Lawyer Simos Angelides has questioned the legality of the Independent Authority against Corruption’s decision to terminate its investigation into the “black van” case.
He argued that Article 10 of Law 19(I)/2022, cited by both the Authority and the Legal Service, prohibits simultaneous criminal investigations but does not prevent the Authority from conducting its own inquiry after another investigation has concluded.
Speaking to CNA on Monday, Angelides also questioned how matters first raised in journalist Fanis Makrides’ book, Cyprus: The Hub of Surveillance, published in June 2026, could already have been investigated by the police and an independent criminal investigator.
Questions over the 2026 disclosures
Angelides said he understood that the police and criminal investigator had completed their inquiries into the case considerably earlier. He called for clarification on whether those investigations had genuinely covered the matters raised in the book.
“How can issues raised for the first time in June 2026 have already been investigated by the police and the criminal investigator, when their investigations had been completed earlier?” he asked.
He said the Legal Service should provide full information on the scope of the previous investigations and clarify whether they covered the allegations contained in Makrides’ book.
What Article 10 provides
Both the Authority and the Legal Service cited Article 10 in statements issued on Monday, arguing that it prevents multiple investigations into corruption cases.
The provision states that when a criminal investigation into an act of corruption falling within the Authority’s remit has begun, either by the police or a criminal investigator, the Authority must not begin, or must terminate, any parallel action once informed by the Attorney-General.
Angelides said the wording was intended to prevent two criminal investigations from proceeding simultaneously.
“What the law clearly does not prohibit is the Independent Authority conducting its own investigation after an investigation by another authority has been completed,” he said, adding that both institutions should address the issue.
No other investigation pending
Angelides argued that the statements issued by the competent authorities appeared to confirm that no other criminal investigation or court proceedings were currently pending.
He therefore maintained that there was no legal obstacle preventing the Authority from conducting its own inquiry in the manner it considered appropriate.
Calls for transparency over surveillance
Referring more broadly to surveillance practices, Angelides called for greater transparency and further explanations from the authorities.
He cited the European Parliament and its PEGA committee, saying their findings had raised concerns about Cyprus and described the country as an important hub for the spyware industry.
“This raises a serious rule-of-law issue,” he said.
Angelides also referred to the recent conviction of businessman Tal Dilian in Greece, where he said substantial prison sentences had been imposed, while the response in Cyprus had been limited to administrative fines and the suspension of criminal cases.
The Sizopoulos case
Angelides also cited the case involving former EDEK president Marinos Sizopoulos, arguing that it showed the Authority had previously conducted its own investigation after police procedures had concluded.
He said the Authority’s investigation had led to the proceedings now before the court concerning Sizopoulos.
Angelides described the Authority’s position in the “black van” case as contradictory, arguing that Article 10 prevents parallel criminal investigations, not one investigation taking place after another has ended.
Source: CNA
