He Was "Convicted" as a Fugitive Despite Not Fleeing – The State Returns Half a Million Euros

A “slap” to a District Judge was delivered by the Supreme Court’s decision on Monday, January 24, 2022, which ordered the return of a €500,000 bail amount by the State to a person who was wrongly considered by the Larnaca District Court as a fugitive.

Specifically, for almost two whole years, the Chinese businessman and appellant was treated as a fugitive by the Larnaca District Court, with arrest warrants issued and his €500,000 bail confiscated.

The Supreme Court vindicated the appellant, deciding that in view of the suspension of the original proceedings, the appellant had never fled, resulting in the bail ceasing to be valid and that it should have been returned to him from the first day the proceedings were suspended, that is, from January 2019. Illegally, and for almost two whole years, the District Court continued to treat the appellant as a fugitive.

In a unanimous and landmark decision, which established a previously non-existent legal principle, the Supreme Court likened the case before it to that of a person being detained while proceedings are suspended. The Supreme Court specifically stated:

“If the latter were under detention, the Court should, as a duty, order his immediate release… by analogy to the aforementioned example of immediate release in case he was detained, the [restrictive conditions], including the monetary bail, ceased to be in effect automatically.”

This decision followed a previous one by the Supreme Court regarding the same case, in an application for the issuance of a prerogative writ of Certiorari. During the original proceedings, the same District Judge wrongly did not allow the appellant’s lawyers to represent him in court. The Supreme Court again set aside the original decision, protecting the fundamental human rights of the appellant.

“The Supreme Court’s decision epitomizes the protection of fundamental human rights of every individual and sends a strong message to the District Courts that their primary concern must be the safeguarding of Human Rights, a supreme good often forgotten by lower Courts.”

The case was handled on behalf of the appellant by lawyer Chara Alexandrou from the law firm DIMITRIOU & DIMITRIOU LLC.