The Nicosia District Court has absolved Marios Menelaou, the former head of Cyprus’s Public Natural Gas Company (DEFA), of criminal charges stemming from an alleged physical altercation with a subordinate. The ruling concludes a protracted legal battle that began as a private prosecution after state authorities opted not to pursue the case.
Menelaou, who served as the corporation’s General Director, faced allegations of common assault and issuing threats. The complainant, a former coordinator on a major DEFA project, had asserted that Menelaou assaulted him during a confrontation in an office setting in early September 2022. Following a police investigation, the Attorney General’s office elected against initiating state proceedings, citing public interest considerations. This decision prompted the aggrieved individual to file a private criminal complaint in March 2023, setting the stage for a courtroom examination of the conflicting accounts.
In delivering the verdict, the presiding judge underscored the fundamental legal principle that guilt must be established beyond a reasonable doubt. The court found the prosecution’s case fundamentally lacking in this regard. Central to the acquittal was the judiciary’s severe critique of the complainant’s credibility. The ruling highlighted “significant substantive contradictions” between his initial written statements and his subsequent oral testimony, alongside what it deemed a selective narration of events. One particular detail—the description of an enraged Menelaou simultaneously “fiddling with the air conditioner”—was noted as illogical and damaging to the accuser’s overall reliability.
Conversely, the court assessed the defendant’s testimony, delivered during nearly ten hours of cross-examination, as “fully coherent, calm, substantiated and logically consistent.” The judicial finding extended beyond mere dismissal of the accuser’s account; it actively endorsed an alternative narrative. The court concluded that Menelaou’s actions likely constituted reasonable self-defence, prompted by the complainant allegedly blocking his exit and encroaching aggressively into his personal space.
Furthermore, the judgment introduced a potential motive for the allegations, suggesting a vindictive undercurrent. It noted that the complainant and supporting witnesses may have been influenced by his subsequent exclusion from a professional competition within the organization, implying the criminal complaint could have been leveraged to settle workplace grievances.
The acquittal carries significant implications for both individuals involved. For Menelaou, it represents a full legal vindication, removing the cloud of criminal conviction. For the complainant, the judgment not only signifies a failed prosecution but also casts a judicial shadow over the veracity of his claims. The case serves as a stark procedural exemplar, demonstrating the high evidential threshold required for a criminal conviction and illustrating the avenue of private prosecution when state bodies decline to act. It also underscores the complex interplay between workplace disputes, personal animus, and the rigorous standards of the judicial system.