No order as
to costs.
Recourse.
Recourse against the decision of the respondent annulling the decision of the Licensing Authority whereby four "Z" licences were granted to applicant.
A. Andreou, for the Applicant.
G. Erotokritou (Mrs), Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the Respondent.
Cur.adv. vult.
DEMETRIADES, J. read the following judgment. By this recourse the applicant challenges the decision of the Review Licensing Authority, which was communicated to him by letter dated the 4th July, 1985, and by which the decision of the Licensing Authority granting to him four "Z" licences was annulled.
It is to be noted that "Z" licences are those issued to persons entitled to own vehicles rented for self drive.
The applicant is a repatriated Cypriot who returned in 1981 for permanent residence here. On the 12th January, 1983, theapplicant applied to the Licensing Authority for ten "Z"licences, which, at its meeting of the 27th December, 1984, granted four "Z" licencesto him. Against this decision, seven hierarchical recourses by persons or companies whose interests were affected, were filed to the Review Licensing Authority.
As it appears from the facts before me, in September, 1984, the applicant started a business of a souvenir shop, which, however, he closed down in April 1985, as it was not a paying business.
At the hearing of the hierarchical recourses, which took place on the 7th May, 1985, all parties were heard and the applicant gave evidence stating that he had closed his shop and was unemployed.
The Review Licensing Authority, after considering the matter, allowed the recourses and annulled the decision of the Licensing Authority on the ground that it had Snot been persuaded that the applicant intended to have the business of "Z" cars as his main occupation.
By letter dated the 4th July, 1985, the applicant was informedaccordingly and as a result he filed the present recourse.
Counsel for the applicant argued that the sub judice decision is arbitrary and contrary to the evidence and that the facts which were before the Review Licensing Authority were not contradicted.
Counsel for the respondent Authority argued that the Authority had acted in accordance with the Law and that the sub judice decision was reasonably open to it.
The sub judice decision reads as follows:
"Η Αναθεωρητική Αρχή Αδειών αφού μελέτησε όλα τα στοιχεία των σχετικών φακέλλων και όλα όσα έχουν λεχθεί εκ μέρους των προσφευγόντων και του ενδιαφερομένου, αποφασίζει την αποδοχή των προσφυγών γιατί η Αναθεωρητική Αρχή Αδειών δεν έχει πεισθεί ότι ο κ. Παστελλής προτίθεται να ασκήσει την επιχείρηση ενοικιάσεως οχημάτων "Ζ" ως κύριο επάγγελμα."
("The Review Licensing Authority, having considered all the material in the relevant files and everything that has been said on the part of the applicants and the interested party, decides to allow the recourses because the Review Licensing Authority has not been persuaded that Mr. Pastellis intends to have the business of renting "Z" cars as his main occupation.")
As it appears from the record of their meeting the sole reason which led the respondent Authority in reaching the sub judice decision was that it had not been persuaded that the applicant was going to have the business of renting "Z" cars as his main occupation.
However, at the hearing of the hierarchical 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 the minutes of the hearing, the statement of the applicant that he had no other work and was an unemployed person at the time was not contradicted or questioned.
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 of the respondent Authority that the applicant did not intend to have the business of renting cars as his main occupation was unwarranted by the evidence before it and, therefore, arbitrary.
In the result, this recourse succeeds and the sub judice decision is hereby annulled with costs.
Sub judice decision annulled with
costs.