The court of appeal has unanimously rejected a request by alleged German usurper Ewa Izabela Kuenzel, who is accused of having usurped Greek-Cypriot property in the occupied north, to end her detention.

The appeal concerns a decision by the Nicosia district court which rejected her request for conditional release from detention at the central prison until the completion of the criminal proceedings against her.

In a decision dated September 4, made public on Monday, the appeals court ruled that the reasons put forward by Kuenzel neither constituted a violation of her rights nor justified the replacement of detention with alternative measures.

Kuenzel faces a total of 46 charges including fraudulent transactions in real estate belonging to another, illegal possession and use of real estate without the consent of the owners, as well as money laundering.

The transactions referred to in the indictment concern real estate in the Ayios Ambrosios area of Kyrenia.

The defendant has remained in custody since her arrest at Larnaca airport in July 2024 after having a conversation on board a flight with Elam MEP Geadis Geadi in which she reportedly admitted to selling Greek Cypriot-owned property in the north.

Hearings in the case began in March 2025, with the court having since rejected the defendant’s multiple requests for bail conditions to terminate her detention, arguing that the length of her detention was unjustified and referring to her clean criminal record.

The defendant’s proposed terms for conditional release reportedly include the payment of €300,000 in cash as a guarantee, as well as stayig in a specific hotel in Nicosia and the defendant being required to regularly report to the police.

The court of appeal, however, ruled there was no unjustified delay in the trial of the case, arguing its complexity and volume of evidence justified the total duration of the detention.

“The addition of a witness, the addition of witness material of the type mentioned, the fact that the testimony of a number of witnesses from abroad is expected, seen in light of the disputed facts as they emerge from the indictment, as well as the nature of the charges, do not support such a judgment,” the court said.

Regarding the claim that the defendant has already served a period of custody corresponding to three years of a potential sentence, the court said it was not possible to predict the potential sentence at this stage.

The court ruled that the defendant had not demonstrated that her human rights had been impacted, ultimately ruling that the grounds for Kuenzel’s appeal were unfounded and dismissed them entirely, thus upholding the initial ruling.