The Supreme Constitutional Court rejected an application by eight community councils for leave to appeal at a third level in the legal dispute over the transfer of an asphalt production plant to Mitsero. It found that the conditions for hearing the case had not been established. The communities’ main appeal against approval of the planning permit remains pending before the Administrative Court of Appeal.
The unanimous ruling was issued today, Thursday, and concerns the community councils of Mitsero, Agrokipia, Agios Ioannis Nicosia, Kato Moni, Arediou, Meniko, Malounda and Orounda. The councils sought the annulment of a Town Planning Authority decision, dated 24 March 2022, which approved the transfer of the Prometheas Asphalt Ltd plant from the Tseri area to the administrative boundaries of Mitsero community.
The communities had challenged approval of the planning permit, but their appeal was dismissed on 5 February 2026. They then appealed to the Administrative Court of Appeal and sought a temporary suspension of the permit, as well as an order prohibiting work to implement it until the appeal was heard.
The Administrative Court of Appeal rejected the request on 16 June 2026. It found that the evidence submitted did not establish, to the required degree, a risk of irreparable harm to public health or the environment from the plant’s operation. The community councils subsequently asked the Supreme Constitutional Court for leave to have the case examined at a third level.
Application dismissed
In their application, they argued, among other things, that the Administrative Court of Appeal’s decision departed from established case law, introduced a new condition for issuing an interim order, and raised issues of public interest because the case concerned the protection of health and the environment. The Republic and the company argued that the conditions for granting leave to activate the jurisdiction of the Supreme Constitutional Court had not been met.
The Court found that the application had not raised a legal issue warranting the activation of its jurisdiction at a third level. As it stated, “the purpose is not to review the correctness of the decision of the Administrative Court of Appeal”. It clarified that specific legal conditions must be established, rather than merely expressing disagreement with the previous court’s judgment.
Regarding the Administrative Court of Appeal’s assessment of the evidence, the Supreme Constitutional Court noted that the Court of Appeal had concluded that the risk of irreparable harm had not been established “at least at the level of a serious likelihood”. It added that the European case law cited by the applicants does not require interim protection to be granted automatically, irrespective of the circumstances of each case.
The Court also pointed out that the specific proceedings “do not concern or determine the substantive rights of the parties involved”. Those rights, it noted, will be determined in the context of the pending appeal before the Administrative Court of Appeal, for which directions have been given for an expedited hearing.
“Consequently, the conditions for granting leave to activate the jurisdiction of the Supreme Constitutional Court have not been established,” the Court concluded, dismissing the application.
Source: CNA
