Supreme Court dismisses appeal upholding constitutionality of 'Architect by profession' distinction under Law 41 of 1962.

[*902] 1966 June 30

(ZEKIA, P., VASSILIADES, MUNIR, JOSEPHIDES, JJ.)

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Joseph HadjiLoukas,

Appellant-Applicant,

and

The Board for Registration of

Architects and Civil Engineers,

Respondent.

(Revisional Jurisdiction Appeal No.7).

Architects and Civil Engineers - Constitution of Cyprus - Constitutionality of sections 7 and 9 of the Architects and Civil Engineers Law 1962 (Law 41 of 1962) - "Architect" and "Architect by profession", sections 7 and 9(1)A of the Law - Designation "Architect by profession" not unconstitutional - Not contravening Articles 25.2 and 28 of the Constitution - Sections 7 and 9 of the Law constitutional - Judgment in The Board for Registration of Architects and Civil Engineers v. Kyriakides (1966) J.S.C. 880, followed.

Constitutional Law - Constitution of Cyprus, Articles 25.2 and 28 - Sections 7 and 9 of the Architects and Civil Engineers Law 1962 (Law 41 of 1962) not unconstitutional.

A. Triantafyllides, for the Appellant,

Lellos Demetriades, for the Respondent,

Cr. Tomaritis, Attorney-General of the Republic, with L. Loucaides, Counsel of the Republic, as amici curiae.

JUDGMENT

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by:-

VASSILIADES. J.: This appeal turns mainly on the same questions of law which have been decided in Revisional Appeal No.9 (The

Board for Registration of Architects and Civil Engineers v, Christodoulos Kyriakides)* wherein [*903] Judgment has just been

delivered. The legal aspect of the case, turning on the constitutionality of Sections 7 and 9 of the Architects and Civil Engineers Law, is thoroughly discussed and decided in the elaborate decisions of the learned trial Judge in that recourse, pronounced on April 14, 1965 and December 11, 1965;* and in the Judgment of this Court in Revisional Appeal No. 9There is nothing which can he usefully added, we think, on the legal aspect of this appeal, where the same questions of law arise.

The present appeal, however, has to he decided on its own particular facts and merits.

The remedy sought by the Applicant in the recourse is for "a declaration that the act or decision of the Board for Registration of Architects and Civil Engineers, dated 26.10.63, whereby they have refused to grant to the Applicant a permit to become or to be registered as an 'Architect' within the provisions of Section 7 of Law 41 of 1962, is null and void and of no effect". Pending the recourse, the applicant was granted by the Board, at his request, registration and a licence under section 9(1)A, of the statute as an 'Architect by profession', which description, the Applicant contends, amounts to 'unconstitutionality' as it reflects upon him a distinction from the description of 'architect' to which he maintains that he is entitled, after some 30 years of practice in that profession in Cyprus, since 1932.

The learned trial Judge deals carefully and exhaustively with that matter, and reaches the conclusion that " ...... describing a person licensed under [*904] paragraph A (of section 9) as an architect by profession, is a reasonable differentiation in view of the difference in qualifications between such a person and a person registered under section 7". (Page 10 of the Judgment, at page 71, H, of the record). And a little further down in the next page (72, D,), he says that "the particular designation viz. architect by profession, imports a reasonable differentiation and a substantially accurate one too, and it does not contravene at all Article 28 of the Constitution, because it is a reasonable distinction due to the intrinsic nature of things (Mikromatis and The Republic, 2 R.S.C.C. page 125). Moreover, such designation comes within the ambit of paragraph 2 of Article 25. It was reasonably open to the legislative authority to regard the differentiation in style between registered architects and civil engineers on the one hand, and architects by profession on the other, as a necessary restriction in the interests, inter alia, of public safety and public interest jointly and, in the circumstances, I am not entitled or prepared to interfere with the legislative discretion as exercised in this respect". (Page 72 D-H of the record).

As stated in the relative part of the Judgment in Kyriakides case (Revisional Jurisdiction Appeal No,9)*we are in complete agreement with this part of the Judgment of the learned trial Judge; and therefore the cross-appeal of the applicant in this recourse, who has already been granted a licence to practise as an 'Architect by profession' and has, in fact, been doing so for a considerable time now, must fail. [*905]

Following Kyriakides case and for the reasons given in the Judgment therein just read (Revisional Jurisdiction Appeal No.9) the appeal of the Board regarding the Constitutional validity of sections 7 and 9 of the Architects and Civil Engineers Law 1962, for the purposes of the present recourse, succeeds. In the circumstances there being no other matter for decision in this case (No.231/63) we think we can dispose finally of the matter, dismissing the recourse.

There will be judgment and order accordingly. With no order for costs.

Appeal dismissed.

No order as to costs.

* Published ante, at p. 880.

* Note: Decisions published in (1965)4 J.S.C. 329 and_ (1965)

12 J.S.C. 1262,respectively, under the name "Kyriakides and The Council for Registration of Architects and Civil Engineers."

Note: Published ante, at p. 880.

* Vide ante, at p. 880.