Filenews 24 July 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 police operations, twelve persons were arrested for offenses such as drunkenness, anxiety, public insult, possession of an offensive instrument, illegal possession of drugs, illegal stay in the territory of the Republic, theft and assault.
As part of these operations, during the night, 383 drivers and 175 passengers were stopped and checked. At the same time, 39 inspections of premises were carried out, with the aim of dealing with phenomena of delinquency, where 5 complaints emerged.
During traffic checks carried out, 180 complaints were made, concerning various traffic violations, while nine investigated cases of traffic violations also emerged.
Of the complaints made, 42 concerned exceeding the speed limit, while as part of the police examinations, nine vehicles were detained. There were also 116 alcohol tests with seven positive results.
Policing operations, for the prevention and suppression of crime, continue daily, with an increased/enhanced police presence, targeted controls and immediate operational action, with the aim of increasing the sense of security of citizens/protecting citizens and ensuring public order.
* * * * * *
A 47-year-old man, who was arrested by members of the Police, as part of an investigation into a car arson case, was taken into custody by virtue of a five-day court order, issued today by the Nicosia District Court. The case is being investigated by the TAE of Nicosia.
The 47-year-old was arrested yesterday, by members of the Nicosia Police Department, by virtue of a court warrant, which was obtained on the basis of evidence that emerged during the investigation of the case.
According to the data under investigation, the arson was committed around 4.50 yesterday morning, when a car was maliciously set on fire while it was parked in an open field, next to the house of its 34-year-old owner, in Strovolos.
The fire, from which the car was completely destroyed, was extinguished by members of the Fire Service, who, in collaboration with members of the Police, carried out examinations at the scene.
* * * * * *
The Police proceeded to arrest three persons, aged 21, 18 and 17, in connection with an investigated case of arson of a car, committed on July 05, in the province of Nicosia.
Evidence against the three suspects emerged from the examinations carried out by the Nicosia Police Department, which is investigating the case. Arrest warrants were issued against them, under which the three suspects were arrested following an operation carried out today by the TAE. The three of them were taken into custody for the purpose of police examinations.
According to the evidence under review, the arson was committed around 4.30 in the morning on July 05, when a car, owned by a 58-year-old man, which was parked, was maliciously set on fire in the yard of a house in the province of Nicosia.
Members of the Police went to the scene for examinations, as well as members of the Fire Service, who extinguished the fire. The car was completely destroyed by the fire.
During the investigations carried out today by the members of the Nicosia Police Department, to locate the three suspects, a car was also found, which on April 09 was reported to the Police as stolen, after it had been stolen from an area in the province of Nicosia.
* * * * * *
Israeli media report that there were incidents outside the stadium before the start of the match between AEK and Beitar Jerusalem at the Arena, hosting testimonies from Beitar fans about what preceded it. According to them, a group of fans allegedly attacked Israeli fans, using stones, resulting – as they claim – injuries to two people.
One of the fans stated that "some Beitar fans moved on their own and were ambushed by AEK fans, who started throwing stones at them, and then about 60-70 people attacked them." Another fan said that "there were people bleeding, while most of the organized La Familia fans were already in the stands and the injured were young." These reports come from testimonies hosted by Israeli media and have not been officially confirmed by the Cypriot authorities.
At the same time, a video circulated on social media and reproduced by Israeli publications shows a Beitar fan lying alone on the street and being attacked by a group of people. As they claim, two Israelis were injured during the incidents, while the police made a total of seven arrests, including six Cypriots and one Israeli.
* * * * * *
An important judicial development with a Russian citizen and international interest took place last week.
The Supreme Court (first instance jurisdiction) rejected the request of 40-year-old Serahuddin Aktulayev for the issuance of a Habeas Corpus warrant, which, if approved, would "block" his planned extradition to the United States of America and - of course - would be equivalent to the termination of his detention in Cyprus.
The case is interesting and was also being monitored by the Russian embassy in Cyprus. In fact, the Russian news agency TASS records the latest developments in the case. The Americans had issued an international arrest warrant against the 40-year-old, considering him a suspect in connection with online fraud offenses.
Aktulayev was arrested at the end of May 2025 in Cyprus, when he came to Cyprus for a wedding of his relatives, on the basis of a request from the Americans. He is currently being held in the Central Prison. The Larnaca District Court on 11/5/2026, a year after his arrest, decided to approve the request for the extradition of the 40-year-old to the USA.
The only legal remedy left to Serahuddin Aktulayev is to appeal.
Regarding last Thursday's decision (16/7/2026), the Supreme Court was asked to consider Aktulayev's request, which was based on three points. The first issue he had raised through his lawyers was that there is a lack of reasonable suspicion and objective weakness of the US testimony.
More specifically, Aktulayev put forward the position that in the statement of facts supported by the request there should be a description of the testimony that reveals "reasonable grounds to believe that an offense was committed and that the wanted person committed it".
With the second issue raised, the US was accused of bad faith and that it manipulated the extradition request without asking for the assistance of the Russian Federation, where the offenses were committed. Furthermore, he raised the issue of breach of the duty of honesty by concealing the relevant confession of a person, named Timofei Alenkin. In his testimony to the Russian authorities on 2.8.2025, he admitted that he had committed all the criminal activities, among other things, using the computer of the Aktulayev restaurant where he worked, without the latter's knowledge.
The third point of the Habeas Corpus request was that there was an excess of jurisdiction due to an incorrect hierarchy of laws and an unconstitutional interpretation of the right to a fair trial.
The Judge of the Supreme Court, Haris Malaktos, rejected all three points, ruling that the judgment of the Court of First Instance in two of them was correct, while regarding the second point raised, he notes the following in his verdict: "The testimony of Timofei Alenkin confession to the Russian authorities was allegedly given on 2.8.2025. In other words, it follows the arrest of the Applicant in Cyprus on 22.5.2025 and the request of the USA for his issuance and the sending of supporting evidence on 3.7.2025.
The subsequent reaction after the U.S. authorities were informed of the existence of the testimony, does not substantiate, not in the slightest, bad faith. More generally, nothing that the Applicant has invoked before the District Court, and to which he referred in this procedure, highlights an abuse of process or a breach of the applicant country's duty of honesty."
However, in the Aktulayev case, as we have seen, various media have shown interest. On a website covering police cases starring Russians, the 40-year-old is presented as a person who engages in cyberattacks and has connections with Russian officials, setting up a mechanism to circumvent sanctions against Russia. However, the Supreme Court's decision does not record anything in relation to the above allegation.
* * * * * *
Three persons were arrested as part of the investigations carried out by the Cybercrime Sub-Directorate, regarding a case involving audiovisual material, which was allegedly broadcast live through a social networking platform and in which persons appear to incite another person to acts that affect his dignity.
The arrests were made on the basis of court warrants obtained after the evaluation of the witness material gathered during the investigation of the case.
At the same time, this morning (23/07), the Police submitted a request before the Nicosia District Court, for the issuance of a detention order for the two persons arrested yesterday, pursuant to court warrants, for the purpose of investigating the case.
The Court did not approve the request of the Police for the issuance of a detention order for the two persons. In addition, at the end of the police examinations, the third suspect was released.
The Police continue to investigate the case to secure witness material, by taking statements, collecting and examining evidence, as well as other examinations.
* * * * * *
Another 19 persons were arrested yesterday by the Police for dealing with illegal immigration in our country.
Specifically, in an operation of the Aliens and Immigration Service (YAM) carried out in Nicosia, members of the YAM Headquarters, Nicosia and Larnaca, as well as members of the Green Line Surveillance Sub-Directorate, identified and arrested 19 persons for the crime of illegal stay on the territory of the Republic of Cyprus.
Six of the above persons have already left Cyprus for their countries of origin, while for the rest their repatriation procedures continue.
The Police continues to focus their efforts on maximizing the number of repatriations of third-country nationals residing illegally in the Republic of Cyprus, in coordination with the Deputy Ministry of Migration.
* * * * * *
After 17 years, the Court of Appeal has ended a legal battle over the injury of a woman in a nightclub. In particular, it rejected the appeal of a company and the manager of a nightclub, against the first instance decision by which the respondent had been awarded general and special damages for bodily injuries suffered after she fell inside the club.
According to the decision, the woman was injured when, in her attempt to go to the toilet, she slipped on the floor, which had become slippery due to flowers thrown by people having fun in the center and trampled on, remaining at the scene.
The Court of First Instance had ruled that the company was negligent regarding the condition of the floor and had held it entirely responsible for the fall and bodily injuries of the Respondent.
What was the company's appeal based on?
The company challenged the decision with two grounds of appeal, arguing, among other things, that the findings of the Court of First Instance were not consistent with the testimony presented and were not sufficiently reasoned. The Court of Appeal noted, however, that the grounds of appeal did not concern all the findings of the Court of First Instance, as there was no specific reference to the attribution of liability to the company or the amount of compensation.
The incident took place in January 2009. After her fall, she was taken to a Polyclinic, where she was examined by an orthopaedic traumatologist surgeon, who found a displaced intra-articular crushing fracture of the left radius.
On the same day, she underwent an open reduction with osteosynthetic stabilization of the fracture, while her arm was placed in a plaster splint. She then remained bedridden at her home for 15 days and visited the specific doctor.
In February 2009, she visited a second orthopaedist, who removed the plaster splint, administered anti-inflammatory and painkiller treatment and referred her for physiotherapy.
At the heart of the appeal was the fact that the first doctor was not called as a witness in the trial. The company argued that, due to his absence, no connection between the bodily injuries and the fall in the nightclub had been proven.
The woman's testimony is decisive
The Court of Appeal held that the Court of First Instance correctly concluded that the woman's testimony was sufficient to link her bodily injuries to the incident. The respondent had stated that during her fall she put her hands as a support, hit her left arm and felt severe pain, while her arm had begun to swell before she even left the nightclub.
In addition, the decision states that in such cases the connection of the bodily injuries with the incident is usually documented through the testimony of the plaintiff himself, as the attending physician is usually not an eyewitness to the event that caused the injury.
It was also noted that the injuries she suffered could be the result of the fall, as she described, while the medical testimony concerned a fracture in the same hand in which she stated that she was injured.
The Court of Appeal emphasized that the challenge of the connection between the injuries and the fall could only have had basis if the respondent's credibility findings were challenged, which was not the case in the present case.
In addition, he stated that during the first instance proceedings it had not been substantially disputed that Jennifer had injured her left hand, while no allegation had been made that there was any other cause that caused her bodily injuries from the moment she left the nightclub until her examination by the first doctor. Nor was it claimed that the injuries pre-existed.
In conclusion, the Court of Appeal rejected the company's appeal and awarded costs of €3,500 in favor of the respondent and against the appellant, plus VAT, if any.
The TAE Headquarters proceeded today with the registration of a criminal case against Makarios Drousiotis and "Santi". According to the first information, both persons have been served with the indictments.
The Legal Service announced that "following a study of the witness material forwarded to the Attorney General of the Republic by the Police on June 30, 2026 in relation to the "Santis" case, the Attorney General registered today, before the Court, a criminal case against two natural persons".
The announcement notes that the indictment includes a total of 101 charges, which concern the offenses of drafting a forged document, circulating a forged document, publishing false news, as well as harassment. The case will be heard by the Nicosia Criminal Court.
Today's development is a continuation of the police investigation that began after a post by Makarios Drousiotis, in which persons were named and serious allegations were made, mainly for corruption cases, but also for rape.
As part of the investigation, the Police concluded that both the allegations and the disputed messages invoked by Mr. Drousiotis had been fabricated through an application. According to the findings of the investigation, the specific material had been handed over to him by "Santi", which, according to the Police, admitted this fact in the testimonies he gave during the investigation of the case.
* * * * * *
On July 16, the Court of Appeal rejected a man's appeal against his conviction for rape, deprivation of liberty for the purpose of sexual abuse, common assault and threat of violence, ruling that the absence of genetic material or injuries does not in itself exclude the commission of the offense and upholding the first-instance decision.
The case concerned incidents that took place in April 2020, with the Criminal Court ruling, after a hearing, that the charges had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The appellant had been sentenced to concurrent prison sentences, 10 years on the charge of rape, 3 years on the charge of deprivation of liberty with the intention of subjecting him to sexual abuse, 4 months on the charge of common assault and 1 year on each charge of the crime of threatening violence.
During his appeal, the convicted person disputed the correctness of the conclusions of the Court of First Instance, citing the absence of genetic material from the samples examined, as well as the absence of bodily injuries to the victim during the forensic examination.
The Court of Appeal, examining the grounds of appeal, held that these arguments could not lead to the reversal of the first instance decision. As he mentioned, admissible facts had been put before the Criminal Court, according to which the non-detection of genetic material does not support or exclude an allegation of committing the offense.
At the same time, he noted that the absence of genetic material in clothing or objects does not necessarily mean that there was no physical contact, referring to the finding that "when a person comes into contact with bare hands or body with an object does not necessarily mean that his genetic material will be detected in that object".
In relation to the absence of injuries, the Court of Appeal adopted the approach of the Court of First Instance, which had accepted the testimony of the medical examiner that the failure to find wounds or other indications "can neither confirm nor exclude rape or other abuse".
The Court of Appeal also pointed out that the assessment of the credibility of witnesses belongs primarily to the Court of First Instance, which has the opportunity to monitor their behaviour and reactions during the live proceedings. As he noted, intervention in such findings is made only when they are not justified by the testimony or are contrary to common sense.
Based on the above, the Court of Appeal ruled that there was no reason to overturn the first-instance decision and dismissed the appeal.
* * * * * *
Members of the Police in the province of Paphos arrested a 28-year-old man, who was found driving a car that had been reported as stolen a little earlier.
The theft of the car was reported to the Paphos Police Station around 3.00 yesterday afternoon, while the examinations revealed that the vehicle was stolen shortly after 12.00 yesterday afternoon, while it was parked in an area in Paphos.
Immediately after the complaint, around 3:00 in the afternoon, members of the Police located the stolen car being driven to a village in the province of Paphos and called the driver to stop for a check. However, the driver of the vehicle continued his course, driving the vehicle dangerously and in his attempt to escape, through the Polis Chrysochous-Paphos road, he collided with another private car.
Officers repeatedly called on the suspect driver to stop for a check, with him not complying and trying to escape. At a point in the route he followed, the suspect lost control of the vehicle and crashed into a road safety railing, where the vehicle was stopped.
With the immobilization of the vehicle, the suspect tried to escape on foot and attacked a member of the Police, however he was stopped and despite the resistance he put up, he was arrested by the police for spontaneous offenses, around 3:20 in the afternoon. He was subjected to a driving test under the influence of drugs with a positive preliminary result, while he was also subjected to a driving test under the influence of alcohol with a negative result.
As it was established, he is a 28-year-old, who was arrested later yesterday and by virtue of a court warrant and was taken into custody, for the purpose of police examinations.
During the incident, on the route followed by the suspect with the vehicle he was driving, the members of the Police made use of their service weapons, firing a warning shot in the air.
The Paphos Police Department, in collaboration with the Stroumbi Police Station, continue the examinations.
* * * * * *
The conviction of a company and its director for illegal termination of employment of a pregnant employee was upheld by the Court of Appeal, ruling that an employer cannot proceed with the dismissal of a pregnant woman and disclose after the fact the reasons cited for the termination.
In a decision dated July 16, 2026, the Court of Appeal rejected the appeals of the company and its director and upheld the fine of a total of €1,500 imposed by the Famagusta District Court.
The case concerned a company and its director, who were found guilty of terminating the employment of an employee, in violation of the provisions of the Maternity Protection Law. The company was fined €800 and its director a fine of €700.
According to the facts of the case, the employee was hired by the company in August 2017. On December 4, 2017, the director terminated her employment, without, as recorded in the decision, knowing that she was pregnant.
Subsequently, the employee informed the company of her pregnancy and the initial termination was revoked. The employee returned to work eight days later, however the next day her employment was terminated again verbally. The company then sent a letter in which it communicated in writing the reasons for the termination.
It is noted that the legislation provides special protection to pregnant workers, prohibiting the termination of their employment after the notification of their pregnancy, except in specific cases provided for in the law.
The main issue examined by the Court of Appeal was whether the subsequent written notification of the employee could cover the obligation provided for by the Maternity Protection Law. The Court held that this was not possible, as the reasons for the termination should have been made known and justified at the time of the dismissal.
As the Court of Appeal states in its decision, "the fact remains that the employment was terminated without fulfilling the obligation imposed by Article 4B(2) of the above Law".
The specific provision of the Maternity Protection Law provides that, even in cases where the employer invokes reasons that may allow the termination of the employment of a pregnant employee, such as serious misconduct or behaviour that justifies the termination of the employment relationship, cessation of the operation of the business or termination of the employment contract, it must notify the reasons in writing and duly justify them.
"If the intention of the legislator was for the employer to be able to terminate the employment and later disclose the reasons and the reasons for them, it would do so with a relevant provision," the Court of Appeal noted.
The appellants had put forward a series of grounds of appeal, arguing, among other things, that the Court of First Instance had misinterpreted the provisions of the Maternity Protection Law and that the termination was justified, as, as they claimed, the employee was on probationary period.
At the same time, they argued that the first instance decision essentially converted all probationary employment into permanent employment when they concern pregnant employees.
The Court of Appeal rejected these claims, clarifying that the Court of First Instance did not rule that there could be no probationary period, but that in this particular case there was insufficient evidence to prove the four-month probationary period invoked by the director.
"We do not find any error in the first-instance judgment," the Court of Appeal states, noting at the same time that "we find no basis in any of the alleged grounds of appeal."
In its decision, the Court of Appeal rejected the appeals of the company and its director in their entirety and upheld their first-instance conviction.
