The Supreme Court has overturned an order authorising the detention of three electronic devices containing CCTV footage from the Avakoum monastery in Fterikoudi, ruling that it had been issued without legal authority and beyond the jurisdiction of the Nicosia district court.

In a ruling dated November 3, 2026, made public in full on Thursday, the Supreme Court upheld three of the four grounds of appeal raised by the monastery’s former abbot, monk Nektarios, overturning the lower court’s decision and issuing a writ of certiorari to quash the detention order.

However, it rejected the fourth ground of appeal, which concerned the legality and proportionality of the detention and processing of sensitive data under the European Convention on Human Rights and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

According to the judgement, the three devices had been voluntarily handed over to police by Archimandrite Barnabas, who had access to them.

Related Articles

On trial are monks Nektarios and Porfyrios. They face charges including conspiracy to defraud, forgery and the use of false documents, theft by proxy, handling stolen goods, money laundering, interfering with judicial proceedings and submitting fraudulent tax returns.

Their detention was ordered by the Nicosia District Court on July 3, 2025, following a police application as part of an investigation into complaints involving, among other things, alleged violations of legislation governing the protection of personal data.

The case arose after the Tamasos bishop Isaias filed a complaint alleging financial offences by Nektarios, based on information provided by Barnabas, who had access to the monastery’s CCTV system.

At the same time, several monks, including Nektarios, had filed complaints against the Isaias, Barnabas and others, alleging various criminal offences, including breaches of personal data protection legislation allegedly committed against them at the monastery and the bishopric of Tamasos.

The Supreme Court ruled that because the devices had not been seized during a lawful search but had instead been voluntarily handed over to police, Article 32 of the Criminal Procedure Law did not apply.

That provision governs the detention or disposal of items seized under a search warrant and had been used as the legal basis for the detention order.

“It is clear, in our judgment, that the detention order was issued without legal authorisation and in excess of the jurisdiction of the Nicosia district court,” the Supreme Court said.

However, the court clarified that overturning the order did not mean police were no longer entitled to possess the devices, as they had been voluntarily handed over.

“We must note that our above conclusion does not affect the right of the Police to possess the exhibits in question. We consider the first instance finding that the police had a lawful right to possess the items voluntarily handed over to them to be correct,” the court said.

The Supreme Court also stressed that whether the material could be used as evidence in any future criminal proceedings was a separate matter that could not be determined in the context of an application for a prerogative writ.

It further clarified that police possession of the devices did not automatically amount to “access to the appellant’s private communications or confer on the police the right to have such access”, rejecting the final ground of appeal.

The court concluded by issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the detention order made by the Nicosia district court under Article 32 of the Criminal Procedure Law.

The ruling therefore invalidates the court order authorising the detention of the devices, but does not require police to surrender them or determine whether the footage can be used as evidence in future proceedings.