Newsroom
The Supreme Court has rejected an appeal by a German woman accused of illegally using Greek Cypriot property in the occupied areas, allowing criminal proceedings against her to continue.
In a unanimous decision on Monday, the Supreme Court upheld an earlier ruling refusing her permission to challenge an interim decision of the Criminal Court through a writ of certiorari, a legal procedure used to challenge certain court decisions.
The case centers on allegations involving fraudulent real estate transactions involving another person’s property, as well as the illegal possession and use of land belonging to Greek Cypriots in occupied Kyrenia.
The legal dispute before the Supreme Court was not about the substance of the charges but about a procedural issue involving four European investigation orders issued by the Nicosia District Court to obtain evidence from German authorities. The orders had already been submitted as evidence during the criminal proceedings.
The defense argued that the warrants were invalid because they were issued by the District Court, claiming that the Criminal Court hearing the case should have been the court responsible for issuing them.
However, the Criminal Court rejected that argument, ruling that it did not have the authority to review decisions made by another lower court.
The Supreme Court agreed, stating that both District Courts and Criminal Courts are courts of first instance and that one cannot overturn or review decisions made by another court of the same level.
“It is not intended that a court of equal instance examine, revise, annul, or differentiate decisions of other courts of equal instance,” the ruling stated.
The Supreme Court also noted that the defendant had other legal options available if she wanted to challenge the European Investigation Orders, including an appeal or a direct application for a writ of certiorari against the orders themselves.
Instead, the court said, the defense had attempted to have the warrants cancelled through the criminal court, a court that did not have the power to rule on their validity.
The defense had argued that it could not appeal the orders within the required 10-day period because they were only notified to the defendant months after they were issued.
The Supreme Court said it did not need to examine that issue because the appeal before it did not concern the cancellation of the European Investigation Orders themselves. Even if the Criminal Court’s interim decision had been overturned, the warrants would have remained valid.
Concluding its ruling, the Supreme Court agreed with the first-instance decision that no legal issue had been raised that would justify granting permission for the challenge and dismissed the appeal as unfounded.
