**Supreme Court Denies Trade Unionist's Indictment Request Against State Officials**
The Supreme Court of Cyprus has dismissed a request from Giorgos Maltezos, a trade unionist with the Equality (Isotita) union, to file a private criminal indictment against five state officials. The officials targeted in the proposed indictment included Justice Minister Costas Fitiris, Maria Siali, the deputy director of the central prisons, a senior legal officer at the justice ministry, George Pantelis, the ministry’s permanent secretary, and a prisons department officer.
Maltezos alleged that these officials failed to provide adequate protection for trade union members, claiming that their actions were detrimental to workers’ representatives due to their union activities. Additionally, he accused them of obstructing trade union freedom.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court focused on Maltezos' employment status, determining that he did not have a dependent employment relationship with the state. The court noted that his role as a prison guard, employed under an indefinite contract, is classified within the public service and governed by administrative law. The court further clarified that the legislation cited by Maltezos pertains to an “enterprise” or economic entity, which does not include the state.
The court concluded that pursuing the indictment would effectively interfere with ongoing proceedings against Maltezos related to alleged unjustified absences from work. Since these proceedings are still active despite his dismissal from the justice ministry, the court deemed that filing the indictment would amount to an “abuse of the judicial process.”
In response to the court's decision, Prodromos Christofi, president of the Equality union, expressed respect for the judiciary but voiced concerns regarding the implications of the ruling. He argued that the court's reasoning could potentially leave public sector workers without adequate criminal protection against alleged reprisals for union activities. Christofi stated, “I have absolute respect for the judiciary, I comply with the decision and I do not attribute any expediency or prejudice to any judge,” while also disputing the court’s focus on Maltezos’ employment relationship. He contended that the disciplinary proceedings against Maltezos were part of the alleged retaliation, asserting that seeking criminal protection should not be viewed as an abuse of the judicial process but rather as a legitimate application of the law.
Christofi further emphasized that a criminal court's jurisdiction does not extend to annulling administrative or disciplinary decisions, suggesting that the union was only seeking a ruling on the criminal liability of the five officials involved.
The legal dispute arises in the context of Maltezos’ recent dismissal by the justice ministry, which occurred at the end of last month following disciplinary proceedings concerning alleged unjustified absences. The Equality union has maintained that this dismissal was linked to Maltezos’ activities as a trade unionist. In contrast, Minister Fitiris has denied these allegations, asserting that the dismissal was a result of repeated violations of workplace regulations.
The union has indicated plans to challenge Maltezos’ dismissal in court and explore other legal avenues, including proceedings that are already pending at European and international levels. This case highlights ongoing tensions between trade unions and state authorities in Cyprus, particularly regarding the rights and protections afforded to public sector workers engaged in union activities.
As the situation develops, the implications of the Supreme Court's ruling could resonate within the broader context of labor rights and protections for public sector employees in Cyprus.