- within Litigation and Mediation & Arbitration topic(s)
- in United States
- within Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Intellectual Property and Law Department Performance topic(s)
- with readers working within the Healthcare and Technology industries
George S. Ioannou and Alex Themis acted on behalf of the property owners in this groundbreaking case, which received significant public attention.
The Court of Appeal has overturned the District Court's first-instance decision, which had acquitted the appellant of the charge of possessing immovable property registered in another person's name without that person's consent, contrary to Article 281(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, Chapter 154.
At first instance, the District Court had found that the appellant's possession of the property derived from a valid lease agreement, and therefore could not be characterised as arbitrary. The court further held that the termination of the lease did not, in itself, demonstrate a withdrawal of the owner's consent.
The Court of Appeal disagreed. It held that the question of whether the lease agreement had been unlawfully terminated could not be considered within the scope of Article 281(1) of the Criminal Code, as such matters are relevant only in civil proceedings for damages. The Court, therefore, found that, from the date on which the respondent refused to vacate the property following the express and clear termination of the tenancy, he was occupying the property without the consent of its registered owner, namely the appellant. Consequently, the Court of Appeal (Criminal Jurisdiction) overturned the District Court's decision.
Significance of the Decision
This judgment is particularly significant in the Cypriot context, as it clarifies the criminal liability of tenants who remain in possession of leased premises after the lawful termination of their tenancy.
The Court's reasoning confirms that such persons are deemed to be in unlawful occupation of the owner's property and may therefore be subject to criminal prosecution under Article 281(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.
Moreover, the decision addresses a recurring practical issue in which tenants exploit the lengthy duration of civil eviction proceedings to remain in occupation—often without paying rent—and abusing the judicial process. The Court's ruling establishes that, in such circumstances, criminal proceedings may be brought, and offenders may be convicted and penalised accordingly.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]
