The Supreme Constitutional Judicial Council rejected the Varosiotou request to exclude three judges, including its President, from trying the case concerning her dismissal as District Judge following a trial period.
The request to exclude the judges, the President and two members, was submitted through her lawyer Achilleas Demetriades, who raised an issue of objective impartiality.
In its rejection of the request, the Council noted that “the facts surrounding the request in question are not in doubt. They refer to the time that the appellant was appointed in the position of District Judge and are in line with the Justice reform introduced in 2023 and the competent legislation approved towards it implementation. More specifically:- Through the amended law, it was stipulated that the unified Supreme Court would operate as of July 1st 2023 both as a Supreme Constitutional Court and a Supreme Court. In the interim period, it was stipulated that the transitional Council would be exclusively responsible to appoint judges. It was made up by the President of the unified Supreme Court at the time and the rest of the judges in the court, as members. The President back then ,today presides the Supreme Constitutional Court and is responsible in trying the appeal. Mr. Demetriades is requesting the exclusion of two of the four members of the Court in its previous form and members today’s Council.”
Based on the above, Doria Varosiotou suggests that the President and two of the Council’s members have an impartiality issue, as they took part in the decision to appoint Varosiotou as a district judge for a trial period, taking part on all the interviews and the Transitional Council that awarded her a position.
Refusal to carry out judicial duties
The Judicial Council noted that “the trial appointment in the permanent position of a district judge was not an issue that was of judicial concern or was judged with reference to any specific legal factors at any stage. As such it is posed for the first time. It forms one of the main legal standpoints by the appellant and will be considered by the Council during the hearing on the substance of the case and in light of legal arguments by opposing counsel. Under these circumstances, there is no justification for the exclusion of judges. On the contrary, satisfying the appellant’s demand would constitute a refusal on our part to carry out our duties and would go against the need for the right functioning of the judicial system.”
Following these pre-trial issues, the Council will issue instructions on September 29th, on how to proceed.