The case of Judge Doria Varosiotou, who was removed from the judiciary by decision of the Supreme Judicial Council, has recently fallen under the watchful eye of the Independent Authority Against Corruption.
The matter arose following an anonymous complaint submitted by a member of the public (or members of the public) against the President of the Limassol District Court, who had allegedly exerted undue pressure on Varosiotou to alter her findings in the high-profile death inquiry of soldier Thanasis Nicolaou. As the appointed judge, Varosiotou had concluded that Thanasis’s death was the result of murder.
The complaint submitted to the Anti-Corruption Authority concerned alleged abuse of power by the President of the Limassol District Court, who was Varosiotou’s superior at the time, during the conduct of the inquest.
Preliminary review
In line with current legislation, the Anti-Corruption Authority is empowered to investigate even anonymous complaints. Given the seriousness of the allegations, it proceeded with a preliminary review, aiming to determine whether:
-
The case fell within its jurisdiction.
-
There was sufficient evidence to substantiate a corruption offence.
Complaint dismissed
Following the review, the Authority found that the matter concerned disciplinary issues involving judges. It noted that such matters fall exclusively under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Judicial Council, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant legal provisions. The Council is composed of judges from the Supreme Court.
In its decision dated 23 September 2025, the Authority underlined the independence of the judiciary, as guaranteed by the Constitution, and reaffirmed that the Supreme Judicial Council holds sole authority over appointments, promotions, transfers, dismissals, and disciplinary control of judges at both appellate and first-instance levels.
As such, the Authority concluded that the complaint did not fall within its remit and formally terminated the investigation.
The Authority posted its decision on its official website, omitting all names to ensure that the complainant(s) could be informed of the outcome while respecting privacy and confidentiality.
Finally, the Authority clarified that “the complaint was not submitted by directly interested parties,” indicating that it did not originate from either Varosiotou or the family of Thanasis Nicolaou.
Controversial correspondence
During the hearing of a constitutional appeal filed by Varosiotou before the Supreme Constitutional Court, in which she seeks to overturn the Supreme Judicial Council’s decision to remove her from the bench, previously undisclosed correspondence between the Council and the judge came to light.
In a letter dated 23 June 2025 addressed to the Council, in response to allegations questioning her conduct and legal competence, Varosiotou reported receiving intense pressure to revise her findings in the Thanasis Nicolaou case.
A particularly telling excerpt from her letter reads:
Errors and motives: Diverging views
It is worth noting that following Varosiotou’s ruling that Thanasis Nicolaou had died as a result of foul play, forensic pathologist Panicos Stavrianos, who had previously ruled the death a suicide, appealed to the Supreme Court to have her conclusion overturned.
Given the gravity of the matter, the full bench of the Supreme Court convened to examine the appeal. While the judges did identify serious legal errors in the inquest conducted by Varosiotou, they did not annul her report.
Nevertheless, acting in their capacity as the Supreme Judicial Council, the same judges removed her from the judiciary, declaring her unfit for permanent appointment as a judge. Varosiotou, for her part, claims she is being punished for refusing to alter her ruling on the cause of Thanasis Nicolaou’s death.
The Supreme Judicial Council, however, maintains that its decision was based on serious procedural errors, not only in the Nicolaou case, but also in a second case in which she was allegedly again asked to amend her findings.
According to the Council, Varosiotou “chose in both instances to initiate judicial proceedings that are not provided for by law. This choice cannot be attributed to ignorance. From her decision to proceed in this manner, it is clear that her real intention was not to gather the views of the parties, but rather, through a ‘judicial process’ of her own creation, to publicise the stance of the [Limassol District Court] President, as she understood it, in order to demonstrate that she was right and the President had acted inappropriately.”
