Cyprus Supreme Court upholds advertising control law as necessary for town planning and public interest.

[*10] 1962 January 15

(December 15, 1961, January 15, 1962)

IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 144 OF THE CONSTITUTION,

AND

IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE BY THE DISTRICT COURT of Nicosia in Criminal Case No. 12293/61, POLICE and LANITIS BROS LTD., (COCA-COLA),

NICOSIA.

(Case No. 134/61).

Display of Advertisements (Control) Law, Cap. 50 — Sections 4, 5 and 6, not unconstitutional — Arts. 23 & 25 — Point of sale advertisements.

Absolute prohibition — Necessary for “town and country planning”, Art. 23.3 — Necessary “in the public interest”, Art. 25.2.

At the hearing of criminal proceedings instituted before the District Court of Nicosia by the Police against Lanitis Bros. Ltd., (Coca-Cola) of Nicosia, for displaying an advertisement on a hoarding without a permit from the District Officer, contrary to the provisions of sections 4(b),

6 & 14 of the Display of Advertisements (Control) Law, Cap. 50, and the Display of Advertisements Regulations, 1958*, counsel for the accused raised the question of the unconstitutionality of the provisions of sections 4,

5 & 6 of Cap. 50, which was referred to this Court as follows

“Whether the provisions of sections 4, 5 & 6 of the Display of Advertisements (Control) Law, Cap. 50 are unconstitutional in view of Articles 23 and 25(1)(2) of the Constitution in that under the provisions of the said sections, as they now stand, no advertisement other than a ‘point of sale advertisement' may lawfully be displayed in any area other than the area of a municipal corporation or an Improvement Area contrary to the provisions of Articles 23 and 25(1)(2) of the Constitution".

Held : (a) legislative provisions such as those in sections 4. 5 and 6 of the Display of Advertisements (Control) Law, Cap. 50, which amounted to restrictions or limitations absolutely necessary in the interest of “town and country planning”, in the sense of Art. 23.3, were neither contrary to, nor inconsistent with, the provisions of Art. 23;

(b) the absolute prohibition on the display of all advertisements, other than “point of sale advertisements”, in non-urban areas, contained in sections 4, 5 & 6 of Cap. 50, was neither contrary to, nor inconsistent with, the provisions of Art. 25, as such absolute prohibition was necessary “in the public interest” in terms of Art. 25.2.

A. Triantafyllides for the Accused.

A. E. Munir, Counsel of the Republic, for the Police [*11]

Cur. Adv. Vult.

January, 15. The Decision of the Court was read by :

FORSTHOFF, P. : The Court declares —

†The provisions of sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Display of Advertisements (Control) Law, CAP 50, are not unconstitutional as being contrary to, or inconsistent with, Article 23 or Article 25.

This is a reference from the District Court of Nicosia dated the 9th November, 1961, and made under the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article 144 of the Constitution during the hearing of criminal case No. 12293/61. It was received in the Registry of this Court on the 13th November, 1961, and was heard on the 15th December, 1961.

The question, as reserved for the Decision of this Court, is as follows: -

“Whether the provisions of sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Display of Advertisements (Control) Law (CAP 50) are unconstitutional in view of Articles 23 and 25 (1) (2) of the Constitution in that under the provisions of the said sections, as they now stand, no advertisement other than a ‘point of sale advertisement’ may lawfully be displayed in any area other than the area of a municipal corporation or an Improvement Area contrary to the provisions of Articles 23 and 25(1) (2) of the Constitution”.

Section 4 of the Display of Advertisements (Control) Law, CAP 50, prohibits the display of advertisements, other than those exempted by section 3 thereof, except in accordance with the provisions of section 5 or section 6 of the said Law.

Section 5 of CAP 50 makes provision for the erection, within the areas of municipal corporations and Improvement Boards, of hoardings on which advertisements may be displayed under the Law, and section 6 of CAP 50 makes provision for the display of advertisements on any land G directly relating to the particular business, profession, trade or work carried on by the advertiser on such land. Such advertisements are referred to in CAP 50 as “point of sale advertisements”.

Thus, the display of any advertisement, other than “point of sale advertisements”, in any area other than the area of a municipal corporation or the area of an Improvement Board, is absolutely prohibited under the provisions of CAP 50.

Paragraph 3 of Article 23 of the Constitution provides [*12] that restrictions or limitations which are absolutely necessary in the interest, inter alia, of “town and country planning” may be imposed by law on the exercise of the right to property which is safeguarded by the said Article 23.

In the opinion of the Court legislative provisions such as those contained in sections 4, 5 and 6 of CAP 50, which regulate and control the display of advertisements, are rest- ) rictions or limitations which are absolutely necessary in the interest of “town and country planning” in the sense of paragraph 3 of Article 23.

The regulation and control of the display of advertisements such as is effected by CAP 50 is in line with modern town and country planning practice.

As it is not within the scope of this reference the Court leaves open the question whether a restriction or limitation of the nature imposed by sections 4, 5 and 6 of CAP 50 would result in a material decrease of the economic value of property, in the sense of paragraph 3 of Article 23, or would merely prevent an increase of such economic value.

Paragraph 2 of Article 25 of the Constitution provides that the exercise of the right safeguarded by paragraph 1 thereof may be made subject to such formalities, conditions or restrictions as are prescribed by law and are, inter alia, “necessary in the public interest”.

The Court is of the opinion that an absolute prohibition of the display of all advertisements, other than “point of sale advertisements”, in non-urban areas of the Republic, such as the prohibition contained in sections 4, 5 and 6 of CAP 50, is necessary in the public interest generally in as much as it protects and prevents the scenery and amenities of the countryside from being spoiled by advertisements. In the opinion of the Court such absolute prohibition is necessary in the public interest because anything short of that would not sufficiently protect the public interest in this respect.

*P.I. 331, Supplnt. No. 3, Cyprus Gazette No. 4134 of 22/5/58.