Court upheld Social Insurance Law penalty as constitutional and not disproportionate to offence.

[*289] 1985 May 6

(MILTIADOU, D.J.)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OP PAPHOS

The Director of Social Insurance,

v.

1. Kronos Investments (P.& A.Philippou Ltd.),

2. Polycarpos Philippou,

Accused.

(Case No. 7436/84).

Constitutional Law - Constitutionality of Statutes - A statute is presumed to be constitutional, until the contrary is proved beyond all reasonable doubt.

Constitutional Law - The Social Insurance Law 1980 - Section 80 - The penalty therein provided is not disproportionate to the gravity of the offence and, therefore, it does not offend Art. 12.3 of the Constitution - The submission that the section contravenes Articles 30,46,61, 152 and 153 of the Constitution is groundless.

A. Efstathiou for the. Prosecution

P. Philippou, for Accused No. 1

Accused No. 2 present.

JUDGMENT

The following judgment was delivered by:

MILTIADOU.D.J.: Accused No.1 is a Limited [*290] Company, while Accused, No 2 is its Director. Both the above accused are jointly charged with six different charges regarding contraventions against the Social Insurance Law and other similar Laws. They pleaded guilty on five of the said charges, but, they have pleaded Not Guilty on Count No.2, that, they did fail to pay the additional duty contrary to sections 73(1) (6), 80(1) (2) (4) (9), 81, 48 and 90 (1) of the Social Insurance law 1980 and regulations 11 and 24 of The Social Insurance (Contributions) Regulations 1980.

To prove the above charge the Prosecution called one witness, namely, P.W.1 Nicos Stylianou, an Insurance Inspector, who said that the accused as employers failed to pay the contributions which they were bound to pay for the months May-August, 1983, and in consequence thereof, they are bound to pay the sum of C£54.20 cent additional duty which they failed to pay.

The said witness was not cross-examined by the accused and none of the above accused gave evidence or called any witness to their defence, but, alleged, that section 80 of the Social Insurance Law 1980 is unconstitutional, because it contravenes the provisions of Articles 12,30,46,61,152 and 153 of the Constitution of the Republic of Cyprus.

They alleged, that, the imposition of additional duty on the amount of the contributions due by them to the Social Insurance Fund is a punishment and -

(a) Only a Court of Law and not an organ of the Executive can do so; [*291]

(b) Such imposition is against Natural Justice.

It is really surprising, if the provisions of section 80 of the above Law 41 of 1980 are unconstitutional as alleged by the accused, as regards Count 2 to which they pleaded Not Guilty, why, then, they did plead Guilty on Count 1 since both above Counts 1 and 2 are founded on the same above section 80 of Law 41 of 1980.

As stressed in the case of The Attorney-General of the Republic v. Imbrahim, 1964 C.L.R. 195 at p. 232, “it is a basic principle of Constitutional Law that the utmost

restrain should be exercised by Courts in approaching the issue of the alleged unconstitutionality of a statute and, that, in a case of doubt, a Court should lean in favour of the validity of such statute, because a statute is presumed to be constitutional until the contrary is proved beyond all reasonable doubt.” (See also The Board .for Registration of Architects & Civil Engineers v. Kyriakides

(1966) 3 C.L.R. 640 at p. 654 and Savvas Raftis & Co. Ltd. v. Municipality of Paphos (1982) 2 C.L.R. p. 1 at p. 6).

Section 80 of the Social Insurance Law, 1980, is the section, which provides the penalty for the contraventions therein mentioned and does not provide in any way, for the imposition of additional duty on the amount of the contribution due by the accused to the Social Insurance Fund. I, therefore, find the accuseds’ allegations that section 80 is unconstitutional for those reasons as completely groundless and I reject them. [*292]

Finally, as regards the allegation of the accused that, said section 80 of Law 41 of 198O is unconstitutional because it offends against the provisions of Article 12.3 of the Constitution of the Republic of Cyprus, though, no reasons were put forward, by the accused to prove their above allegation, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the penalty therein provided is not disproportionate to the gravity of the offences charged and I find said section constitutional.

In the result, I find that the prosecution has proved its case against both the accused on Count. 2 beyond all reasonable doubt and I find them guilty on Count No.2.

Accused found guilty on count No.2.