Table of Contents
Cyprus: Staying in a property after lease termination, when it can become a criminal issue
A recent Cyprus Court of Appeal decision has clarified that remaining in a property after a lease has been terminated may, in certain circumstances, go beyond a civil landlord–tenant dispute and amount to a criminal offence.
This was addressed in CCSRE Real Estate Company Ltd v Theodorou Menelaou (Criminal Appeal No. 94/2022, judgment dated 31 October 2025), where the Court focused on what happens when a tenant continues occupying premises after the owner has clearly withdrawn consent following termination.
The legal framework behind the outcome
The case turns primarily on Article 281(1) (a) of the Cyprus Criminal Code (Cap. 154), which in broad terms criminalises the occupation, use, or entry of land registered in someone else’s name without the registered owner’s consent. In a situation when a tenant continues occupying premises after the owner has clearly withdrawn consent following termination, the reasoning is straightforward: the lease is the owner’s consent while it is in force; once it is clearly terminated and consent is clearly withdrawn, continued occupation may meet the “without consent” requirement. The offence can carry imprisonment and/or a fine (often referenced as up to 5 years and up to €10,000, depending on the applicable wording and amendments).
The Court of Appeal took a strict view on consent: once a lease is expressly and clearly terminated, any continued occupation is treated as being without the registered owner’s consent, and that is enough to support criminal exposure; importantly, for the purposes of a charge under Article 281, the criminal court will not examine whether the termination was “lawful” or “unlawful” (that is a matter for civil proceedings, potentially including damages).
In practical terms, the Court’s reasoning can be captured as follows:
A prior lease does not imply continuing consent after termination.
Clear termination + clear withdrawal of consent = occupation without consent.
The criminal analysis focuses on the formal absence of consent, not on the fairness or validity of termination.
Any argument that termination was improper is primarily a civil issue (e.g., damages), not a criminal defence to continued occupation.
The key point: consent is the turning point
During a valid lease, the tenant’s occupation is lawful because it is based on the owner’s consent through the tenancy agreement.
The risk escalates when:
the lease is clearly terminated, and
the owner clearly withdraws consent and requires the occupier to vacate,
yet the occupier remains.
In that situation, the Court’s approach supports the view that continued occupation may fall within the scope of the criminal law provisions dealing with occupation of land without the owner’s consent.
“But I dispute the termination” is not automatically a shield
A tenant may believe the termination is unlawful, premature, or otherwise invalid. Those arguments are typically dealt with through civil proceedings (for example, contractual claims, damages, or applications for relief).
However, the practical warning from this line of reasoning is that a civil disagreement about termination does not necessarily make it safe to remain in occupation after consent has been expressly withdrawn.
What owners should do
If you are an owner/landlord seeking to protect your position:
Ensure termination is clear, properly served, and evidenced.
Make the demand for vacant possession explicit and time-bound.
Keep a clean written record (letters/emails, delivery confirmations, arrears schedules).
Avoid self-help measures (lockouts, threats, cutting utilities). Those steps can create separate liabilities.
Criminal law is not an “eviction tool” by itself; owners often still need civil action to recover possession and quantify losses.
What tenants should do
If you are a tenant who receives termination:
Treat it as urgent, even if you believe it is wrong.
Take advice early and consider prompt civil steps if you want to challenge termination.
If continued occupation is unavoidable, avoid informal “wait and see” approaches; you need a structured plan to reduce escalation risk.
Practical takeaway
The case shows that, in Cyprus, holding over after termination can carry criminal exposure when the owner’s consent has ended and that is clearly communicated. For both sides, the safest approach is early legal guidance, clean documentation, and a lawful process.
How KIKLON Partners Supports Landlords in Cyprus
KIKLON Partners advises landlords and property owners on protecting rental income, managing tenant risk, and remaining compliant throughout the lifecycle of a commercial lease.
We combine real estate, tax, and operational advisory to ensure assets are properly structured, administered, and defended when disputes arise.
We support landlords with:
Lease structuring, negotiation, and drafting
Termination strategy and possession risk assessment
Tenant monitoring, coordination, and dispute support
Property and asset custodianship
VAT registration, VAT treatment of leases, and VAT filings
Ongoing tax, accounting, corporate compliance, and reporting
For more information, visit: www.kiklonpartners.co
To start now: https://lnkd.in/dNReHwBK