In its decision dated 18 May 2026, the appellate court rejected the owner’s appeal and endorsed the findings of the Nicosia District Court, which had ruled that the zoo continued to operate after its licence expired, in breach of the law and relevant regulations.
The lower court accepted testimony from the Director of Veterinary Services, who stated that during an inspection on 11 March 2018, the facility was found to be operating without a renewed licence. The zoo’s operating licence had expired on 25 September 2017 and was not renewed due to non-compliance with regulatory requirements.
According to the evidence accepted by the court, the premises, the nature of activities and the overall environment remained unchanged after the licence expired, indicating that the operation continued as before.
In his appeal, the owner argued that the prosecution had failed to prove all elements of the offence. Specifically, he claimed there was no evidence that he was operating a zoo within the meaning defined in the relevant regulations, citing Regulation 2 of the legislation governing the protection and welfare of animals in zoos.
He further argued that no evidence had been presented to show that wild animals were exhibited to the public for seven or more days a year, and therefore that the facility did not fall within the legal definition of a zoo.
The Court of Appeal, however, pointed to the wording of Regulation 2, noting that it includes the phrase “unless the context otherwise requires.” The court also referred to a similar provision in Article 14(1) of the Interpretation Law, which allows for different meanings depending on context.
The judges highlighted that Regulation 2 originates from the original 2002 regulations, while Regulation 14 – which applied in this case – was introduced through later amendments in 2011. In such cases, the same wording may carry a different meaning in different provisions of the consolidated legislation.
The court concluded that Regulation 14 clearly applies to holders of a previously issued zoo licence that has since expired but where operations continue. It stated that the prohibition comes into force from the moment the licence expires.
As a result, the court found that the trial court was correct in not requiring additional evidence regarding the interpretation of a zoo under Regulation 2.
“The appeal fails and the first instance judgment is upheld,” the ruling states.
Source: CNA
