Dozens of reports concerning potential criminal offences are being rejected by the independent Anti‑Corruption Authority not because they lack substance but due to lack of jurisdiction. The legislative framework governing its operation is clear. What is becoming evident in practice, however, is that citizens believe the Anti‑Corruption Authority can examine any complaint, as if it were a general complaints office. What is certain is that citizens nonetheless trust it as an institution.
In cases where, at first glance, a criminal investigation appears justified for offences that do not fall within the Authority’s remit, citizens are instructed to submit their complaints to the competent authorities. In the few cases to date where complaints were serious and supported by irrefutable evidence, the Anti‑Corruption Authority itself forwarded them to the relevant state services for further action.
Reasons for Rejection
To date, the Anti‑Corruption Authority has been forced to reject dozens of complaints mainly for two reasons: first, because they were directed against private citizens rather than officials and employees of the public and wider public sector, and second, because the Authority lacked jurisdiction to investigate them, as the allegations did not fall within its scope of competence.
The Anti‑Corruption Authority is empowered to investigate and assess complaints related to acts of corruption, including, among others, bribery and corruption of public officials, unlawful acquisition of financial benefit by public officials or employees, abuse of power and related offences. Complaints directed exclusively against private individuals are rejected.
Complaints of Every Kind
Listed below are indicative cases of complaints that were rejected by the Anti‑Corruption Authority at the preliminary assessment stage due to lack of jurisdiction:
A complaint concerning allegations of noise disturbance in an apartment building, as well as behaviour causing concern among other residents. The complaint also referred to the placement of objects, such as chairs, on the apartment balcony in a manner that could pose a risk of falling onto the street or passers‑by.
A complaint against a doctor, who according to the complainant made an offensive post on social media against a political figure.
A person complained that a neighbour cut down trees and constructed a garage without securing the required permits.
A building contractor was reported for allegedly commencing the construction of a residence without the owner’s consent and charging €23,000.
A plumber was complained against for charging an excessive fee for his services and failing to issue a receipt.
A complaint against a taverna owner referring to alleged violations of food safety rules, mistreatment of staff, non‑payment of social insurance contributions, failure to provide meal breaks, forced long working hours of up to 14 hours, threats and physical assaults, as well as tax evasion.
A complaint against a person described as a user of addictive substances, allegedly displaying dangerous and violent behaviour, including claims of credit card theft, death threats and damage to property.
A complaint against a cleric involving allegations of lack of transparency in the operation of a facility, possible exploitation of vulnerable persons, indications of possession or management of ancient icons and objects, breaches of confidentiality and the creation of tensions within the local community.
A complaint against a person allegedly practising illegally as a driving instructor.
A complaint against the owner of a beauty institute for operating without the necessary licence and failing to pay social insurance contributions.
A complaint regarding alleged violations by a specific sports and recreation facility, including illegal employment of third‑country nationals and failure to issue receipts.
A complaint against a member of staff at a school complex in Nicosia district for inappropriate behaviour.
A complaint alleging that a woman is operating her private business illegally.
A person describing himself as a “Neighbourhood Observer” requested an investigation into the income of a couple living in a village in Larnaca district, claiming they receive substantial undeclared sums for services rendered.
Complainants, described as “local residents”, requested an investigation into the facilities of a private school based in Limassol, alleging it operates without planning permission, in unsuitable premises and with insufficient parking spaces, causing problems for neighbouring residents.
A complainant requested an investigation into the income of a private nursery school based in Nicosia, which according to the complaint does not issue receipts.
Anonymous Complaints
The institutional framework governing the Anti‑Corruption Authority allows for the submission of anonymous complaints. In such cases, the complainant is not entitled to receive information on the progress of the complaint. For reasons of transparency, the Authority publishes on its website the decisions taken concerning the handling of each anonymous complaint.
It is noted that anonymous complaints by citizens to the Authority have been increasing recently, a trend attributed in part to fear of possible targeting.
The Authority has been obliged to reject the majority of anonymous complaints directed against public officials, as they were general and vague, lacking sufficient evidence to allow for a substantive investigation. At the same time, there was no possibility of communication with the complainants to provide additional information or clarifications. For this reason, the Anti‑Corruption Authority, in a recent announcement, requested that anonymous complaints submitted to it be accompanied by evidence to enable their effective examination.
