The former priest sought to obtain permission to challenge, through a special writ of certiorari, the decision of the Cyprus Bar Association to strike him from the Bar Register.

The Supreme Court’s decision did not concern his removal from the Bar Register itself, but rather whether that specific decision by the Cyprus Bar Association could be challenged through the special writ of certiorari.

Specifically, following the decision by the Board of Directors of the Cyprus Bar Association to proceed with his removal, effective immediately upon notification of the decision in March 2026, the petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court, requesting permission to file a certiorari petition.

He argued that the Cyprus Bar Association lacked the authority to proceed with his disbarment and that the procedure followed violated the principles of natural justice and due process.

The Supreme Court, however, ruled that the fundamental issue before it was not whether the Bar Association’s decision was disciplinary or quasi-judicial in nature, but whether it had jurisdiction to review it via certiorari.

“In the case at hand, the question was not whether the contested decision of the Cyprus Bar Association constituted a quasi-judicial act, but (…) whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to set it aside by means of a writ of certiorari,” the decision states.

The Court held that, following the introduction of Article 32A into the Lawyers’ Law, decisions of the Council of the Cyprus Bar Association may be challenged before a District Court within 12 months of the date of their issuance.

“We consider that the above legislative provision is sufficiently clear, leaving no room for misinterpretation of the legislature’s intent to grant the District Court jurisdiction to review the decisions of the Council of the Cyprus Bar Association,” the Supreme Court notes.

The Court also rejected the argument that the reference in Article 32A to “an action or application before a court” permitted the decision to be challenged by way of certiorari.

“Nowhere in the text of Article 32A of Chapter 2 that it was the legislature’s intention to grant the authority to challenge decisions of the Council of the Pan-Cyprian Bar Association by means of a special writ of certiorari,” it added.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court ruled that the lower court’s decision was “entirely correct and fully reasoned” and dismissed the appeal.

It should be noted that the case had previously been before the courts after the former priest was admitted to the Bar, despite the fact that he had been convicted in a drug-related case. This was followed by proceedings initiated by the Cyprus Bar Association, which led to his removal from the Bar.

Source: CNA