|
ΠΑΓΚΥΠΡΙΟΣ ΔΙΚΗΓΟΡΙΚΟΣ ΣΥΛΛΟΓΟΣ
|
|
|
(1988) 3 CLR 1700
1988 August 31
[A. LOIZOU, P.]
IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 146 OF THE CONSTITUTION,
ALEXANDRA CHRISTODOULOU CHRISTOPHI,
Applicant,
v.
THE AGRICULTURAL INSURANCE ORGANISATION,
Respondent.
(Case No. 778/86).
Experts—Appreciation of facts in matter within their sphere—Judicial control—Principles applicable—Correctness from scientific aspect—Cannot be examined by this Court.
Constitutional Law—Right to recourse before a Court—Constitution, Art.30—The Agricultural Insurance Regulations, 1977, Reg.11l(10)and(11)—Whether the finality expressed therein offends Article 30—Such finality refers to the conclusiveness of the action of the administration, but does not purport to take away the right to recourse to this Court.
Reasoning of an administrative act—Due reasoning—What constitutes due reasoning.
Recourse dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Cases referred to:
HjiMichael v. The Republic (1972) 3 C.L.R. 246;
Michanicosv.TheRepublic(1976) 3 C.L.R. 237;
Republic v. Georghiades(1972) 3 C.L.R/ 594;
Michaelides and Another v.The Attorney-General (1978) 3 C.L.R: 285;
Cytechno v.The Republic (1976) 3 C.L.R. 407;
Pitsillides v.The Republic (1978) 3 C.L.R. 99;
Eraclidou v.The Republic (1966) 3 C.L.R. 44;
Hoppiv.TheRepublic(1972) 3 C.L.R. 269.
Recourse.
Recourse against the assessment of the damage caused to applicant's vineyards by hail.
P. Soteriou, for the applicant.
Ch. Kyriakides, Counsel of the Republic, for the respondent.
Cur.adv. vult.
A. LOIZOU P. read the following judgment. By the present recourse the applicant challenges the vadility of the decision of the respondent Organisation regarding the assessment of the damage caused by hail to her vineyards.
The applicant is the registered owner of two vineyards, one under Registration No. 8313, Plot 893 of an extent of seven donums and the other under Registration No. 7990, Plot 233 of an extent of two donums and one evlek situated at locality "Skaloua" of the village of Arminou.
On the 13th of May 1986 a hailstorm occurred in the village of Arminou and both these vineyards were damaged. In accordance with Regulation 7 of the Agricultural Insurance Regulations 1977 published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of that year, supplement III (1) at p. 495, applications were submitted by all concerned including the applicant.
The assessment of damage was carried out between the 27th May 1986 and 5th July 1986 and after the assessments were completed the conclusions of such assessments were posted on the 20th August 1986.
Objections were submitted as provided by Regulation 11 and the reassessments were carried out in accordance with the said Regulation by two other agriculturists-assessors on the 13th September 1986. During the reassessment it was ascertained and pointed out to the husband of the applicant that their vineyard, apart from the damage from the hail, had also a severe attack from mildew (στάχτη) and votritis (βοτρίτις) and was affected by the drought, that is categories of damage which are not covered by the respondent Organisation. On the basis of this ascertainment and the reassessment made by the said experts, their conclusion was communicated to the applicant. For the purpose of their reassessment, they had collected the following facts,-which obviously are their reasoning;
(a)The applicant together with the husband cultivates in all 43 donums of vineyards.
(b)In 1984 which was a normal crop year for vineyards had a crop of 16,500 okes.
(c)In 1985 which was considered a year of exceptional crop they had 25,450 okes.
(d) In 1986 which was considered a very bad year for the crops of vineyards with a reduction of the crops by about 30% to 35% they had a crop of 16,050 okes whereas the crop assessed by the respondent Organization as having been damaged by hail and compensated was 4,800 okes, which makes the total crop for the year 1986 as being 20,850 okes.
Their reassessment of the damage suffered from hail was 30% in respect of plot under Registration No. 8313, and 25% for the other one, whereas the damage assessed originally was 20% in both plots.
It is the case for the applicant that the respondent Organisation acted under a misconception of fact in as much as the authorised by the respondent Organisation assessor and the agriculturists-assessors carried out their assessment and reassessment of the damage of the vineyards of the applicant without applying «the necessary special knowledge of the agricultural science" as provided by Regulation 10 para. 1 of the Regulations, and "they used other methods and/or no methods and/or did not reassess the damage, but assessed same from a distance and/or in static way and/or in comparison with the damage which the adjacent vineyards or the vineyards of the area suffered". As a result of such assessments and reassessments, the respondent Organisation acted under a misconception of fact.
In support of these allegations there were filed an affidavit sworn by the husband of the applicant and a report of an agriculturist engaged in "Imports-Exports Wholesales", as it is stated in his letter heading addressed to the husband of the applicant.
It may conveniently be said here that the appreciation of the facts of a case, more so in the case where the matter falls within the sphere of experts, is within the province of the administration and this Court will not interfere and such appreciation cannot be the subject of a recourse unless there has been established an abuse or excess of power or that the administration has exceeded the limits of its discrection. SeeHjiMichaelv.The Republic (1972) 3 C.L.R. 246, Michanicosv.The Republic (1976) 3 C.L.R. 237, Republic v.Georghiades(1972) 3 C.L.R. 594, Michaelides and another v.The Attorney-General (1978) 3 C.L.R. 258, Cytechnov.Republic (1976) 3 C.L.R. 407, Pitsillidesv.The Republic(1978) 3 C.L.R. 99. In this last case it was held that the administrative Court cannot normally examine the correctness from the scientific aspect of a medical report submitted on an application for disability pension. Also in Eraclidouv.The Republic (1966) 3 C.L.R. 44 it was held that as regards findings of technical nature made by the administration the Court can only ex- amine whether in making such findings the administration acted in a proper manner from the point of view of constitutionality, legality and the principles governing excess or abuse of power.
In the case in hand nothing had been shown to suggest excess or abuse of power nor any misconception of fact; The expert agriculturists instructed by the respondent Organisation to carry out the re-assessment of the damage, visited the vineyard of the applicant and they even had a conversation with her husband about the damage from hail and the other causes.
The second ground of law relied upon is that Regulation 11 and in particular paragraphs (10) and (11) thereof, are contrary to the provisions of Article 30 of the Constitution as they declare the conclusion of the reassessment as final and conclusive and so deprive the insured of their right to have recourse to the Court to which they are entitled to have access under the said Article of the Constitution.
Though no further elaboration on this ground was made in the address of learned counsel for the applicant, yet I feel bound to pronounce on it because of its importance. The short answer to it is that the Regulation in question must be taken to refer to the conclusiveness of the administrative process and does not purport to take away the rights of a recourse to this Court under Article 146 of the Constitution. It speaks only of there being "no room for any objection when the provisions of the Regulation are complied with". This interpretation, no doubt, brings it in line with the said Article of the Constitution (Hoppiv.The Republic (1972) 3 C.L.R. 269).Needless to say that no objection whatsoever to the right of the applicant to proceed with her present re-course was raised by the respondent Organisation.
The third ground of Law relied upon by the applicant is that the sub-judice decision is not duly reasoned. What is due reasoning depends on the circumstances of each case and in the circumstances of the present case there appears to be proper reasoning. In fact by the aforementioned paragraph (10) of Regulation 11a particular Form is prescribed for setting out the conclusions of the reassessments in the same way as similar Forms are prescribed by paragraph (7) of Regulation 10 for those of the assessor.
For all the above reasons the sub-judice decision is confirmed and the recourse is dismissed but in the circumstances there will be no order as to costs.
Recourse dismissed.
No order as to costs.