Supreme Court rejects Varoshiotou’s appeal against dismissal
The Supreme Court on Friday rejected dismissed judge Doria Varoshiotou’s appeal against her ouster in a five-to-three ruling, upholding the judicial council’s decision to relieve her of her duties last year.
While the decision was not unanimous, the court’s decision stated that the appointment of judges on probation is a “long-standing judicial practice”, and that judges on probation are only made permanent judges “if they are deemed suitable”.
“Evaluation reports are sent every six months. It is the [supreme judicial] council’s duty to judge, and it is required to establish that [a judge] has both the knowledge and the character that a judge should have,” the court said.
It also said that Varoshiotou was aware of the fact that she had been appointed on probation, and that given that the appointment was made by “an independent body” in the judicial council, there was “no arbitrariness” in its decision to not offer her a permanent position.
The decision, it stated, was “free from interference”.
“The [supreme judicial] council is controlled by the Supreme Constitutional Court. [Varoshiotou] never disputed that her appointment was not permanent. The [supreme judicial] council’s authority to not proceed with the permanent appointment of a judge must be recognised,” it stated.
It added that Varoshiotou was never given “instructions” or “put under pressure” by the judicial council during her probationary period, and that there was “no lack of impartiality” in the judicial council’s decision.
To this end, it stated that Varoshiotou had “conducted judicial proceedings outside the law”.
Additionally, it said that in her most high-profile case, in which she ruled in 2024 that conscript Thanasis Nicolaou, who died in 2005, had been strangled to death,19 years after his death had been ruled a suicide, there were “serious weaknesses and serious legal errors”.
The supreme judicial council had in July last year decided to not offer Varoshiotou a permanent position within the judiciary following the conclusion of a two-year probationary period.
She was the only one of 11 judges under probation whose position was discontinued, with seven being offered permanent appointments and three being given further probation.
Her ruling in the Thanasis Nicolaou case prompted a wave of appeals from former state pathologist Panicos Stavrianos, and while those appeals were unsuccessful, the Supreme Court found in February last year that Varoshiotou had made a “legal error” in not allowing Stavrianos to testify during the case.
Despite this, the Supreme Court also found that it would “not serve any purpose” to annul Varoshiotou’s decision “for reasons of public interest and justice”.
President Nikos Christodoulides, meanwhile, had in August last year demanded “public explanations” over the reasons for Varoshiotou’s dismissal.
“I fully understand the social reaction and the feeling created in society. It is extremely important that those who took this decision, and it was not the executive power, explain publicly why they took it. I repeat, I understand the reactions from society,” he said at the time.
Meanwhile, Thanasis’ mother Andriana Nicolaou described the decision to relieve Varoshiotou of her duties as “unacceptable” describing her as “a worthy and incorruptible judge”.
More recently, Varoshiotou’s lawyer Achilleas Demetriades had argued that the case should be adjudicated at the Court of Justice of the European Union in Luxembourg as there are no domestic laws in Cyprus regulating the dismissal of judges who were serving probation periods.
However, the Supreme Constitutional Court rejected this request in October last year and made reference to it in Friday’s ruling, saying that questions raised by Demetriades “do not meet the requirements for the CJEU” to be involved.
Demetriades had said at a previous hearing that if the request for the case to be referred to the CJEU would be rejected, his next step would be to refer the matter to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Strasbourg, arguing that the trial in Cyprus was unfair.
The ECtHR is not attached in any way to the EU and is instead a part of the Council of Europe. Unlike the CJEU, its decisions are not binding on national governments.