The Nicosia Permanent Assize Court on Wednesday dismissed key pieces of evidence obtained by police against a German real-estate agent accused of usurpation of Greek-Cypriot properties in the north non-government controlled areas. The Court unanimously found that the search of the defendant’s luggage and the seizure of items were carried out in breach of her constitutional rights, rendering the evidence inadmissible and unconstitutional.
The ruling was delivered within a “trial-within-a-trial,” a procedure held to determine the lawfulness of how the Prosecution collected testimony. The defendant, who followed the proceedings with the help of an interpreter, faces 46 charges relating, among other things, to transactions, advertising, promotion and unlawful use of properties during 2023–2024, as well as money laundering.
Announcing the main points of the 75-page decision, Court President Nikolas Georgiades said the Court focused on the legality of the seizures, the circumstances under which the defendant gave written consent for her luggage to be searched, and the extraction of digital content.
After assessing the testimony of ten defence witnesses and the prosecution witnesses, the Court held that while the arrest procedure at the airport was proper, the subsequent search of her personal effects was problematic. the judge noted that although the defendant had been informed of her rights in German and understood she was under arrest, the ensuing search and seizure did not meet the requirements of law and case-law.
Specifically, the Court found the testimony of the constable who conducted the search to be “general and vague”. It did not emerge, the Court reasoned, that the seizure of the phone, hard drive and other documents was based on reasonable suspicion directly linked to the offences under investigation. “The initial seizure was carried out as a routine,” the President said, adding that “the circumstances create doubt,” and the Prosecution failed to prove the legality of the process.
Citing Cypriot, European, American and Canadian jurisprudence, the Court underlined the principle of proportionality, according to which a police officer’s power to search and seize upon arrest cannot be unlimited. There must be sufficient reason and a direct connection between the items seized and the essence of the case, something not established here, it said.
The Court also identified a violation of the defendant’s right of access to a lawyer. Although officers testified that she did not ask for counsel, the Court held this does not constitute a valid waiver of the right. “We do not accept that the phrase ‘she did not request representation’ amounts to a waiver of the right to a lawyer,” Georgiades stated.
According to the reasoning, waiver of such a fundamental right must be “voluntary and expressed without any doubt,” with the suspect fully aware of the consequences, something not proven. The Court stressed that the luggage search was an investigative act engaging the right against self-incrimination. Therefore, the consent she provided by signing the relevant form, without a lawyer present and without a full explanation of the consequences of refusal, was deemed invalid. “At this stage, the defendant’s constitutional rights were violated. The search and seizure of a series of exhibits were impermissible and unconstitutional,” the Court concluded.
Immediately after the ruling, the Prosecution’s representative, Anna Matthaiou, said that “the excluded evidence affects the case” and requested a ten-day adjournment for the Law Office to consider next steps.
Defence counsel Sotiris Argyrou agreed to the adjournment request and immediately raised the issue of returning the seized items (computers, documents, etc.), since they were deemed inadmissible as evidence.
The Court set the next hearing for 20 October at 9:00 a.m. and ordered that the defendant remain in custody until then.