I have no problem with what the OP has tried to do here. Having done visual approaches into CFU myself many times it’s one of those places that as long as you’re sensible it can make the difference between getting in and diverting to Athens.
Think about it in a different way. If you were to commence the RNAV approach to runway 35, and at 1500ft tower report the tailwind is out of limits, yet you are fully visual, and in visual contact with the airport and surrounding terrain, would you do a full go around, missed approach, followed by another approach to the wrong runway, just so you could fly the circle to land? Which is pretty much what you would have done the first time round having broken off from your RNAV to fly a visual circuit to 17. One could argue that going around would be the least safe option, as 2 engine go around a seem to be the most screwed up procedure in the book. You would also save your company over a ton of fuel and about 15 mins of flying.
To my mind, as long as to can satisfy the visual criteria, then a visual approach can be commenced from any part of the instrument approach in use. Indeed we would brief this. If the VOR/ILS/GPS/NDB signal is lost and we are visual we would continue. Also, Larnica has a published RNAV to visual approach.
To me, if there is doubt, there is no doubt. Safety has to be absolutely paramount. However, we also have to practical about what we’re doing.
p.s. Just last month I broke off an ILS in TFS to fly a visual circuit to the other runway. As did about 5 other aircraft.