cyfield appeal — cyfield appeal — Cyfield Development Public Ltd has lost its appeal regarding the redevelopment tender for the Nicosia Municipality’s Makarios-Stasikratous-Evagorou triangle. The Supreme Constitutional Court upheld the original decision to award the contract to a competing company, rejecting Cyfield’s challenge.
In its ruling, issued recently, the Supreme Constitutional Court acknowledged that while some of Cyfield’s grounds for appeal were accepted, the overall appeal was denied. The court affirmed the correctness of the first instance court’s judgment and the Tenders Board’s decision.
The case dates back to a tender announcement on May 6, 2016, for the integrated redevelopment of the commercial triangle in Nicosia. Five bids were submitted, including those from Cyfield and Cybarco-A. Panayides. The Tenders Board approved the Evaluation Committee’s recommendation on March 16, 2017, awarding the project to Cybarco for 8,177,020 euros plus VAT.
Following the award, Cyfield filed a hierarchical recourse with the Tenders Review Authority, which led to a re-evaluation of the bids. However, on February 15, 2018, the Tenders Board again decided to award the project to Cybarco after thorough analysis.
Cyfield’s subsequent recourse to the Administrative Court was rejected, prompting the appeal to the Supreme Constitutional Court. In examining the case, the court highlighted the 2014 Paphos Sewerage Board (SAPA) corruption scandal, which played a significant role in the proceedings.
While Cyfield argued that their exclusion was unwarranted, the court found that the investigation conducted by Nicosia Municipality was sufficient and reasonable. The court noted that K.C., a key figure in Cyfield, was accurately identified as holding a significant role within the company, which justified the municipality’s decision.
The court’s decision was clear: although Cyfield was incorrectly excluded based on the SAPA case, the municipality had performed due diligence and correctly identified K.C.’s influence within the company. This led to the dismissal of Cyfield’s appeal.
