The defence lawyers announced their intention to file pre-trial objections, mainly concerning the role of Savvas Matsas as prosecutor. They requested that the evidentiary material be handed over first, after which a decision will be taken on how the pre-trial objections to be submitted will be handled.
The private criminal case filed by the family of Thanasis Nicolaou against five individuals began with an adjournment until 22 January. The accused are forensic pathologist Panikos Stavrianos and four former police officers who have since retired and were involved in handling the Thanasis Nicolaou case. These are Andreas Iatropoulos, then Limassol Police Director, Nikos Sofokleous, then head of the Limassol CID, Christakis Nathanael, then head of Rural Policing, and Christakis Kapiliotis, then officer in charge of the Lania Police Station.
The courtroom was packed. It is noted that Thanasis Nicolaou’s mother, Andriana Nicolaou, who is also the complainant in the private criminal case, did not attend court, in contrast to all previous proceedings where she had always been present.
According to what was heard before the Limassol District Court, the defence lawyers had already informed the court of their intention to submit a series of pre-trial objections, even before the commencement of the proceedings. Among other points, the lawyer for the second accused, Sotiris Argyrou, stated that his client’s right to a fair trial before an independent and impartial court is being violated. For this reason, he intends to file a pre-trial objection regarding the presence of Mr Matsas, who, in his view, cannot act as prosecutor in the case after having served as an independent criminal investigator appointed by the Council of Ministers. He presented a series of reports from the print and online media referring to statements made by Savvas Matsas. He also noted that Mr Matsas should have been a key witness in the case rather than the prosecutor. In a subsequent intervention, he reiterated that, in his opinion, the pre-trial objection concerning the presence of Mr Matsas should be examined first, as it goes to the root of the indictment and could potentially render continuation of the proceedings unnecessary, should it succeed.
On her part, Andriana Klaidi, lawyer for forensic pathologist Panikos Stavrianos, also stated that she intends to raise pre-trial objections, both in relation to the time that has elapsed in respect of the offences her client is accused of, and regarding the presence of Mr Matsas, as she too considers it impermissible for the same person to act as both criminal investigator and prosecutor in the same case.
Speaking on behalf of the fourth accused, his lawyer Andreas Gialelis said that he has not yet received the evidentiary material and therefore cannot comment on any matter at this stage. He explained that he does not disagree with the submission of pre-trial objections, but that he must first receive the full body of evidentiary material before taking a position. His stance was echoed by Laris Vrachimis, lawyer for the fifth accused, who also raised the issue of the prosecution’s possession of privileged evidentiary material due to Savvas Matsas’ previous role as an independent criminal investigator. He added that the evidentiary material is extensive and requires time to be studied.
After hearing all sides, the court issued instructions for the delivery of the evidentiary material, after which there will be discussion on how the pre-trial objections will be handled. The case was set for hearing on 22 January 2026, at which point a decision will be taken on how the proceedings will continue. The accused were ordered to sign bail bonds of €2,000 to secure their presence.
This article was first published in the Politis newspaper.