The Paphos District Court recently issued a very important decision in relation to a house in the village of Armou, Paphos District, which collapsed due to subsidence. The court awarded the plaintiffs compensation for the purchase price of the house, i.e. €256,000, interest from the date of the claim until the plaintiffs' compensation, and the plaintiffs' costs of €5,000, as well as court costs.
The case was handled by our law firm, Michael Kyprianou & Co. LLC, and, as its Director, Savvas Savvides. It is considered groundbreaking and unprecedented in Cyprus, as in this case the judge, through his multi-page decision, clarifies the responsibility of the state through its public officials as regards the duty of care by exercising their supervisory role. This decision is of catalytic importance as it demonstrates the need to improve the system and the need to strengthen control and supervision mechanisms in the field of construction activity and licensing.
The house in question was sold to the plaintiffs in September 2008. When a large part of the house collapsed due to geological problems the plaintiffs brought legal proceedings against both the company which built the house and the Republic of Cyprus through the Attorney-General. Under Article 172 of the Constitution, the Attorney-General is liable for any harmfully wrongful act or omission by officials or authorities in the performance of their duties or in the exercise of their functions.
The plaintiffs attributed responsibility to officials of the Planning and Zoning Department, as well as to officials of the Paphos District Administration. The Planning and Zoning Department, as a competent authority, has the obligation to impose conditions aimed at promoting and regulating the development of an area, while ensuring public safety and health, and to consider the existing development plan, as well as any other important factor.
Regarding the disputed plots of land, there has never been a proposal by the responsible authority to prohibit residential development there, despite the geological problems of the soil and the slope of the gradient.
With regard to the Paphos District Administration, the decision noted that it did not carry out the due diligence it was obliged to carry out according to the legislation. Moreover, that department failed to include in the building permit the conditions considered necessary for the case in question. Also reprehensible is the lack of professional diligence, as indicated by the judgment of Judge G.K. Vlamis, who noted that the Paphos District Administration acted in a mechanistic and standardised manner, disregarding the important role it should have played under the legislation. Lacking a sense of responsibility for the role and obligations assigned to it by the legislation, the Paphos District Administration undoubtedly acted inadequately given the circumstances, according to the judgment.
In summary, the Court concluded that both the Department of Town and Rural Planning and the Paphos District Administration were negligent towards the plaintiffs, as owners and potential owners of the house in question. Furthermore, based on the foregoing commentary both public authorities breached duties arising from the relevant legislation governing their duties, to the detriment of the plaintiffs.
The content of this article is valid as at the date of its first publication. It is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter and does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you seek professional advice on your specific matter before acting on any information provided. For further information or advice, please contact Savvas Savvides, Managing Partner, Paphos Office, Michael Kyprianou & Co LLC on Tel +357 26930800 at savvas.savvides@kyprianou.com
