MVP

Tag: Supreme Court

  • Azeri national — Cyprus Supreme Court Upholds Arrest Warrant for Azeri National in Espionage Case

    Azeri national — Cyprus Supreme Court Upholds Arrest Warrant for Azeri National in Espionage Case

    The Cyprus Supreme Court has upheld the arrest warrant for an Azeri national, detained since June 2025, on suspicion of terrorism and espionage involving British military bases.

    • The Cyprus Supreme Court has upheld the arrest warrant for an Azeri national, detained since June 2025, on suspicion of terrorism and espionage involving British military bases.

    Azeri national: Legal Ruling on Arrest Warrant

    The Supreme Court’s decision came after an appeal was lodged by the suspect’s lawyer, Efstathios Efstathiou, challenging the validity of the warrants issued on 21 June 2025. The appeal argued that the warrants were based on unreliable intelligence and that the court had failed to apply the necessary scrutiny for information deemed anonymous or secret.

    Dismissal of the Appeal

    In its ruling, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, asserting that the District Court had acted within legal parameters and conducted a thorough assessment of the evidence. The court clarified that the intelligence gathered was from a “foreign collaborating service” rather than an unreliable third country, which was crucial in justifying the warrants.

    Charges Against the Suspect

    The charges against the Azeri national include conspiracy to commit a felony and various offences under the Law on Combating Terrorism. The Supreme Court highlighted that initial intelligence suggested the suspect was gathering information regarding foreign military presence and potentially organising a terrorist attack.

    Intelligence and Surveillance

    Crucially, the Supreme Court noted that the intelligence was corroborated by subsequent physical surveillance conducted by Cypriot authorities. This combination of intelligence and observation led the court to conclude that there was sufficient justification for the issuance of the warrants.

    Statements from the Court

    The Supreme Court stated, “We judge that the trial court conducted a comprehensive and correct assessment of the totality of the evidence and evaluated every relevant element to conclude that the issuance of the warrants was justified.” This assertion reinforces the court’s confidence in the legal processes followed in the case.

    International Implications

    The case highlights the complex interplay between national security and international relations, particularly concerning allegations of espionage linked to foreign entities. The involvement of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) in the case has raised concerns about broader implications for regional security.

    Ongoing Developments

    As the case proceeds, it remains to be seen how the legal proceedings will unfold and whether further developments may arise that could impact the suspect’s status or the broader context of espionage in Cyprus.

    Community Reaction

    The case has sparked interest and concern within the local community and among legal experts, prompting discussions about the balance between civil liberties and national security. The ongoing scrutiny of intelligence practices and legal standards in such cases is likely to continue as the situation develops.

  • Sexual harassment — Supreme Court Rules in Favour of Woman Dismissed After Reporting Sexual Harassment

    Sexual harassment — Supreme Court Rules in Favour of Woman Dismissed After Reporting Sexual Harassment

    The Supreme Court has awarded €37,700 to a woman fired by the Electricity Authority of Cyprus scientific staff union after she filed a sexual harassment complaint against one of its executive members.

    • The court upheld her appeal and overturned a previous Labour Disputes Court decision that had rejected her claim, ruling that the union failed to ensure a fair and impartial investigation process.
    • The Labour Disputes Court initially rejected her application, asserting that her dismissal was not due to the complaint itself but rather her behaviour during the investigation process.

    The court upheld her appeal and overturned a previous Labour Disputes Court decision that had rejected her claim, ruling that the union failed to ensure a fair and impartial investigation process.

    This case originated from an application filed in 2009 under the 1967 Annual Leave with Pay Law and the 2002 Equal Treatment of Men and Women in Employment Law. The woman, who was hired as a secretary in 2000, claimed she was unlawfully dismissed after being fired without notice on 31 July 2008.

    On 19 June 2008, she made a formal complaint stating that an executive committee member had been sexually harassing her for years. Following her complaint, the executive committee initiated an investigation on 23 June 2008, adhering to its code of practice for handling sexual harassment cases. The implicated official was informed he would not take part in the investigation.

    During the investigation meeting, the woman requested to have three supporters accompany her while giving testimony, a request that was granted. However, the minutes from the meeting indicated that her behaviour was perceived as confrontational, leading to her being placed on paid leave.

    After being given deadlines to present evidence to support her claims, the union concluded on 22 July 2008 that her complaint was “unfounded, unsubstantiated, and false,” and subsequently dismissed her on 31 July 2008, the same day she was summoned to respond but did not attend.

    The Labour Disputes Court initially rejected her application, asserting that her dismissal was not due to the complaint itself but rather her behaviour during the investigation process.

    Upon reviewing the case, the Supreme Court determined that the union had an obligation to conduct a fair and impartial investigation, particularly since one of its officials was the subject of the complaint. The court found that the principle of impartiality was not upheld, rendering the summary dismissal unlawful. As a result, the court did not explore other grounds for appeal, as the violation of impartiality was sufficient for the judgement.

    The court awarded the woman €37,700, along with legal interest from the date of the initial decision and costs in her favour for both the first instance and the appeal. No costs order was issued against the respondent, marking a significant ruling in her favour.