My mistake, I was thinking of the Melkite Patriarch Gregory III Laham of Antioch. As for the excommunication by the Patriarch of Constantinople, whence does he get the authority to excommunicate a validly elected patriarch of another church? How can a patriarch who canonically possesses only local authority over his own church have greater power than the pope who claims universal jurisdiction? Lacking such authority or jurisdiction over Antioch, Cyril VI remained the legitimate Patriarch of Antioch, as do his successor, regardless of the judgment of the other Orthodox patriarchs.
Cyril VI was removed by the EP in concert with the other Orthodox Patriarchs. A recent example of this was the removal of the Patriarch of Jerusalem Ireneos I by the EP on behalf of and in concert with the other Patriarchs in, I think, 2005. It is the authority of the primus to act on behalf of the Patriarchs once they have decided what needs to be done. Of course if its the EP who needs to be removed, that can be done too (and has been).
“... regardless of the judgment of the other Orthodox patriarchs.”
P, I meant to add that NOTHING can happen or continue on in Orthodoxy “regardless of the judgment” of the Patriarchs, or of the Laos tou Theou for that matter.