Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share Balancing Justice and Modernization: Cyprus Court Rejects Videoconference Testimony Request
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
Balancing Justice and Modernization: Cyprus Court Rejects Videoconference Testimony Request
Harneys successfully opposed a claimant's application seeking the Court's leave to testify via videoconference during civil proceedings, before the District Court of Limassol, due to alleged health issues that prevented the claimant from travelling to Cyprus to testify.
The claimant's request was based on section 36A of Evidence Law, Cap 9, which provides that, in criminal or civil proceedings, a Court in Cyprus may permit a witness located outside the country to testify via videoconference if it deems it to be in the interests of justice.
According to the same provision, videoconferencing refers to real-time audio and visual communication that enables the witness and courtroom participants (including the Court, the defendant, lawyers, interpreter, or assistants) to see and hear each other.
Where such request is approved, the Court may impose any conditions it considers necessary, provided that these do not conflict with Cyprus's obligations under any applicable bilateral or international conventions.
Therefore, for the Court to grant such leave, the following must be satisfied:
The witness shall be situated outside of Cyprus; andit is in the best interests of justice.
What constitutes the "interests of justice" is at the discretion of the Court, taking into account all the surrounding circumstances.
The Court held that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish that granting leave to testify via videoconference would serve the interests of justice.
Although it was alleged that the claimant suffered from a "serious health problem," the medical certificate submitted failed to provide the Court with adequate detail or evidence regarding the claimant's actual state of health, that would justify a departure from the fundamental principle that trials should be conducted with witnesses physically present before the Court.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the application.
This judgment is particularly noteworthy, as recent case law reflects a generally more permissive approach to such applications under the new Civil Procedure Rules, the overarching aim of which is to empower the Courts to resolve cases fairly, efficiently, and at a lower cost. Nevertheless, fairness demands solid evidence; without it, even modern conveniences such as videoconferencing cannot override fundamental trial principles.
View all episodes
By HarneysHarneys successfully opposed a claimant's application seeking the Court's leave to testify via videoconference during civil proceedings, before the District Court of Limassol, due to alleged health issues that prevented the claimant from travelling to Cyprus to testify.
The claimant's request was based on section 36A of Evidence Law, Cap 9, which provides that, in criminal or civil proceedings, a Court in Cyprus may permit a witness located outside the country to testify via videoconference if it deems it to be in the interests of justice.
According to the same provision, videoconferencing refers to real-time audio and visual communication that enables the witness and courtroom participants (including the Court, the defendant, lawyers, interpreter, or assistants) to see and hear each other.
Where such request is approved, the Court may impose any conditions it considers necessary, provided that these do not conflict with Cyprus's obligations under any applicable bilateral or international conventions.
Therefore, for the Court to grant such leave, the following must be satisfied:
The witness shall be situated outside of Cyprus; andit is in the best interests of justice.
What constitutes the "interests of justice" is at the discretion of the Court, taking into account all the surrounding circumstances.
The Court held that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish that granting leave to testify via videoconference would serve the interests of justice.
Although it was alleged that the claimant suffered from a "serious health problem," the medical certificate submitted failed to provide the Court with adequate detail or evidence regarding the claimant's actual state of health, that would justify a departure from the fundamental principle that trials should be conducted with witnesses physically present before the Court.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the application.
This judgment is particularly noteworthy, as recent case law reflects a generally more permissive approach to such applications under the new Civil Procedure Rules, the overarching aim of which is to empower the Courts to resolve cases fairly, efficiently, and at a lower cost. Nevertheless, fairness demands solid evidence; without it, even modern conveniences such as videoconferencing cannot override fundamental trial principles.