The lawyer of Doria Varoshiotou, Achilleas Demetriades, has made public the decision of the Supreme Judicial Council regarding her dismissal.
Full decision:
Ms Doria Varoshiotou was appointed on 1 July 2023 to the permanent position of District Judge on probation for a period of two years and was assigned to the Limassol District Court. As per established practice, during the probationary period of a judge, the Administrative President of the Court where they serve submits biannual reports outlining the judge’s performance, including references to their competence and overall conduct.
Ahead of the completion of Ms Varoshiotou’s two-year probation, the Supreme Judicial Council, as a matter of duty, reviewed whether the confirmation of her appointment was justified. What is assessed is the suitability of the judge, in terms of legal knowledge, judgment, and case handling, as well as behaviour and character. The confirmation process is distinct from any disciplinary procedure and does not necessitate proof of any disciplinary offence.
In Ms Varosiotou’s case, the Supreme Judicial Council was concerned with specific issues which were raised in writing in a letter dated 17 June 2025 (Appendix A). In this letter, Ms Varoshiotou was invited to respond, if she so wished, to the following:
- Her handling of Coroners’ Inquests 8/2018 and 71/2022, after the issuance of her findings on 22 April 2024 and 30 April 2024 respectively, which led to her decisions dated 15 May 2025 in these inquests, in light of her letters of 13 June 2024 and 17 June 2024 to the Administrative President of the Limassol District Court.
- Her general handling of Coroner’s Inquest 104/2006 and the errors identified in the Supreme Court’s Full Bench Decision in Civil Application 129/2024, dated 18 December 2024.
- Her letter dated 4 July 2024 to the President and Judges of the Supreme Court concerning the visit of the President and Ms Ephraim to the Limassol District Court.
- Her letter dated 28 November 2023 to the President of the Supreme Court requesting corrections to appearances in the judgment in Case 3297/2012 of the Nicosia District Court.
These matters arose from documents in the Judge’s file and the archives of the Supreme Court, attached as Appendices, which were presented for consideration.
Ms Varoshiotou replied with a letter dated 23 June 2025 (Appendix B), which has been reviewed and will be referenced as necessary.
Before examining the specific concerns raised, it is important to reiterate that appointments to permanent judicial positions are probationary for two years, as stated in the offer letter from the Supreme Judicial Council. Such a letter dated 16 June 2023 was sent to Ms Varoshiotou (Appendix C), and she accepted the appointment in her letter dated 19 June 2023 (Appendix D).
The significance of the probationary appointment lies in the responsibility of the Council to appoint capable and suitable judges. The judge is evaluated over the two-year period on their skills and overall conduct. A probationary appointment is only confirmed if the judge is deemed suitable.
Placement at a specific District Court or inclusion in its proposed work schedule for the new judicial year does not equate to confirmation of the appointment, nor does it pre-empt the Council’s assessment of the judge’s suitability, despite what is implied in Ms Varosiotou’s letter dated 23 June 2025.
Examination of the issues raised in the letter of 17 June 2025:
In Inquests 8/2018 and 71/2022, concerning a work-related and a road accident respectively, Ms Varoshiotou issued her findings on 22 and 30 April 2024. In her letter dated 13 June 2024 (Appendix E) to the Administrative President Mr Thomas, she alleged he had asked her to change “the outcome” of her findings. Regardless of what transpired between Ms Varoshiotou and Mr Thomas, the key issue is that she stated explicitly:
“I will not make any amendments to the findings. As is commonly known, once a judge issues a decision, they become functus officio, meaning they no longer have jurisdiction in the matter.”
Despite this position, she proceeded—contrary to her stance—to initiate judicial procedures not provided for in law. She summoned the Attorney General’s representative and the families of the deceased (who had not participated in the inquests) to address whether a coroner could amend issued findings. Related transcripts are included as Appendices F and G. She ultimately issued decisions on 15 May 2025 (Appendices H and I).
The Supreme Court became aware of these decisions via a press article on 17 May 2025 titled: “Unprecedented Case in Two Inquests in Limassol: Judicial Clash and Alteration of Findings” (Appendix J). Following this, the Court sent Ms Varoshiotou two letters dated 27 and 28 May 2025 (Appendices K and L), to which she responded on 28 May and 2 June 2025 (Appendices M and N).
Her choice to initiate unauthorised legal procedures cannot be attributed to ignorance. Her prior experience with inquests and her strong position on alleged pressure from the President indicate she fully understood the legal boundaries—reinforced by her own decisions dated 15 May 2025 which reiterated:
“After issuing their findings, a coroner becomes functus officio, and cannot alter their conclusions (Tsiaklidis Elias v. Evangelos Andreou Evangelou (2004) 1 A.A.D. 119).”
It appears that her true objective in initiating these proceedings was not to gather opinions but to publicly expose the President’s approach, as she perceived it, to demonstrate that she was correct and the President acted improperly—even unethically.
In Coroner’s Inquest 104/2006, her conduct and legal errors were documented in the Supreme Court Full Bench ruling of 18 December 2024 in Civil Application 129/2024. These included failing to allow a key witness to testify despite prior assurances, and ignoring a previous coroner’s order authorising a forensic pathologist’s further involvement. Such errors were deemed unacceptable for a District Judge and undermined the integrity of the process.
The Council also examined matters relating to Ms Varoshiotou’s conduct and reactions, which suggest a lack of understanding of the institutional role of the Supreme Court.
During a supervisory visit to Limassol District Court, the President and a member of the Supreme Court held private discussions with judges, including Ms Varoshiotou. These visits are intended to identify issues and offer guidance. However, in a subsequent letter (Appendix O), she unjustifiably misinterpreted the conversation, asserting:
“With all due respect, I did not expect members of the Supreme Court to officially comment on my decision, a matter properly reserved for them to address publicly from the bench.”
In its reply dated 19 July 2024 (Appendix P), the Court stated that her interpretation was a gross distortion of the facts. In her letter dated 1 August 2024 (Appendix Q), she reserved the right to respond further but never did.
Further, shortly after her appointment, she wrote to the President of the Supreme Court requesting intervention to have her name added to appearances in a case she had handled as a lawyer (Case 3297/2012). This request (Appendix R) and the President’s reply (Appendix S) highlight her misperception of the Supreme Court’s role.
In her final letter dated 23 June 2025, Ms Varoshiotou claimed the Supreme Court and Council acted with bias due to her refusal to amend her finding in Inquest 104/2006 and her resistance to pressure from President Thomas. She stated:
“From the contents of the 17/06/2025 letter and everything that has occurred in relation to the Thanasis Nikolaou inquest, there is a strong impression that the Supreme Court and Council’s attitude towards me stems from my refusal to change my findings.”
This was seen as a direct accusation of retaliation and improper motives by the judicial authorities. Her use of “strong impression” does not diminish the gravity of the allegation.
Instead of alleviating concerns, her reply implied that the Supreme Court interfered with her independence and reinforced the view that she misunderstood her professional role. She concluded:
“It saddens me to say that I feel a dark atmosphere and a negative perception of me prevails at the Supreme Court.”
To confirm a probationary judge’s appointment, the Council must be satisfied that they possess not only the legal ability and case management skills to serve justice but also the personal integrity and temperament appropriate to the role.
While some positive elements are noted in her reports, they do not mitigate the seriousness of the above concerns.
Conclusion:
Given the above, Ms Varoshiotou conducted unauthorised legal proceedings (Inquests 8/2018 and 71/2022), made serious legal errors in Inquest 104/2006, and demonstrated behaviour incompatible with the role of a judge. Her conduct towards the Supreme Court was deemed inappropriate and detrimental to the integrity of the judiciary.
The Council has therefore determined that Ms Varoshiotou is not suitable for confirmation in the permanent position of District Judge. Accordingly, her service will be terminated at the end of her probationary period.
