The Supreme Court rejected a petition filed by two Social Welfare Services officials seeking permission to file Certiorari and Prohibition writs, through which they sought to overturn the interim decision of the Nicosia District Court that allowed the acceptance of statements made by the late 14-year-old Stylianos Konstantinou as hearsay evidence and to stay the criminal proceedings until their motion was considered.

In its decision, dated July 17, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled that the petitioners were essentially challenging the correctness—and not the legality—of the interim decision of the Nicosia District Court, noting that such issues can be addressed through the appeal process rather than through the extraordinary procedure of ex parte orders.

The two petitioners, who are employees of the Social Welfare Services, face charges of dereliction of duty in connection with the criminal case concerning the death of the minor Stylianos Konstantinou. Their motion was filed following the District Court’s interim ruling on June 26, 2026, which rejected the defense’s objection and ruled that the deceased’s statements could be admitted as hearsay evidence.

In their appeal to the Supreme Court, they argued that the lower court had exceeded its jurisdiction and deviated from binding case law, requesting the issuance of the special writs of certiorari and prohibition, as well as a stay of the interim decision and/or the criminal proceedings themselves.

In its decision, the Supreme Court notes that writs of certiorari and prohibition are an exceptional form of judicial review and cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal. As it characteristically states, “the Court’s special jurisdiction is not suited to reviewing the correctness of the decision, nor can it function as an appeal in disguise.”

The Court further notes that, despite the petitioners’ assertions, “it is evident that what is being challenged by the petitioners is the correctness of the appealed decision,” as they are essentially seeking a review of the District Court’s ruling regarding the application of case law and the relevant legislation.

Referring to the interim decision of the District Court of Nicosia, the Supreme Court notes that the lower court had thoroughly examined both the applicable legal framework and the relevant Cypriot and European case law on hearsay evidence. It adds that the Nicosia District Court explained why, under the circumstances of this particular case, “such testimony is not ruled out a priori,” while its probative value will be assessed during the trial, taking into account the entirety of the evidence presented before the court.

The Supreme Court further notes that the petitioners themselves did not dispute that they have an alternative legal remedy, namely the right to file an appeal, arguing, however, that exceptional circumstances apply in their case because the Prosecution intends to call a large number of witnesses who will recount statements made by the deceased.

The Court, however, did not accept this position. As it states, “the challenge to the correctness of the appealed decision and the alleged violation of case law and legislation raised by the appellants do not, in and of themselves, constitute exceptional circumstances,” while adding that neither the assessment that the trial will be lengthy nor the Prosecution’s intention to present further witness testimony justify the invocation of exceptional jurisdictionjurisdiction.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court states that “it has not been demonstrated, to the extent required in applications of this kind, that there are grounds for granting the requested authorization.”

Accordingly, it rejected the request for permission to file a petition for the issuance of the special writs of certiorari and prohibition, as well as the request for a temporary order suspending the interim decision and/or the criminal proceedings.

Source: CNA