The Supreme Constitutional Court has rejected, at second instance, a bid by Cyfield Development Public Ltd to overturn Nicosia Municipality’s decision to award the redevelopment of the Makarios-Stasikratous-Evagorou triangle to another company instead.
The Supreme Constitutional Court, sitting in its appellate jurisdiction, accepted some of the grounds of appeal but rejected the appeal overall, finding the first instance court’s judgment, and by extension the Tenders Board’s decision, to have been correct.
The decision, issued the day before yesterday, makes extensive reference to the 2014 Paphos Sewerage Board (SAPA) corruption scandal and to a police statement given by the company’s CEO.
How the case unfolded
According to the case facts, Nicosia Municipality announced a tender on May 6, 2016, for the integrated redevelopment of the Makarios-Stasikratous-Evagorou commercial triangle. Five bids were submitted, including those of Cyfield, the appellant company, and interested party Cybarco-A. Panayides.
The Contracting Authority’s Tenders Board approved the Evaluation Committee’s proposal on March 16, 2017, awarding the contract to the other company for 8,177,020 euros plus VAT. Cyfield successfully filed a hierarchical recourse with the Tenders Review Authority, prompting the Contracting Authority to re-examine the matter.
At its meeting of February 15, 2018, the Tenders Board, having studied the submitted bids, the Evaluation Committee’s report and the Tenders Committee’s recommendation, again approved awarding the project to the company originally selected to undertake it.
Cyfield then filed a recourse with the Administrative Court, which issued a rejection decision, leading to this appeal.
Court’s findings
The Supreme Constitutional Court, sitting with three judges, found that Cyfield had been wrongly excluded on the basis that K.C.’s name had been mentioned in connection with the SAPA case, since the Paphos Criminal Court’s decision in that case makes no reference to any admission of bribery on his part.
However, the court found the first instance court’s ruling correct on the second ground for exclusion. The first instance court, as stated in the decision, found that Nicosia Municipality had carried out a sufficient investigation into K.C.’s relationship with, and degree of involvement in, Cyfield, and had reasonably concluded that he held a leading role in the Group of Companies, with de facto power of representation, decision-making or control over the appellant company.
The court said the investigation by the respondents, as the first instance court had correctly found, was sufficient, and that it did not agree with Cyfield’s contrary submission. It said the investigation had been extensive and realistically reasonable, and that the facts made clear K.C. held a significant role within the appellant company at a time when the company itself claimed to have no relationship with him. Following this finding, the appeal was rejected.