The Supreme Court recently rejected a Greek appellant's request for the annulment of a European arrest warrant (EAW) which had been issued against him in order to investigate alleged criminal offences. Although the court erroneously accepted the appellant's appeal of the ne bis in idem principle (ie, the prohibition of double jeopardy), it rightly concluded that Cyprus was not prevented from executing the EAW by investigating the case against the appellant.
In a recent appeal case, the Supreme Court ruled that the wording of a guarantee signed in respect of a tenancy lease agreement did not fall within the context of an explicit commitment to cover the statutory tenancy as well. Therefore, it could not be concluded that the parties intended to extend the guarantee to this form of tenancy and that the guarantor was committed to pay the rent during said period.
An interim or interlocutory injunction is a court order effectively ordering a party to carry out or refrain from carrying out an action for a certain period. The general rule is that an injunction remains effective until a final judgment is rendered for the main action or until it is cancelled or modified by a subsequent court injunction. Nonetheless, in certain instances, the Cypriot courts have decided to uphold such injunctions in effect, even after the issuance of a judgment in the main proceedings, to facilitate execution.
The Supreme Court recently confirmed a first-instance decision which had annulled a transfer of shares by a debtor to his son. The Supreme Court found that the debtor had acted fraudulently to prevent his creditor from executing a court judgment which had been issued in the creditor's favour. The Supreme Court also found that the issuance of a decree on the sale of shares as a means of enforcing the decision against the debtor was possible.
The Supreme Court recently rejected an appeal against a detention order issued by the Larnaca Permanent Assize Court in a sexual assault case. The appellant claimed that the evidence placed before the first-instance court had speculated on his guilt and the risk of him absconding. However, the Supreme Court found that the accused's detention until trial was at the discretion of the first-instance court and that, based on the circumstances of the case, the court had exercised this power correctly.