A defendant in Cyprus's most high-profile criminal prosecution — the fraudulent naturalization case arising from the Cyprus Investment Programme — has failed to obtain third-tier leave to appeal to the New Supreme Court. In Application No. 11/2025, 16 January 2026, the three-judge bench of Σταματίου P., Δημητριάδου-Ανδρέου, and Δαυίδ delivered a ruling that will shape how practitioners approach the new third-tier jurisdiction under Article 9(3)(γ) of Law 33/1964 for years ahead: leave is not a mechanism for reviewing the merits of a Court of Appeal decision. The threshold is categorical and exclusive.
The Underlying Case: Golden Passports and Fraudulent Naturalization
The criminal proceedings that gave rise to this application concerned nine defendants — natural and legal persons — facing 34 charges connected to Cyprus's Cyprus Investment Programme (CIP), the so-called "golden passport" scheme. At the centre of the prosecution was the alleged fraudulent naturalization of an individual who applied under the name Tony Newman, presenting himself with a fabricated date and place of birth. Investigators alleged his true identity was Mehdi Ebrahimi Eshratabadi, an Iranian national, who also held a Dominican Republic passport issued on 7 October 2014 and went by a third alias, "Mike Robertson."
The charges covered a substantial range of criminal conduct: conspiracy to defraud, forgery and circulation of forged documents, obtaining registration by false pretences, providing false information to authorities, concealment of assets, false certification, and money laundering.
The Permanent Assize Court of Larnaca acquitted and discharged all nine defendants on all 34 charges on 4 November 2022. The Attorney General appealed.
The Court of Appeal Reversal
On 27 February 2025, the Court of Appeal in Appeal No. 256/2022 reversed the acquittal in its entirety and ordered a retrial before a differently constituted Assize Court. The Court of Appeal accepted five of the six grounds of appeal.
Michalis Kyriakaides, one of the defendants, applied to the New Supreme Court for leave to bring the matter before it on legal questions arising from that appellate reversal.
The Third-Tier Jurisdiction: Article 9(3)(γ) of Law 33/1964
The jurisdiction framework under which the application was brought is new. Article 9(3)(γ) of the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Laws 1964-2024 (Law 33/1964), operative from 1 July 2023, establishes a third and final appellate tier at the New Supreme Court. Access is not automatic. It requires leave, and leave is available only on a defined, closed list of grounds.
The provision permits an application by the Attorney General or any party following civil or criminal appeal proceedings, for legal questions arising from a Court of Appeal decision that:
- involve a departure from, or a need to depart from, established case law;
- require the correct interpretation of a primary or secondary substantive legislative provision;
- raise a major question of public interest;
- raise a question of general public importance; or
- raise a question concerning the coherence of law arising from conflicting or contradictory Court of Appeal decisions.
Kyriakaides framed his leave application around four legal questions, all connecting the Court of Appeal's review powers to the double jeopardy protection in Article 12(2) of the Cyprus Constitution and to the scope of Article 137(1)(α)(iii) of Cap. 155:
- Whether the Court of Appeal's review of the Assize Court's fragmentary treatment of circumstantial evidence falls within Article 137(1)(α)(iii) at all, given the double jeopardy prohibition. 2A. Whether the Court of Appeal may examine errors in the trial court's assessment of oral or factual evidence, or whether Article 12(2) of the Constitution requires it to treat trial court findings as given. 2B. Whether the Court of Appeal may accept a ground of appeal under Article 137(1)(α)(iii) where the ground as framed actually challenges factual findings rather than points of law.
- Whether the Court of Appeal may exercise judgment on conclusions it considers contrary to the evidence at trial, or on primary facts it considers unsupported.
The Supreme Court's Analysis
The bench, judgment delivered by Δημητριάδου-Ανδρέου, approached the application with the structure the new jurisdiction demands: first, whether there is a legal question of the qualifying type; only then could the merits of the underlying appeal become relevant at all.
On the existence of a jurisprudential conflict, the court found none. The jurisprudence on Article 137(1)(α) Cap. 155 is crystallized — the court used the term αποκρυσταλλωμένη — having been settled by a Full Plenary decision of the former Supreme Court: Γ.Ε. ν. Ευσταθίου [(2010) 2 Α.Α.Δ. 94]. That decision was confirmed in Λοϊζίδης ν. Δημοκρατίας [(2014) 2 Α.Α.Δ. 965] and reaffirmed in G.E. v. Χρίστου [Ποιν. Εφ. 20/2015, 28/9/2017]. On the scope and application of Article 137(1)(α), the legal framework had been set with binding authority. There was no open question to resolve.
Kyriakaides had pointed to two recent Court of Appeal decisions as evidence of a jurisprudential split: Γ.Ε. v. Παπανικόλα [Ποιν. Εφ. 214/2021, 20/12/2023] and Γ.Ε. v. Μαυρέα [Ποιν. Εφέσεις 13/2022-18/2022, 25/2/2025]. The court rejected this reading directly. Μαυρέα had in fact adopted the same legal framework on Article 137 as Παπανικόλα. The different outcomes in the two cases reflected different facts, not different or inconsistent legal principles. As the court put it: the particular circumstances of each case constitute the distinguishing difference that justifies a difference in outcome.
A further citation by the applicant — to Κυριάκου [Ποιν. Εφ. 176/2021, 7/2/2023, ECLI:CY:AD:2023:D41] — was equally unavailing. The passage relied upon was obiter dictum, not ratio decidendi, and did not reflect the established Full Plenary jurisprudence.
The Practitioner Consequence
The holding delivers a clear message to criminal practitioners working the new three-tier architecture. Article 9(3)(γ) is not a second appellate tier disguised as a leave mechanism. It cannot be used to bring a substantive challenge to a Court of Appeal reversal by dressing factual or merits objections in the language of legal questions.
The test is categorical. A practitioner applying for leave must identify, with precision, one of five qualifying grounds: a genuine conflict or departure from established case law; a genuine need for statutory interpretation that has not been resolved; a major question of public interest; a question of general public importance; or a real incoherence between conflicting Court of Appeal decisions. Where the underlying jurisprudence is αποκρυσταλλωμένη — settled by Full Plenary authority — the crystallization forecloses the first and fifth grounds. The applicant must look elsewhere or accept that the Court of Appeal's decision stands.
The costs order of €500 against Kyriakaides is modest, but the message in the leave refusal is not.
The Double Jeopardy Dimension
The questions Kyriakaides framed were not frivolous in isolation. The interaction between the Court of Appeal's power to order a retrial under Article 137(1)(α)(iii) Cap. 155 and the constitutional prohibition on double jeopardy in Article 12(2) of the Cyprus Constitution is a live doctrinal tension in any jurisdiction that permits the prosecution to appeal acquittals.
The Assize Court had acquitted all nine defendants. The Court of Appeal reversed that acquittal and ordered a retrial — a step with significant consequences for defendants who had already faced, and survived, a full trial. The question of where the Court of Appeal's review of legal errors in the treatment of evidence shades into review of the trial court's factual findings is real. But it was already answered by Full Plenary authority. The Supreme Court was not being invited to resolve an open question; it was being asked to re-examine settled law through a leave mechanism that does not permit that. The application failed at the threshold.
The criminal retrial, when it proceeds before a differently constituted Assize Court, will be the occasion for those doctrinal questions to be argued afresh on the evidence. Application No. 11/2025 simply confirms that the third-tier court is not an additional stop on that journey — not unless a qualifying legal question exists independent of the applicant's objection to the result below.
What to Watch
The Zutphen application — Application No. 2/2023, 30 January 2024 — provided the first working definition of the conditions of Article 9(3)(γ) jurisdiction. Application No. 11/2025 now provides the first detailed judicial statement of what the jurisdiction is not. Together, they give practitioners a reasonably complete map of the third-tier gateway.
The golden passport prosecution itself continues. Nine defendants face retrial on 34 charges before a differently constituted Assize Court in Larnaca. The underlying questions of identity fraud, forged documents, and money laundering in the context of Cyprus's investment migration programme remain to be determined on the evidence.
Practitioners advising clients in criminal appeals with potential third-tier dimensions will find the full text of Application No. 11/2025, Appeal No. 256/2022, and the corpus of Cyprus Supreme Court and Court of Appeal jurisprudence on Article 137 Cap. 155 at omnilaw.ai.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: What is Article 9(3)(γ) of Law 33/1964 and when did it come into force?
A: Article 9(3)(γ) of Law 33/1964 (Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Laws 1964-2024) establishes a third and final appellate tier at the New Supreme Court of Cyprus. It became operative on 1 July 2023. Access requires leave granted by the Supreme Court itself, and is available only on five specified grounds: departure from established case law; correct interpretation of a primary or secondary legislative provision; a major question of public interest; a question of general public importance; or the need for coherence of law arising from conflicting Court of Appeal decisions.
Q: Why did the Supreme Court refuse leave in Application No. 11/2025?
A: The court held that the jurisprudence on Article 137(1)(α) Cap. 155 — the provision governing the Court of Appeal's criminal review powers — is crystallized (αποκρυσταλλωμένη) by Full Plenary authority, principally Γ.Ε. ν. Ευσταθίου [(2010) 2 Α.Α.Δ. 94]. There was no genuine conflict between Court of Appeal decisions on the legal framework, and no open question of statutory interpretation. The applicant's questions went to whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of settled principles — a merits objection that Article 9(3)(γ) does not address.
Q: What is the underlying golden passport prosecution about?
A: Nine defendants — natural and legal persons — faced 34 charges arising from the alleged fraudulent naturalization of an individual known in the proceedings as Tony Newman, whose true identity was alleged to be Mehdi Ebrahimi Eshratabadi, an Iranian national. The charges included conspiracy to defraud, forgery, false certification, and money laundering. The Permanent Assize Court of Larnaca acquitted all defendants on 4 November 2022. The Court of Appeal reversed the acquittal in full on 27 February 2025 in Appeal No. 256/2022 and ordered a retrial before a differently constituted Assize Court.
Q: Can double jeopardy arguments be raised in the retrial proceedings?
A: The constitutional protection in Article 12(2) of the Cyprus Constitution against being tried twice for the same offence is a live doctrinal question in the retrial context, but it was not resolved by Application No. 11/2025. The Supreme Court found that the existing Full Plenary jurisprudence on Article 137(1)(α) Cap. 155 already governed the scope of the Court of Appeal's review powers, so there was no qualifying legal question for the third tier to determine. The retrial itself, before a new Assize Court bench, will be the forum in which any remaining constitutional arguments — including double jeopardy submissions — are tested against the evidence.
