PERMANENT CLOSURE OF MELIOS ZOO PARK - VIOLATIONS IN LICENCES, SAFETY AND OPERATION CLOSED THE ZOO IN AGIOI TRIMITHIAS - Filenews 9/4 by Panagiota Charalambous
A definitive "no" of the Supreme to Melios Zoo Park, with the owner's appeal being rejected and the violations in licenses, safety and operation leading to confirmation of the closure of the zoo. Specifically, the Supreme Constitutional Court rejected the appeal of Menelaos Menelaou, owner of the Melios Zoo Park, upholding the first-instance decision of the Administrative Court, which had rejected three joined appeals of the appellant.
The case concerned a series of administrative decisions related to the operation and development of the zoo in Agioi Trimithias. The appeals were directed against the rejection of applications for planning permits, the non-renewal of a temporary planning permit, as well as the decision not to renew the zoo's operating license.
According to the Court's findings, the Town Planning Authority had rejected the appellant's applications for the expansion of the facilities and for the extension of the validity of the existing permit, citing a series of violations. These included arbitrary expansions on public and private land, differentiation of development from approved plans, change in the species of animals – with the addition of large carnivores – without the necessary safety conditions, as well as a lack of adequate water supply.
At the same time, the Veterinary Services decided in 2017 not to renew the operating license of the zoo, calling on the owner to terminate its operation. This decision was based on the current legal framework for the protection and welfare of animals and the finding of non-compliance with the relevant requirements.
The Supreme Constitutional Court held that most of the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant were unfounded or inadmissible, as they either lacked sufficient justification or related to issues that had not been raised before the administration at the initial stage. In particular, claims concerning the temporal validity of the planning permit were rejected, as they were raised for the first time at a later stage of the procedure.
The Court underlined that in the context of its review jurisdiction it does not examine the merits of administrative decisions or reassess technical issues, but merely reviews legality. It found that the administration had carried out a proper investigation and had taken into account all the relevant information and the appellant's positions before reaching the contested decisions.
Particular reference was made to the issue of illegal intervention in state land, for which the Court noted that the appellant did not provide evidence to substantiate the legality of its possession or use. The allegations of an exchange of plots with the State were not proven, and it did not appear that the required approval had been obtained.
As regards the water supply of the development, the Court held that the evidence provided did not satisfy the requirements for an adequate and continuous water supply, since the relevant authorisation concerned a limited use for irrigation and not for the needs of the operation of a zoo.
Regarding the justification of the administration's decisions, the Court considered that they were sufficient, pointing out that the adoption of recommendations of competent bodies by the Committee of Ministers does not constitute a lack of reasoning, especially when the legislation does not require an explicit recording of it.
In conclusion, the Supreme Constitutional Court dismissed the appeal in its entirety and upheld the contested administrative decisions. At the same time, it awarded costs amounting to €4,000 in favour of the Republic of Cyprus and at the expense of the appellant.
