Filenews 24 March 2025 - by Angelos Nicolaou
A decree for the demolition of an illegal agricultural/livestock premises (stadium) in the area of Akamas was decided by the Paphos District Court. It is a landmark decision in the ongoing proceedings against 20 other cases of illegal premises of the same type in the same area. These are cases in which the owners proceeded to arbitrary interventions and illegal constructions without any permits, or cases where additions and modifications of existing buildings were made, in violation of their use permit and which were registered in Court by the Legal Service following a complaint by the Minister of the Interior.
The arbitrariness in the 20 stadiums had been identified since September 2023, after inspections carried out on instructions from the Minister of the Interior, Konstantinos Ioannou, by an official team consisting of officials of the Paphos District Administration, the Department of Urban Planning and Housing (Paphos Offices), as well as the Game and Fauna Service. In the context of this inspection, illegal interventions were found in 25 premises, which are located in plots on the outskirts of the Akamas National Forest Park and fall within the areas of the Natura Network Special Conservation Zone and Special Protection Zone of Akamas Peninsula. For five of these cases, legal action had already been taken.
For one case, the owner was found guilty and by decision of the Paphos District Court dated 28/2/2025, a decree was issued against the defendant for the demolition of the ground-floor stone building and the fence that have been erected within the property in the location of Mirtis, in the community of Ineia in the Paphos district.
The defendant from 2007 until today is the owner of the plot in which he erected a ground-floor stone-built house and constructed a wooden uncovered pergola, while, at the same time, he fenced the property. In addition, earthworks, excavations, movement of soil and rock volumes were carried out. Works for which it did not obtain a planning permit from the competent Authority and the stone-built house was erected at a different point from the point where there was a half-demolished stadium.
The Court's decision refers to the particularity of the specific case since the plot falls within protected areas of the Natura 2000 network. The inclusion of an area in the European Natura 2000 network does not differentiate the urban planning status and does not constitute a deprivation of ownership or its inactivation. However, urban planning goes back to the regulatory power of the state, and building development is intertwined with urban planning. Urban zones specify the conditions for the development of the area, and constitute a means of preserving the character of the area and specifying the conditions for its future development. It is a measure to reconcile development with the environment, for the sake of the common interest in safeguarding the goods of nature and the quality of life that is appropriate for man. The landscape of the Akamas region is distinguished for its natural beauty and is characterized by peculiarities that give it a special character, as a special part of the environmental heritage of Cyprus. The restrictions imposed are aimed at protecting and preserving the natural environment.
In this context, the Court notes that the inclusion of an area in the European Natura 2000 network does not constitute deprivation of ownership or inactivation of it. What is happening, he notes, is that in case the owner wishes to develop his property, he must submit a relevant application and the Department of the Environment should be consulted, so that the impact on the environment can be assessed after a study. This, he adds, did not happen at this time.
The Court's reference in the context of the justification of the testimony of the former community leader and current deputy mayor of Ineia, in defense of his accused fellow villager, causes a sensation. The Judge states in his decision that his testimony was intended to help the accused, resulting in his failure to testify objectively. The Judge finds that, "no weight can be given to his testimony, which is judged to be completely unreliable". In the evaluation, it is noted that the representative of the Local Authority mentioned that members of his family also had stadia, which they have repaired and are dealing with issues with the competent Authority. "The style and manner of his testimony indicated that he had every interest in presenting a particular version of events, since it is very likely that the outcome of the present proceedings would affect members of his family," the evaluation of the testimony states.
Besides, this judgment of the Court is also confirmed by the position expressed by the Deputy Mayor of Ineia during his presence in the Court, during the trial of this particular case, according to which he represented 250 people who have stadia, which, as it was, in fact, his own judgment and opinion, did not need any permission to repair. In fact, he was strongly dissatisfied with the decision of the Ministry of Interior to cut off subsidies from restaurant owners because they maintained them and, in fact, he sent a relevant letter on the issue.
Precisely because of his own position that he did not need a permit to repair the stadiums, since, as he proudly emphasized during his testimony, the stadiums are the culture and history of the community of Ineia, the Court ruled that it did not manage to capture the truth, but adapted what it said in order to help not only the accused, but also all the owners of stadiums in their community.
It is noted that in 2019 there were two half-demolished stadiums, without a roof, in close proximity to each other. The accused, without obtaining a planning permit and a building permit from the competent Authority, from February 2019 to May 2023, carried out various works within the plot. Specifically, in February 2019, the defendant carried out earthworks within the boundaries of the plot and erected a ground-floor stone-built house, constructed a wooden uncovered pergola, fenced the property, carried out earthworks and excavations, and moved volumes of soil and rocks. According to the decision, for the sake of completeness, even if the Court accepted the defendant's version of repairing the existing stadium, which was without a roof, with half-demolished walls, even using its existing stones, the Court's decision would still not differ. The repair of a building falls within the definition of construction works resulting in the development of a property. For such an action, a planning permit would again have to be obtained from the owner of the property.
