Cyprus’s Supreme Constitutional Court has rejected the appeal of Melios Zoo Park owner Menelaos Menelaou, upholding decisions that effectively closed the zoo in Agioi Trimithias and upholding a series of administrative decisions against him. The court also ordered the owner to pay €4,000 in costs to the Republic of Cyprus.
The ruling upholds the Administrative Court’s earlier dismissal of three consolidated appeals brought by the owner against decisions by planning and veterinary authorities.
Those decisions refused extensions to his planning permits, declined to renew his operating licence, and rejected applications to expand the zoo’s facilities.
At the heart of the case were a string of violations. Planning authorities found that the owner had carried out unauthorised expansions onto both state and private land, deviated from approved development plans, and added large carnivores to the zoo without meeting the required safety conditions. The zoo was also found to lack an adequate water supply for its operational needs, as the relevant water permit covered only limited irrigation use.
The Veterinary Services had moved to shut the zoo as far back as 2017, declining to renew its operating licence and ordering the owner to cease operations on the grounds of non-compliance with animal welfare legislation.
The Supreme Constitutional Court found that most of the grounds of appeal were either unsubstantiated or inadmissible, either lacking sufficient reasoning or raising issues that had not been put to the administration at the original stage. Arguments concerning the duration of the planning permit were rejected outright as they had been raised for the first time at a late stage in the proceedings.
The court stressed that its review jurisdiction is limited to questions of legality and does not extend to reassessing the merits of administrative decisions or re-examining technical matters. It found that the administration had conducted a proper inquiry and had taken all relevant evidence and submissions into account before reaching its decisions.
On the question of the unauthorised use of state land, the court noted that the owner failed to produce evidence establishing the legality of his occupation or use of that land. Claims that he had entered into a land-swap arrangement with the state were not proven, and no evidence emerged that the required approval had been obtained.
Read more: