The Supreme Constitutional Court rejected the request by the eight community councils to grant leave to appeal to a higher court, as part of the legal dispute over the relocation of an asphalt production plant to Mitsero, ruling that the conditions for the court to hear the case had not been met. The communities’ main appeal against the approval of the zoning permit remains pending before the Administrative Court of Appeals.
The unanimous decision was issued today, Thursday, and concerns the petition filed by the community councils of Mitsero, Agrokipia, Agios Ioannis Nicosia, Kato Moni, Aredio, Menikou, Malounda, and Orounda, seeking the annulment of the Urban Planning Authority’s decision, dated March 24, 2022, which approved the relocation of Prometheas Asphalt Ltd.’s asphalt production plant from the Tseri area to the administrative boundaries of the community of Mitsero.
ΣΧΕΤΙΚΑ ΑΡΘΡΑ
The communities had challenged the approval of the urban planning permit with an appeal, which was rejected on February 5, 2026. This was followed by an appeal to the Administrative Court of Appeals, in which the community councils requested a temporary suspension of the permit and the issuance of an order prohibiting work on its implementation until the appeal was heard.
The Administrative Court of Appeals rejected the request on June 16, 2026, ruling that the evidence submitted did not substantiate, to the required standard, the risk of irreparable harm to public health or the environment resulting from the plant’s operation. The municipal councils subsequently appealed to the Supreme Constitutional Court, seeking leave to have the case reviewed in a third instance.
In their petition, they argued, among other things, that the Administrative Court of Appeals’ decision deviates from established case law, that it introduced a new condition for issuing a preliminary injunction, and that issues of public interest are raised, as the case concerns the protection of health and the environment. The Republic and the company argued that the conditions for granting a permit to trigger the jurisdiction of the Supreme Constitutional Court were not substantiated.
Subsequently, the Court ruled that the petition did not raise a legal issue that would justify the exercise of its jurisdiction in the third instance. As stated in its decision, “the purpose is not to review the correctness of the Administrative Court of Appeals’ decision,” clarifying that specific legal requirements must be substantiated, rather than merely a disagreement with the judgment of the lower court.
Regarding the Administrative Court of Appeals’ assessment of the evidence, the Supreme Constitutional Court noted that the court had concluded that the risk of irreparable harm had not been substantiated “at least to the level of a reasonable likelihood.” It further added that the European case law invoked by the petitioners does not require the automatic granting of interim relief regardless of the facts of each case.
The Court also pointed out that this specific procedure “does not concern or determine the substantive rights of the parties involved,” which, as it noted, will be determined in the context of the pending appeal before the Administrative Court of Appeals, for which instructions have been issued for a prompt hearing.
“As a result of the foregoing, the conditions for granting leave to proceed before the Supreme Constitutional Court have not been established,” it concluded, rejecting the application in question.
Source: CNA
