THE town planning director yesterday denied any wrongdoing in a land development case in Limassol in which he was accused of having vested interests.
The House Watchdog Committee heard that an investigation was launched late in 2000 into the allegations against Yiannos Papadopoulos, who was later acquitted by the civil service commission of any wrongdoing.
The Attorney-general’s office disagreed with the decision, but discovered there was nothing that could be done.
A legal service representative explained that after looking into the matter at the time, it was deemed legally impossible to appeal the decision at the Supreme Court.
In any case, he added, the 75-day deadline to file an appeal had long passed and the matter could not be raised again by the civil service commission either.
He added: “No further legal measure could be taken because of the existing civil service law on double jeopardy.”
The official said that together with current Attorney-general Solon Nikitas, he looked into the possibility of amending legislation to allow room for appeals.
The issue concerned the changing of building zones in a particular area of Limassol where a particular company owned a lot of land.
It was alleged back then that his daughters had vested interests in the issue, an accusation that Papadopoulos vehemently denied.
“I never hid my daughters’ interest in the matter,” he said.
He explained that their only interest was to secure two plots of land in the area in question, adding, however, that they had not been treated favourably.
Papadopoulos said that when his daughters bought the land, it had already been included in the housing zone.
He also stressed that he did not know that the area’s building coefficient would be increased from 20 to 30 per cent.
In any case, he added, the upgrade had not affected land value, as testified by land registry officials last week.
“I state that when the land was bought, the demand for its upgrade was not even known.
“It was filed in 1996 by the municipalities of Mesa Yitonia, Yermasoyia and Amathus,” Papadopoulos said.
AKEL deputy Kikis Yiangou charged that Papadopolos had been acquitted on technicalities.
Papadopoulos said no information had been given to him during the investigation – the grounds on which the commission based the acquittal – and “I would feel happier if the commission had investigated the disciplinary issue further.”
He reiterated that he had never intervened with procedures, but conceded he should have told the town planning council about his daughters’ interest.
Yiangou asked Papadopoulos about his kinship with two members of a developing company active in the area.
He said one of them was his wife’s godson, but he did not know at the time he was handling the matter.
“I did not know he had interests in the company,” he said.
Committee chairman Christos Pourgourides disputed this: “Do you want me to believe he never mentioned to your wife that he was applying to the town planning department?”
“I am telling you I did not know anything,” Papadopoulos said.
Pourgourides asked the interior ministry official to provide the committee with information on eight objections to the local plan filed after the deadline had expired.
One of them concerned the company in question.
