QUESTIONS have been raised over an out-of-court settlement between Attorney-general Petros Clerides and his deputy Akis Papasavvas in a dispute concerning a compensation claim filed by the latter.
In 2005, Papasavvas, then senior counsel, had sued the state seeking compensation for his forced early retirement from the service in November 2001.
The Supreme Court had deemed the termination to be illegal, allowing Papasavvas to return to the Attorney-general’s office in early 2003, with full pay.
Papasavvas was seeking moral and material damages for disruption of his career.
At the time he was fired, Papasavvas received a generous lump-sum payment, and for the duration of his termination got a monthly pension. During this time Papasavvas had also applied for, and was receiving, unemployment benefit.
The Attorney-general’s office (Papasavvas’ employers) hit back with a counterclaim, arguing that in fact it was Papasavvas who owed the state money, to the tune of around €110,000.
In a bizarre twist, as the two sides prepared to do battle in court, the respective claims were dropped. A deal was made out of court granting Papasavvas €55,000. This was despite the fact that Petros Clerides had spoken of “illegal retention” of state funds on the part of Papasavvas.
Moreover, Clerides had threatened to use in court correspondence between himself and Papasavvas where the latter repeatedly refused to return the money paid to him during the 14 months of “forced early retirement” – the golden handshake plus the monthly pension payments.
The private lawyer hired by Clerides to represent the AG’s office withdrew from the case. The lawyer, Costas Velaris has explained in court the reasons for his decision, and his statement was recorded in the minutes.
In May, a few days before a scheduled hearing, Velaris received a phone call from an officer of the AG’s office. According to Velaris, the caller informed him that the case had been settled and that he should drop the claim and agree to a €55,000 payout in Papasavvas’ favour.
When Velaris asked why the change of heart, the officer reportedly told him: “The bosses have worked things out between themselves. I’m just the messenger.”
The officer who made the call has since denied speaking these words, claiming instead that he called Velaris in order to “sound him out” regarding a suitable settlement figure.
Velaris refused to go along with a settlement because, as he told the court, it would not be in the public interest given that Papasavvas owed money to the state.
Shortly later, sometime in June, Velaris received a letter from the Attorney-general asking Velaris to hand over the case files – effectively a notice of termination of his services. There was no explanation from Clerides for this course of action.
The case files are to be handed over to Velaris’ replacement, who happens to be a lawyer from the Attorney-general’s office, that is, the subordinate of the two litigants, Clerides and Papasavvas.
Informed sources told the Mail that, in a nutshell, had Papasavvas got his way with his claim he would have received twice the amount he was entitled to from the state. Papasavvas had already received a lump-sum retirement payment – which he did not refund – and would receive another on his retirement at the age of 68 years.
The story was first published by Politis last Saturday. Since then, Clerides and Papasavvas have both responded by threatening to sue the paper for libel. However, neither official addressed the substance of the issue, namely, why they struck a deal out of court.
In comments made to communist mouthpiece Haravghi, Clerides hung out Velaris to dry: “How serious can Mr. Velaris be?” he mused.
And Papasavvas accused Politis of “disgraceful” reporting. He went on to warn that the “accessories of the [news] report will face the details [of the case] in the pending libel suit.”
