The Nicosia District Court has recently cleared Marios Menelaou, the former head of Cyprus’s Public Natural Gas Company (DEFA), of criminal charges. These charges had stemmed from an alleged physical altercation with a subordinate employee. This significant ruling brings a conclusion to a lengthy legal dispute that originated as a private prosecution. State authorities had previously decided against pursuing the case themselves.
Mr. Menelaou, who formerly held the position of DEFA’s General Director, had been accused of common assault and issuing threats. The complainant, a former coordinator involved in a major DEFA project, asserted that Mr. Menelaou had physically assaulted him during a heated confrontation. This incident reportedly occurred within an office environment in early September 2022. Following an initial police investigation, the Attorney General’s office chose not to initiate state proceedings. This decision was based on considerations of public interest. Consequently, the aggrieved individual proceeded to file a private criminal complaint in March 2023. This action then set the stage for a thorough judicial examination of the conflicting testimonies presented.
In delivering the verdict, the presiding judge emphasized the fundamental legal principle that guilt must be proven beyond any reasonable doubt. The court determined that the prosecution’s case fundamentally lacked the necessary evidence to meet this standard. A crucial element in the acquittal was the judiciary’s strong criticism of the complainant’s credibility. The ruling highlighted "significant substantive contradictions" between the complainant's initial written statements and his later oral testimony. Furthermore, the court noted what it considered a selective narration of events. One specific detail, describing an agitated Menelaou simultaneously "fiddling with the air conditioner," was deemed illogical and detrimental to the accuser's overall reliability.
Conversely, the court evaluated the defendant’s testimony, which was delivered over nearly ten hours of cross-examination. This testimony was described as "fully coherent, calm, substantiated and logically consistent." The judicial finding extended beyond simply dismissing the accuser’s account; it actively supported an alternative version of events. The court concluded that Menelaou’s actions likely constituted reasonable self-defence. This defence was prompted by the complainant allegedly blocking his exit and aggressively encroaching into his personal space.
Moreover, the judgment introduced a potential motive behind the allegations. It suggested the possibility of a vindictive undercurrent influencing the complaint. The court observed that the complainant and supporting witnesses might have been affected by his subsequent exclusion from a professional competition within the organization. This implies the criminal complaint could have been utilized to resolve workplace grievances.
The acquittal carries significant implications for both parties involved in the case. For Mr. Menelaou, it signifies complete legal vindication, effectively removing the shadow of a potential criminal conviction. For the complainant, the judgment not only represents a failed prosecution but also casts a judicial doubt over the truthfulness of his claims. This case serves as a clear procedural example, demonstrating the high evidential threshold required for a criminal conviction. It also illustrates the avenue of private prosecution when state bodies decide not to act. Finally, it underscores the complex interplay between workplace disputes, personal animosity, and the rigorous standards of the judicial system.