The Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected a request by Equality (Isotita) trade unionist Giorgos Maltezos to register a private criminal indictment against five state officials over alleged violations of protections for trade union members.

The proposed indictment targeted Justice Minister Costas Fitiris, the deputy director of the central prisons, Maria Siali, a senior legal officer at the justice ministry, the ministry’s permanent secretary, George Pantelis, and a prisons department officer.

Maltezos alleged that the officials had failed to provide effective protection against actions detrimental to workers’ representatives because of their trade union activities.

The proposed charges also concerned alleged ‘obstruction of trade union freedom’.

The court’s decision focused on Maltezos’ employment status, finding that he did not have a dependent employment relationship with the state.

His employment as a prison guard under an indefinite contract falls within the public service and is governed by administrative law, the court said.

It also found that the legislation relied upon by Maltezos applied to an “enterprise” or economic entity and that the state did not fall within that definition.

The court further ruled that pursuing the proposed indictment would effectively seek to influence or annul proceedings against Maltezos over alleged unjustified absence from work.

As those proceedings remained pending despite his dismissal, the court concluded that pursuing the indictment would constitute “an abuse of the judicial process”.

Equality president Prodromos Christofi said the union respected the decision but expressed concern that its reasoning could leave public sector workers without criminal protection against alleged anti-union reprisals.

“I have absolute respect for the judiciary, I comply with the decision and I do not attribute any expediency or prejudice to any judge,” Christofi said.

He disputed the court’s emphasis on Maltezos’ employment relationship and argued that the disciplinary proceedings themselves formed part of the alleged retaliation.

“Seeking criminal protection against it does not constitute, in my opinion, an abuse, but the express application of the law itself,” he said.

Christofi also argued that a criminal court could not annul an administrative or disciplinary decision, saying the union had sought only a ruling on the alleged criminal liability of the five officials.

The dispute follows Maltezos’ dismissal by the justice ministry on at the end of last month after disciplinary proceedings concerning alleged unjustified absences.

Equality has maintained that the dismissal was connected to his trade union activities, while Fitiris has rejected the allegation and said the decision followed repeated breaches of workplace regulations.

The union said Maltezos’ dismissal would be challenged in court and that it would examine other legal avenues, including proceedings already pending at European and international level.