The Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission (CySEC) on Monday announced that the Supreme Constitutional Court has dismissed an appeal filed by four former board members of Cyprus Popular Bank Public Co Ltd, thereby upholding earlier court and regulatory decisions imposing administrative fines.
The decision was issued on October 15, 2025, under Appeal No. 8/21, involving Efthimios Mbouloutas, Eleftherios Chiliadakis, Markos Forou, and Panayiotis Kounni as appellants against the Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission.
The case originated from CySEC’s decision dated April 28, 2014, which imposed administrative fines on the four individuals, who were members of the bank’s Board of Directors at the time.
The commission had found that the individuals were responsible for violations of the Transparency Requirements (Transferable Securities Admitted to Trading on a Regulated Market) Law.
Specifically, violations concerned the statement of the board of directors and others included in the company’s half-yearly financial report for the period ending June 30, 2010, and in the company’s annual financial report for the year ending December 31, 2010.
Additionally, the decision cited violations of the Public Offer and Prospectus Law in connection with Cyprus Popular Bank’s prospectuses dated May 28, 2010, September 1, 2010, December 21, 2010, and May 19, 2011, which had been signed by the defendants, with the exception of Forou.
Following the imposition of fines by CySEC, the four individuals filed applications before the Administrative Court, challenging the regulator’s decision.
On November 30, 2020, the Administrative Court issued its ruling, upholding CySEC’s decision in full.
A copy of that Administrative Court decision dated November 30, 2020, is publicly available.
The appellants subsequently filed Appeal No. 8/21 before the Supreme Constitutional Court (Second Instance), contesting the Administrative Court’s ruling.
On October 15, 2025, the Supreme Constitutional Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Administrative Court’s decision of November 30, 2020.
In its judgment, the Supreme Constitutional Court found that the allegations of partiality and prejudice against the President of the commission were not proven to the required degree.
The court also held that the approval of a prospectus by the relevant authorities does not exempt those who sign it from their legal obligations.
The ruling thus confirmed the legality and validity of the original administrative fines imposed by the commission in 2014.
A copy of the Supreme Constitutional Court’s decision dated October 15, 2025, is available for public access.
