Newsroom / CNA
In a recent ruling, the Court of Appeal has upheld the conviction of a man fined for refusing to wear a protective face mask during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, delivering a firm blow to challenges against public health regulations imposed under emergency powers.
The appellant, whose identity has not been disclosed, was convicted in 2022 and fined €1,350 for failing to comply with pandemic-era mask mandates. The offense took place on December 29, 2020, on Stasikratous Street in central Nicosia, under Article 2.8 of the Quarantine (Determination of Measures to Prevent the Spread of Coronavirus COVID-19) Order (No. 52) of 2020 (P.I. 520/20).
In his appeal, the man launched a broad attack on the legal basis of the public health order itself, arguing that the decree had been issued ultra vires, or beyond the government’s legal authority. He also accused the lower court of mishandling his testimony and misinterpreting the law, claiming that his act of smoking should have exempted him from the mask requirement.
The Court of Appeal was unequivocal in its rejection of all four grounds of appeal, dismissing the claims as unfounded and reaffirming the legitimacy of both the regulation and its enforcement.
“The appellant assumes that, since he was smoking at the time of the alleged offense, it was reasonable for his protective mask to be lowered,” the Court noted. “However, the version of events involving smoking and mask usage was not accepted by the trial court. With the rejection of the appellant’s version of the facts, the entire argument of reasonableness collapses.”
Challenging the €1,350 fine as “manifestly excessive,” the appellant found no sympathy from the bench. The Court underscored that the penalty was proportionate and that there was “no reason to interfere with the assessment of the testimony,” affirming that the trial judge’s credibility findings were neither baseless nor irrational.
The appeal also alleged judicial bias and a violation of the presumption of innocence, citing repeated court appearances as a form of undue hardship. The appellate judges dismissed the charge, calling the argument “legally unfounded” and affirming that “no undue hardship is evident” in the trial record.
With this unanimous decision, the Court of Appeal sent a clear message: pandemic regulations, even those contested after the fact, carry full legal weight, and attempts to undermine them through post hoc reinterpretation will not be entertained.
