Hi, I’m Panayotis Yannakas
a Lawyer Litigator Business Consulator

In this case, my client was a European citizen who came to Cyprus to work as a barwoman. Instead of the promised employment, she was forced into prostitution by the bar owner, who had taken her passport and held it against her will. After the criminal court case against the owner concluded successfully, my client hired me to seek damages for the trauma and harm she had suffered. As a tort case, this presented an opportunity to assert fundamental human rights in the context of district court proceedings.

In this on going case, my client was an immigrant who had travelled to Cyprus by boat with 25 other individuals. During the journey, a ship approached them, and the smugglers on board abandoned them in the middle of the sea. In an attempt to save himself and the others, my client decided to take control of the boat and navigate towards the shore. However, when they reached the harbor, the police arrested my client, accusing him of being a smuggler and human trafficker.

My client was charged with obstructing an policeman in the performance of his duties during the implementation of public health measures. The dispute arose due to a difference in interpretation of the early measures, which resulted in a physical altercation. Despite the seriousness of the charge, I was able to mount a successful defence, highlighting the lack of criminal intent. Although I was only hired after the last hearing day, I was pleased to secure a favourable outcome for our client, with the court imposing a modest fine. This case underscores the importance of seeking legal counsel at an early stage and the value of effective representation in defending against criminal charges.

The case involved a foreign national who was employed at their home country's embassy in Cyprus. The employee's contract was terminated due to a conflict with higher-ranking colleagues. The challenge in this case was to establish that the conflict in question was exempt from the Acta Jure Imperii principle, which governs the diplomatic immunity of foreign officials. This was particularly difficult given that part of the damages sought by the employee were grounded in tort law (bullying for sexual orientation). The case required a careful consideration of the legal principles governing diplomatic immunity and the employment relationship, as well as the specific facts and circumstances of the conflict at issue.

The case involved a surgeon who performed a successful surgery to remove a malignant tumor from the plaintiff. However, after the surgery, the plaintiff claimed to have dissatisfaction with the aesthetic outcome and that the experienced obstructions in the movement of the affected area, as well as unsightly scarring. The plaintiff sued the surgeon for medical negligence, arguing that the surgery was not performed with reasonable care and skill. The case presented a delicate balance between the plaintiff's dissatisfaction with the aesthetic outcome of the surgery and the success of removing the tumor. During the trial, different medical opinions were presented regarding the best way to treat such cancer, further complicating the case. Ultimately, the court had to determine whether the surgeon had breached their duty of care to the plaintiff, resulting in the alleged injuries.

My client, a Syrian national who had fled his country due to the ongoing war, was facing criminal charges for allegedly participating in a Telegram group that was labeled as promoting ISIS. FBI had informed the local police about his participation, leading to his arrest and detention. As his defense attorney, I worked on amending the bill of indictment to more accurately reflect the charges against him. In addition, I raised a hearing within a hearing based on the argument that my client could not have been aware of the cache files that were found on his device, which were being used as evidence against him.

The appeal was related to the implementation of the lots theory in an EAC tender competition of €1.1M. The initial call did not use the term 'lots theory,' and it was quite challenging to argue in the pleadings that this was a competition of tendering based on the lots concept, and that the EAC did not comply with EU requirements and soft law pertaining to such procurement processes

There were two separate cases where two different clients had been forced to be transferred to shell companies and lose regulated employee benefits. It was a solid opportunity to understand & trigger the EU Council Directive 2001/23/EC (Acquired Rights Directive).