The appeals against the revocation of the expropriation of land for the construction of the Paphos-Polis Chrysochous highway have been rejected, announced the Law Office.
The Law Office’s statement reads:
The decision of the original court to reject the mass appeals filed by affected owners of immovable property in the Paphos district, due to the revocation of the expropriation of immovable property, which was earmarked for the construction of the Paphos-Polis Chrysochous highway, was correct.
This is stated in its decision dated September 10, 2024, by the Supreme Constitutional Court, which was called upon to examine the original decision of the Administrative Court to reject numerous appeals regarding the partial revocation, in 2012, of the expropriation of immovable property, which had been earmarked by decrees for the purposes of constructing the Paphos-Polis Chrysochous highway. The appeals were filed by the affected parties in 2012.
The applicants appealed the decision of the original court to the Supreme Constitutional Court, arguing that the issuance of the decree revoking the expropriation served other motives, namely, avoiding the payment of compensation to which they were entitled as owners of expropriated immovable property by the Republic, and requesting the annulment of the decision, as, in their claim, the original court decided incorrectly that there had been a change in the actual conditions in a way that justified the revocation of the expropriation.
In rejecting the appeals of the affected parties, the Supreme Constitutional Court states in its decision that the failure to reach an agreement between the Republic and the tendering company due to the latter’s additional financial and other demands made the revocation of the expropriation necessary, as, on the one hand, there was a failure to conclude an agreement for the execution of the work, and, on the other hand, there was no other offer before the Republic from another tenderer.
As the Court states: ‘The elapsed time between the expropriation decree and the revocation decree was considered justified, as it was not barren but a continuous period of negotiation. The effort of the Administration [i.e., the executive branch] to save public money by not paying compensation and interest for immovable property that, at the critical time, could not be used for the work, was not a foreign motive and abuse of power but an obligatory duty to serve the interests of all taxpayers, with the consequence that this act is not considered ‘for-profit’.’
At the same time, the Supreme Constitutional Court pointed out that the return of property is a favourable act on the part of the Administration and that the revocation of the expropriation decree did not leave the affected parties exposed.
The case was handled, on behalf of the Attorney General of the Republic, by the Senior Lawyer of the Republic, Theodora Piperou-Christodoulou, together with the trainee lawyer, Andreas Giagkos.”
