Rule of law

Participants in this session explained that, following the events of 1963, certain aspects of the bi-communal Constitution of Cyprus had become inapplicable. As an emergency response to that crisis, the Cypriot authorities had developed a "doctrine of necessity", which had been intended as a temporary measure but had applied ever since, leading to what participants considered a concentration of power and an impediment to a proper system of checks and balances. Participants gave numerous examples of discretionary powers existing within the framework of that doctrine, such as: the president's prerogative to appoint a considerable number of high officials, such as the judges of the 
Supreme Court of Cyprus, the ombudsman and the attorney-general; the possibility for the government to override urban plans made by a local authority, without any justification or prior technical assessment; the ability granted to the Ministry of the Interior to act unilaterally on all matters of migration, including expulsions; the former government prerogative to grant citizenship to investors as part of the former so-called "golden passport" programme. 

Another issue that was mentioned was the fact that Cyprus's attorney-general was a legal advisor to the executive, while also being in charge of prosecution. Participants considered that the proximity of these executive and judicial prerogatives was a potential conflict of interest, especially since the current attorney-general had also served as Minister for Justice in the past.

Despite discussions concerning judicial reform over the past decade, participants regretted that judicial processes were still extremely slow, sometimes taking up to seven or eight years. The Cypriot authorities indicated that a bill on judicial reform on second instance jurisdiction, was under discussion in the parliament and that its objective was to alleviate waiting times for judicial decisions.

Participants expressed the view that there was no effective means of enforcing court decisions issued against public authorities, and that authorities' failure to comply did not lead to any sanctions. Cypriot courts were also reportedly reluctant to send referral questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Participants also invoked certain cases where legislation lacked clarity and transparency. For example, there was no transparent clear migration policy that would allow migrants to be fully informed about the conditions of entry into Cyprus before leaving their country of origin.

Participants felt that the presumption of innocence was not sufficiently enforced in Cyprus, and believed that civil courts sometimes considered the existence of a criminal investigation to be proof of wrongdoing, which the authorities strongly denied.

Participants considered that the general perception of corruption was high in Cyprus. They notably referred to the former so-called "golden passport" programme – which, for more than a decade, had allowed the government to grant citizenship to investors – as an illustration of the fact that corruption was prominent across the political field. Participants also felt that corruption encouraged other criminal activities such as human trafficking.