A legal dispute over whether the Republic of Cyprus, when acting as an employer, falls within legislation protecting workers’ representatives has reached the Supreme Court. Prison officer and ISOTITA trade unionist Giorgos Maltezos is challenging a lower court decision that prevented charges from being filed against five state officials.
Application targets five state officials
Ex Parte Criminal Application No. 1/2026 seeks an order permitting a charge sheet to be filed against five state officials, including the Minister of Justice and Public Order and the acting director of the Prisons Department.
In a statement, ISOTITA said the proposed charges concern alleged offences under Sections 5 and 6 of Law 30(III)/1995, which ratified International Labour Organization Convention No. 135 on the protection of workers’ representatives.
Challenge to lower court ruling
The union said the Nicosia District Court refused to register the case on 1 July 2026, relying on a single finding: that the Republic of Cyprus “clearly is neither an organisation nor a legal person” within the meaning of Section 6(2).
ISOTITA argued that, if the first-instance court’s interpretation stands, the state, as the country’s largest employer, would be beyond the reach of legislation it enacted to protect trade unionists. It said this would leave the entire public sector without criminal protection against anti-union reprisals.
State’s role as an employer
The union said that when the state “hires, pays, disciplines and dismisses, it is an employer like any other”. It cited Article 172 of the Constitution, which it said makes the Republic liable “for every injurious wrongful act or omission of its servants or authorities”.
Events preceding the dismissal
ISOTITA said that in December 2025 its Prison Officers’ Sectoral Council, represented by Maltezos, publicly raised concerns over overcrowding, drugs circulating at the Central Prisons and understaffing. On 22 December 2025, the union also alleged that hierarchical authority was being used to recruit members to another trade union.
The union said it filed a harassment complaint in May, after which an investigating officer was appointed to investigate Maltezos. It also lodged a complaint with the Attorney-General, which was rejected on 6 July 2026 on the grounds that “no evidence had emerged”.
ISOTITA added that on 28 July, the Republic gave written assurances to the European Committee of Social Rights that there was no risk of irreparable harm because the pending disciplinary proceedings provided full safeguards.
It said that three days later, on 31 July, the Justice Minister dismissed Maltezos with immediate effect and without notice or compensation. The union alleged that this occurred before any report from the disciplinary process had been issued or even communicated to him, without observing the principles of natural justice and without the minister having the authority to take that decision.
Source: CNA
