Filenews 18 February 2026
The presence and action of the Police last night was intense, throughout Cyprus, with organized patrols in key points of urban areas, with the aim of preventing serious criminal acts, ensuring public order and increasing the sense of security of the public.
As a result of the preventive policing operations, three persons were arrested for various offences, including threat, assault and illegal stay on the territory of the Republic of Cyprus.
As part of these operations, during the night, 473 checks were carried out on drivers and passengers of vehicles. At the same time, 23 inspections of premises were carried out, with the aim of dealing with phenomena of delinquency.
During traffic checks carried out, 143 complaints emerged, concerning various traffic violations, of which 33 driver complaints for violating the speed limit stand out. 3 traffic cases also emerged. As part of the inspections, 60 alcohol tests were carried out during which 3 complaints emerged. As part of the police examinations, 5 vehicles were detained.
* * * * * *
The 49-year-old businessman, who was arrested last week on suspicion of setting fire to a luxury vehicle showroom in Limassol, has been released by the Court. Instead, the detention of the 28-year-old, who was found to be in possession of an SUV that was allegedly recorded near the scene of the arson, was renewed.
The investigators of the TAE Limassol brought the two suspects before the Court yesterday, requesting a renewal of their detention for another four days. The lawyers of the two suspects objected, as a result of which the Court reserved the decision for today, Tuesday (17/2), where it was decided to release the 49-year-old, while the 28-year-old remains in custody.
According to the data presented by the investigators, a large number of closed surveillance circuits were examined. From them it emerged that the specific vehicle was heading to a gas station in Nicosia. As seen from the CCTV, the clothes and shoes of the person getting out of the vehicle differ from those of the 28-year-old suspect.
The SUV was spotted moving on a specific road and after about 59 minutes arriving at the gas station at a distance of about 5,6 kilometers. From the analysis of the cameras, it seems to appear that the 28-year-old was not alone in the vehicle. The scenario being considered by the investigators of the TAE Limassol is that there was a second person in the vehicle, a resident of a specific area of Nicosia, whose details the investigators are trying to verify.
As for the 49-year-old, who is active in the vehicle trade, it was found that the vehicle was sold to a company in Nicosia. However, due to the difficulty of renting, the owner of the company returned it back to the 49-year-old and took two smaller vehicles in return.
By court order, the 28-year-old's genetic material was taken and a search of the SUV was carried out, where various items were confiscated, which will be sent for scientific examinations. The 28-year-old, interrogated in the presence of his lawyer, respected the right to silence.
The vehicle that appears to have been recorded at the scene of the arson belongs to the 49-year-old's company and was found in the possession of the 28-year-old, who stated that he had had it for about a month. From the examinations carried out, it was found that a few minutes before the arson, an SUV vehicle approached the scene. Immediately after the arson and before the perpetrator returned to the car, the vehicle's running lights came on. The perpetrator then got into the vehicle and the car sped away from the area. From the study of the cameras in the area, it was found that the sun visors of both the driver and the passenger were down. The vehicle was recorded following a course to Agia Fyla and, subsequently, from the mountain villages to reach Nicosia.
From the examinations of the TAE Limassol, the SUV vehicle was located outside a specific premises. After discreet surveillance, the 28-year-old suspect boarded the vehicle.
* * * * * *
The Greek Cypriot who was illegally detained in the occupied territories was released on parole by the "district court" in occupied Nicosia on Tuesday, while on Thursday, February 19, he will appear before a "military court" for another "charge" charged against him.
The Greek Cypriot had been "arrested" on February 10, when he crossed into the occupied areas, near Gerolakkos, while he was collecting wild animals.
The Greek Cypriot was brought before the "district court" in occupied Nicosia, on the "charge" of "illegal possession of explosives", due to the discovery of 16 hunting cartridges in his vehicle. The "court" ordered that he be released after signing bail of 1 million Turkish lira.
The "charge" for violating a "military no-go zone" is pending against him. This case is set for Thursday, February 19, in a "military court" in occupied Nicosia.
* * * * * *
All appeals were rejected and the first instance decision of the Larnaca District Court in the case of the death of student Stavros Giorgallis, 10 years old from Klavdia, was fully upheld, with the Court of Appeal confirming the conviction of doctor Iraklis Pantelidakis and the acquittal of doctor Kyriakos Kyriakides.
The case concerns the death of the 10-year-old in May 2018, after a blow to the head during a school activity, when he was taken to the Accident and Emergency Department of the Larnaca General Hospital, examined and discharged, despite the fact that his x-ray depicted a skull fracture, which was not detected by the treating doctors.
Specifically, in the multi-page decision issued on February 12, 2026, the Court of Appeal ruled that there was no error in the first-instance approach regarding the causal link between medical negligence and the death of the child. As stated, "the misdiagnosis of the X-ray was the starting point of the chain of events that led to the death of the unfortunate child. As far as the legal causal link is concerned, what matters is that the criminally punishable conduct of the Appellant remained active and a substantial cause of death."
The Court of Appeal clarified that the Prosecution did not have to prove that the defendant's act was the sole or main cause of death, but that it constituted "a substantial cause". References by the defense to uncertainties about how the child's health would develop with a different treatment were attributed to possible responsibilities of third parties and not to a weakening of the criminal responsibility of the convicted.
Reference is made in the decision to the fact that there was no neurosurgeon or neurosurgery clinic at the Larnaca General Hospital.
"However, the medical misdiagnosis of the X-ray led to the incorrect treatment of the incident as mild, depriving the possibility of activating the existing plan for calling a private neurosurgeon," it is noted. It is also pointed out that "the finding and testimony on this matter are not disputed on appeal".
"Based on the medical testimony, if there was a neurosurgeon the second time the child was transferred to Larnaca General Hospital, he would have been saved," it is stated.
In addition, it is added, "in the event that for any reason it was not possible to call a neurosurgeon from the private sector in time, the process of immediate transfer of the child to the Nicosia General Hospital, in case of deterioration, was not launched".
"From the moment of being discharged (11:45 a.m.) until the return of the child with anisocoria (13:10 p.m.), valuable time of one hour and twenty-five minutes was lost", it is noted in the decision of the Court of Appeal.
"Given these facts, it cannot be reasonably argued that the Appellant's punishable behaviour did not constitute one of the causes of death. Quite the opposite. The Appellant's incorrect handling of the incident in question made the absence of a neurosurgeon at the Larnaca General Hospital fatal, making it objectively impossible to provide the appropriate medical care in a timely manner", it is underlined.
In relation to the appeal against the sentence, which had been registered by the Attorney General, the Court of Appeal found that the court of first instance had indeed made an "error of principle" by suspending the 18-month prison sentence imposed on the charge under Article 210 of the Criminal Code, giving undue weight to the personal circumstances of the accused and ignoring the seriousness of the criminal negligence and its tragic consequences. At the same time, he rejected as unfounded the claim that the then practice of not taking X-rays by a radiologist could work in favour of the convict, stressing that it was a conscious risk-taking.
However, the Court of Appeal took into account the passage of about seven years from the time of the commission of the offenses and three and a half years from the issuance of the first instance decision through no fault of the accused, ruling that "the imposition of immediate imprisonment at the present appellate stage would make the sentence an excessively burdensome measure". For this reason, according to the decision, the suspension of the sentence is maintained.
Regarding the appeal against the acquittal of Kyriakos Kyriakides, the Court of Appeal ruled that the case it faced jointly with Iraklis Pantelidakis concerned specific acts and omissions in the medical handling of the incident and not issues of general administration or supervision of the Department.
As noted in the decision, "the Respondent may be convicted as an accomplice without it being necessary to specify his exact role in the details of the indictment, provided that he is aware of the nature of the case he is facing and his defense is not adversely affected". However, the Court of Appeal agreed with the judgment of the court of first instance that in the present case there was no evidence of active and substantial participation of Dr. Kyriakidis in the acts that led to the erroneous diagnosis and discharge of the child.
Consequently, it was held that the acquittal was correct and there was no basis for his criminal liability as an accomplice.
With this decision, the decision of the Larnaca District Court, which was issued on May 20, 2022, is upheld in its entirety, closing a case that had caused concern around issues of medical responsibility and patient safety.
