The Supreme Court has lifted DISY MP Nikos Sykas’s parliamentary immunity to allow police to question him over alleged domestic violence in Greece, despite the complainant withdrawing her report days after filing it.
The woman, who was in a relationship with Sykas, told police he subjected her to offensive comments, physical violence and threats during incidents on New Year’s Eve in Greece.
She presented medical evidence from Limassol General Hospital and photographs to investigators, and an Athens lawyer’s opinion stated the alleged acts constituted criminal offences under Greek law.
But on 6 January, five days after the alleged incident, she returned to police and submitted a statutory declaration withdrawing the complaint.
When officers asked why, she said publicity about the case, combined with Sykas being a public figure, caused her stress and psychological pressure that left her unable to handle the proceedings.
The Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that the withdrawal alone does not prevent the investigation from proceeding, as authorities retain their duty to investigate and specific legal provisions cover such cases involving domestic violence.
The court’s decision, based on a sworn statement from the chief investigator dated 7 January, reveals the complainant’s account of events between 31 December 2025 and 3 January 2026.
According to her testimony, on 31 December in Greece, Sykas made offensive comments to her before they went out for the evening. After returning, he assaulted her and made threats, she told police.
The application to lift immunity covers four offences: violence, psychological violence, assault causing actual bodily harm, and threats, under domestic violence and violence against women legislation.
Assistant Attorney General Savvas Angelides told the court the case does not concern Sykas’s parliamentary duties and immunity must be lifted for all stages of proceedings.
The MP’s lawyer, Christos Pourgouridis, did not object but expressed concerns about the final outcome given the withdrawal, asking the court to consider this factor. He clarified his point did not concern the stage of taking a statement from the MP.
The six judges noted that European legal trends favour a restrictive approach to parliamentary immunity. “It is understood that parliamentary immunity cannot be used as a shield protecting the MP from the applicable criminal law of the state,” the court stated.
“Actions that do not fall within the MP’s parliamentary activities, such as personal or business activities, cannot draw protection from MPs’ inviolability”.
Based on the sworn statement and accompanying documents, the court found that evidence exists which, objectively viewed, implicates Sykas in the alleged offences.
“It is emphasised that, for purposes of these proceedings, as in every case, the presumption of innocence applies,” the ruling states.
“A prima facie case need not be proven, nor is it required at this stage to examine the sufficiency and quality of the evidential material. The examination of elements presented is limited to demonstrating the application is not arbitrary”.
The court judged the alleged offences serious both by their nature and the circumstances of their commission.
Crucially, it found the offences under investigation have no connection to Sykas’s political or party activity, either inside or outside the House of Representatives, and no submission was made suggesting otherwise—the key reasons it lifted his immunity.