Filenews 16/10
The Police in Paphos arrested a 31-year-old man, after a knife attack and injury to a 26-year-old.
According to what the authorities reported to Filenews and according to the complaint, yesterday around 10:00 in the morning, a 31-year-old man entered the 26-year-old's house and after pointing a knife at him, injured him in the hands.
After his arrest, the 31-year-old interrogated claimed that the injured man threatened him with the phrase "I will kill you".
The injured man is being treated in hospital with his health condition described as out of danger.
The Police continue the investigations to determine the circumstances of the incident and what caused it.
* * * * * *
The Police made five arrests as part of their targetted preventative measures. The arrest of the five was made for various offenses including injury and illegal stay.
During the night, 458 vehicles were stopped for inspection and 577 drivers and passengers were checked. At the same time, 30 inspections of premises were carried out, from which three complaints emerged.
During traffic checks carried out, 221 complaints were made about various traffic violations, of which 59 concern driving at excessive speed. A total of 94 alcohol tests were performed, with three positive results, as well as a preliminary drug test without a positive result. Also, as part of the police examinations, seven vehicles were detained.
Policing operations, for the prevention and suppression of crime, continue every day, with an enhanced police presence, targeted controls and immediate operational action, in order to protect citizens and ensure public order.
* * * * * *
In yesterday's traffic checks carried out by the Z team of the Paphos Traffic Police, with the main purpose of combating juvenile delinquency in the field of traffic offenses, identified and reported three young persons, aged from 17 to 18 years, students, who were driving cars, without holding a driver's license and without insurance coverage.
According to the Assistant Police Director of Paphos, Michalis Nikolaou, the two were located in Polis Chrysochous and the third in the city of Paphos, upon their arrival or departure from their schools.
Their vehicles, which belong to their parents, were detained. The circumstances under which the vehicles came into the possession of the young people are being investigated, emphasizes Mr. Nikolaou.
It is recalled that on Monday 12/10, the Police found seven minors driving their parents' cars when they arrived at school. Speaking on RIK's "Morning Route" show, the spokesman of the Paphos Police Department, Michalis Nikolaou, said that the incidents are being treated as juvenile cases and statements are being taken.
He clarified, however, that there is no question of persecuting the children.
According to Mr. Nikolaou, in all cases the parents claimed that the children were driving without their consent.
He added that within days new coordinated police operations will be carried out to prevent similar incidents.
* * * * * *
With the testimony of the minor with whom the 16-year-old was related, who was the victim of a brutal beating, the investigation in relation to the incident, the video of which caused shock due to its brutality, is progressing. At the same time, according to information from "F", some of the families of the seven suspects, who are detained by court order, are said to propose an apology of the suspects to the victim so that the complaint can be withdrawn by the victim.
The minor allegedly had a relationship with the 16-year-old from May 2025 to September 2026. Her testimony is expected to contribute greatly to the investigation of both the events that preceded the brutal attack and what unfolded on the night of October 9. According to what the complainant testified, the minor was present at the place where the meeting took place and his beating followed.
At the same time, the 16-year-old stated in his testimony that, the next day, his ex-girlfriend sent his mother a video with excerpts of the attack. The material was then handed over to the Police. Therefore, the minor is expected to be questioned about what she knows about the incident, as well as how she came into possession of the video.
At the center of the investigation are also the reports of violence against her, by the 16-year-old complainant, a claim which, according to the same information, the minor denies.
The complainant had reported to the Police that their relationship ended after a fight and that his ex-girlfriend then spread the word that he was beating her. During his testimony, friends of the minor, including four of the suspects, created a group on Instagram and contacted him, asking him to meet to resolve their differences.
The minor's version is expected to be taken into account with the rest of the testimonies and the available visual material, in order to investigate the motive for the attack and whether the specific reports are connected to the settlement of the meeting.
The 21-year-old is free
In a newer development, according to our information, the 21-year-old suspect was released as he apparently had no involvement in the incident.
Apology in exchange for withdrawal of the complaint
At the same time, according to information from "F", some of the families of the suspects are reportedly willing to approach the family of the 16-year-old, in order to withdraw the complaint about the incident. However, this has not been done so far.
Based on the same information, relevant approaches were made yesterday, outside the Nicosia District Court, where five-day detention orders were issued for the seven suspects.
In particular, according to the same information, family friends of one of the suspects allegedly told the parents of the 16-year-old that, if they agreed to withdraw the complaint, they would tell the minor suspect to apologize to their child on his knees.
Of course, according to legal experts, the possible withdrawal of the complaint does not automatically imply the termination of the investigation or further criminal proceedings. The evaluation of the witness material and the decisions for the criminal examination of the case belong to the competent authorities and are not determined exclusively by the will of the families.
The next milestone for the case is Monday, October 19, when the five-day detention of the seven suspects ends. Until then, it is expected to become clear whether a criminal case will be registered against all or some of them, whether the Police will request a renewal of their detention or whether they will be released without immediate registration of a case.
In the event of registration, the Court will decide on their further detention or release on parole. A possible release from detention, however, does not in itself mean that the case is terminated.
* * * * * *
The Supreme Court rejected an application by two Greek Cypriots to obtain a license in order to examine in the third and last instance legal issues arising from a decision of the Court of Appeal, which had set aside a first-instance decision for the payment of compensation by Turkey due to loss of use and exploitation of real estate in occupied Kyrenia.
In its unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the applicants did not substantiate the conditions provided by law for the granting of the relevant license, pointing out that the procedure cannot be used as a means of filing a new appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal.
The case concerns two Greek Cypriots, who had appealed against the Republic of Turkey, claiming judicial protection for properties located in Kyrenia and of which they declare themselves owners or beneficiaries of registration.
The Kyrenia District Court, by decision of 30 September 2019, had awarded damages in the amount of €33,440 in favour of the first applicant and €38,300 in favour of the latter, plus interest and costs, for the loss of use, exploitation or development of their properties. The decision had been issued after proof was issued, due to Turkey's non-appearance in the proceedings.
However, the Court of First Instance had not issued the declaratory decrees requested by the applicants regarding the ownership of their properties, nor had it issued a decree recognizing the illegality and invalidity of the so-called "Real Estate Commission" and the "Higher Administrative Court" operating in the occupied territories.
The two applicants appealed, which was examined by the Court of Appeal and rejected on the merits of their claim, with the Court setting aside the first-instance decision on October 31, 2024. The Court of Appeal held that Turkey enjoys sovereign immunity under international law and therefore could not be sued before a Cypriot court for acts concerning the exercise of sovereign power.
With their application to the Supreme Court, the two Greek Cypriots requested permission to examine seven legal issues. Among other things, they argued that the Court of Appeal wrongly concluded that there was sovereign immunity, that their right to be heard was violated, and that their constitutional rights, including the protection of property and the right to a fair trial, were affected. They also raised the issue of unequal treatment and challenged the rejection of their request to refer a question to the Court of Justice of the European Union.
The Supreme Court, examining the application, underlined that this jurisdiction concerns exclusively legal issues arising from a decision of the Court of Appeal and linked to specific conditions, such as the need to differentiate settled case law, the correct interpretation of legislation or the resolution of a major issue of public interest or general public importance.
According to the decision, the seven grounds put forward by the applicants did not raise specific legal questions that meet the requirements of the legislation, but expressed their disagreement with the judgment of the Court of Appeal and made allegations of errors in its decision.
The Court clarified that the procedure is not intended to review the correctness of the decisions of the Court of Appeal, nor does it allow for a rehearing of an appeal at third instance. He also stressed that the granting of a license depends on the fulfillment of the specific legislative conditions and not on whether the decision of the Court of Appeal is considered correct or erroneous.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court ruled that the conditions for the activation of its tertiary jurisdiction were not substantiated and rejected the application.
* * * * * *
The fourth attempt in a row by one of the 5 defendants, for the serious terrorism case, to be released, on parole, was rejected. He is a 54-year-old Palestinian with Cypriot citizenship, who has been living in Cyprus for four decades, who was allegedly the recipient of packages with dangerous substances, believed to be used to make explosives. It is recalled that four of the 54-year-old's children serve in the security forces of the Republic of Cyprus (National Guard and Police).
The 54-year-old brought a new objection to his detention last Wednesday, this time before the Permanent Criminal Court. His lawyer raised the amendment of the indictment as a different element, while he submitted a document, according to information from philenews, which bears the accused as the secretary of Fatah in Cyprus and not as a member of a Hamas network.
The court, which reserved its decision for today, rejected the objection and ordered that the 54-year-old remain in custody, indicating, among other things, that no different evidence emerges. It is noted that during the process of his first referral to trial, the accused had been released on bail of €1 million, however, this decision was overturned by the Court of Appeal that ordered his detention.
In the case, meanwhile, the 33-year-old defendant, who allegedly confessed, is expected to testify as a prosecution witness. For this reason, it was decided to hold a separate trial for him that will begin before the Permanent Criminal Court of Larnaca on October 26. The 54-year-old and the other three Palestinians aged 32, 38, 41 will answer whether or not they plead guilty to the serious charges they face on November 4.
The five are accused of conspiring in 2026 to provide support to Hamas, which allegedly assigned them a specific mission related to terrorist attacks on Israeli interests in Cyprus. They are all alleged to be members of a well-organized network that recruited Palestinians and trained them in Malaysia.
It is noted that among those arrested is a 41-year-old man, who is attributed the role of head of the Cyprus network. According to the alleged confession of the 33-year-old, who was connected to houses in which explosive manufacturing equipment was found, the 41-year-old was the person who recruited him.
When he collected enough materials in Cyprus, according to his alleged confession, the 38-year-old, who is a physics teacher, rushed in May from Malaysia, through the occupied territories. The specific person, who lived in the house in Pentakomo, is attributed the role of the manufacturer of the explosives. The 32-year-old, for his part, allegedly had the role of organizer of the 33-year-old's trips, while the 54-year-old was allegedly the recipient of packages with dangerous substances.
* * * * * *
Pafos Press
An appeal filed by a woman seeking to invalidate two wills left by an 81-year-old—arguing that they did not reflect the deceased's free will but were instead drawn up under psychological pressure and threats—has proven unsuccessful. The Court of Appeal rejected all grounds of appeal, ruling that insufficient evidence had been presented to prove that undue influence was exerted upon the elderly woman or her husband.
At the same time, the cross-appeals filed by two of the respondents—challenging the first-instance court's decision that the legal costs of the proceedings should be paid out of the estate—were also dismissed. However, the Court of Appeal ordered the appellant to pay legal costs amounting to €4,500 (plus VAT, where applicable) to the three respondents. The case concerned two lawsuits filed in the Paphos District Court, through which the appellant sought the annulment of wills dated February 22, 2006, and May 1, 2006, as well as the annulment of a document—signed by the 81-year-old woman’s husband on July 24, 2006—renouncing his inheritance rights.
The three wills and the change in the disposition of the estate
The dispute arose from successive changes made to the will of the 81-year-old woman, who passed away in 2006, just seven days after signing her final will.
In her first will, dated January 4, 2002, the 81-year-old had named her husband as her heir, and—in the event that he did not survive her—the appellant. The two families had maintained close personal and friendly ties for many years.
The second will, dated February 22, 2006, revoked the previous one and bequeathed the estate to the first respondent, who also had a long-standing connection to the 81-year-old woman. However, the right of her husband to remain in and make use of the property for the duration of his life was preserved.
Regarding the drafting of the second will, the lawyer who prepared it testified that the 81-year-old’s initial instructions included bequests to both the appellant and the first respondent. However, when the 81-year-old visited her office to sign the will, she changed her instructions, stating that she could not proceed with the originally planned distribution because the first respondent “wants everything.”
Approximately two months later, on May 1, 2006, the 81-year-old’s third and final will was drawn up while she was hospitalized. This will revoked all previous wills, and her movable and immovable property in Cyprus was bequeathed to the first respondent. Her car was given to the third respondent—a nurse at the clinic where she was receiving care—while a sum of 1,000 Cyprus pounds was bequeathed to the appellant’s mother.
Unlike the previous will, the final one included an explicit statement that the 81-year-old did not wish to leave anything to her husband. The second respondent, a lawyer, was appointed as the executor of the will.
According to the facts accepted by the court of first instance, the 81-year-old woman had visited the second respondent on or around April 26, 2006, and provided instructions for the preparation of a new will, expressing dissatisfaction both with her previous lawyer and with her husband.
On May 1, she was admitted to a hospital following a hypoglycemic episode, which was successfully treated. Later that same day, having read the will and confirmed her agreement with its contents, she signed it in the presence of two witnesses.
On July 24, 2006, her husband signed a document renouncing his inheritance rights—a document which, according to the accepted testimony, he had himself requested to be prepared, as he wished to respect his wife’s wishes. He passed away on December 7, 2006, at the age of 83.
Why the claims were dismissed
The court of first instance dismissed both claims, finding that insufficient evidence had been presented to demonstrate that the 81-year-old woman had been subjected to undue pressure or threats. Conversely, it accepted as credible the testimonies of the lawyer who had drafted the first two wills, as well as those of the nurse and the lawyer involved in the preparation of the final one.
The Court held that the 81-year-old’s remark that the first respondent “wants everything” was not, in itself, sufficient to prove that she had succumbed to undue influence. In the absence of additional evidence regarding the manner in which pressure was allegedly exerted, any conclusion to that effect would remain purely speculative.
The appellant challenged the first-instance judgment, putting forward a total of 12 grounds of appeal. Among other arguments, she contended that the concept of mental pressure was not correctly evaluated, that insufficient weight was given to the 81-year-old’s age and state of health, and that the significant changes made to the wills served as indications of undue influence.
She also invoked the so-called “Golden Rule,” according to which, as a matter of good practice, the mental state of an elderly or seriously ill person drafting a will should, whenever possible, be verified by a physician.
The Court of Appeal, however, ruled that while the age and poor health of the 81-year-old woman were significant factors in assessing the circumstances, they were insufficient to prove that undue influence had actually been exerted.
As noted in the judgment, the "Golden Rule" is neither a binding rule of law nor an independent criterion for the validity of a will; rather, it serves as judicial guidance regarding recommended practice. Consequently, failure to follow it does not automatically render a will invalid.
In the present case, the court of first instance had accepted the testimony of the nurse and the lawyer, who stated that, following the resolution of her hypoglycemic episode, the 81-year-old was in a sound state, understood her actions, read the will, and confirmed her agreement with its contents.
Conversely, the expert report provided by forensic physician Dr. M. Matsakis was deemed insufficient to overturn the findings of the court of first instance. As stated in the judgment, the forensic expert had not examined the 81-year-old woman; his opinions were based, to a significant extent, on general assessments and on information from her medical records that had not been sufficiently substantiated. Furthermore, none of her treating physicians had been called to testify.
The Court of Appeal emphasized that the crucial issue was not merely the fact that the first respondent benefited from the subsequent wills, but rather whether it was proven that she exerted influence of such intensity that it overcame the free will of the testatrix.
As noted in the judgment, "the freedom of a testator includes the discretion to alter previous choices regarding the disposition of their estate." Consequently, the fact that the 81-year-old woman changed her prior decisions or excluded her husband from her final will did not, in itself, prove that her decision was the result of psychological pressure.
The Court of Appeal also rejected the claim that her husband had been coerced into renouncing his inheritance rights, finding that no evidence had been presented to substantiate that any pressure had been exerted upon him. Conversely, the evidence accepted indicated that the renunciation was his own choice.
The allegation of forgery was also rejected.
At the first-instance stage, the appellant had sought to amend her statements of claim to include an allegation that the 81-year-old’s signature on the final will had been forged by the respondents.
This request was rejected by the court of first instance, which held that the allegation of forgery introduced a factual and legal basis that was fundamentally different from that of the original claims. Furthermore, the court found that the application was submitted with a significant delay—nearly four and a half years after the filing of the lawsuits—without any sufficient explanation.
The Court of Appeal upheld this ruling, noting that the original claim concerned the execution of the wills under conditions of mental pressure, whereas the allegation of forgery challenged whether the signature had been affixed by the 81-year-old herself.
As stated in the judgment, "in the one instance, the issue concerned the circumstances under which the 81-year-old signed, while in the other, it concerned whether she had, in fact, signed it herself." The Court ruled that the proposed amendment would lead to a substantial expansion of the issues in dispute, thereby affecting the respondents’ defense strategy. Furthermore, the appellant failed to sufficiently specify when and under what circumstances she became aware of the evidence which, according to her, raised questions regarding the authenticity of the signature.
Consequently, both the 11th and 12th grounds of appeal—which concerned the rejection of the application to amend—were dismissed.
Why the legal costs were ordered to be paid out of the estate
Through cross-appeals, the respondents challenged the first-instance court’s decision to have the legal costs of the proceedings paid out of the 81-year-old’s estate, notwithstanding the dismissal of the claims and the success of the respondents’ counterclaims.
The Court of Appeal dismissed both cross-appeals, finding that, under the specific circumstances, the decision regarding costs remained within the scope of the first-instance court’s judicial discretion.
Although the appellant failed to prove that undue influence (psychological pressure) had been exerted, the Court of Appeal held that there was a reasonable basis for the validity of the wills to be examined by the court. Relevant factors included the age and state of health of the 81-year-old, the substantial changes made in successive wills, as well as the testimony of the lawyer regarding the alteration of the testatrix’s initial instructions and the remark that the first respondent “wants everything.”
The Court clarified that the fact that a challenge to a will ultimately fails does not mean that it lacked a reasonable basis from the outset.
In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed in its entirety, as were the cross-appeals. The Court of Appeal The Court awarded costs of €4,500, plus VAT where applicable, in favour of the three respondents and against the appellant. No order as to costs was made for the cross-appeals.
