On Monday, the Supreme Court rejected the appeal of the German woman accused of misappropriating Greek Cypriot properties in the occupied territories, upholding the decision not to grant leave to challenge, via a writ of certiorari, an interim ruling by the Criminal Court regarding European Investigation Orders.

In its unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the Criminal Court had correctly determined that it lacked jurisdiction to review the validity of four European Investigation Orders, which had been issued by the Nicosia District Court for the collection of evidence from the German authorities and had already been submitted as evidence in the criminal proceedings.

It should be noted that the defendant faces charges relating, among other things, to fraudulent transactions involving real estate belonging to another party, as well as the illegal possession and use of land in occupied Kyrenia.

The case reached the Supreme Court following a procedural issue that arose during the criminal trial. Specifically, the defense challenged the validity of the four European Investigation Orders, arguing that they were issued by the Nicosia District Court, whereas, in its view, the Criminal Court hearing the case was the competent authority to issue them.

The Criminal Court rejected the claim, ruling that it lacked jurisdiction to review the validity of decisions made by another court of first instance. Subsequently, the defendant unsuccessfully attempted to obtain leave to challenge this interim decision through a writ of certiorari, which led to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court noted that both the Criminal Courts and the District Courts are courts of first instance and, therefore, one cannot review the decisions of the other.

As stated in the decision, “it is inconceivable for a court of the same level to examine, review, overturn, or modify the decisions of other courts of the same level.”

The Court further noted that the defendant had specific legal remedies at her disposal to challenge the European Investigation Orders, either by filing an appeal or, if the conditions were met, by filing a motion for a writ of certiorari against the warrants themselves.

Instead, as the Supreme Court notes, “he impermissibly sought to have the European Investigation Orders in question annulled by the Criminal Court,” which, however, “under no circumstances could have ruled on anything concerning their validity.”

The defense argued that it was not possible to file an appeal within the ten-day deadline provided by law, because the European Investigation Orders were served on the defendant several months after they were issued.

The Supreme Court, however, ruled that it was not necessary to examine this issue, nor whether an extension of the relevant deadline could be granted, since the subject matter of the proceedings was not the annulment of the European Investigation Orders themselves.

In fact, it added that even if the Criminal Court’s interim decision were annulled, “the warrants would remain valid,” as they were not the subject of the appeal.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court agreed with the lower court’s ruling that “no prima facie case or debatable issue had been revealed to justify granting the requested leave” and dismissed the appeal as unfounded.

Source: CNA