Despite the expiration of its operating license from 2017, the Melios Zoo Park in Agioi Trimithias owned by Menelaos Menelaou continued to operate normally, with the Court of Appeal now putting a final "seal" on the case, upholding the conviction of its owner and rejecting the claims that it was not proven that it was a zoo under the law.
The case concerned a conviction by the Nicosia District Court for an offense provided for in the Protection and Welfare of Animals Law. According to the facts of the case, the appellant continued to operate the zoo in Agioi Trimithias, even though the operating license had expired on September 25, 2017 and had not been renewed by the Director of Veterinary Services.
In his appeal, Menelaou argued that the Prosecution failed to prove a key component of the offense, namely that the site functioned as a "zoo" based on the definition of the relevant Regulations. He specifically invoked a provision that defines a zoo as "any permanent facility where wild animals are kept to show off to the public for seven or more days a year".
The appellant's position was that no testimony was presented that wild animals were shown to the public for the required period of time and therefore, it was not proven that the facility fell within this definition.
The Court of Appeal, by unanimous decision of Judges M. Abizas, St. Christodoulidou-Messiou and I. Stylianidou, rejected the claim, adopting the approach of the Court of First Instance.
The decision points out that the essential elements of the offense were the possession of a zoo operating license, the expiration of the license and the continuation of operation after its expiration. The Court recalled that the appellant had been issued a zoo operating license in 2012 for Melios Zoo Park, while during the inspection of the site on March 11, 2018, it was found that the facility was still operating without a renewed license.
The Court of Appeal held that the Regulation prohibiting the continuation of operation after the expiry of the license concerns already licensed zoos and that, in this case, proof that the establishment met the general definition of a zoo was not required again.
As stated in the decision, the ban is activated from the moment the operating license expires and concerns the license holder who continues to operate the space. The Court also noted that the very text of the Rules of Procedure gives a different meaning from the general definition relied on by the appellant.
In conclusion, the Court of Appeal ruled that the Prosecuting Authority proved beyond any reasonable doubt the elements of the offense and upheld the first-instance conviction.
