The Legal Service is not limited to the Attorney General, George Savvides, and the Deputy Attorney General, Savvas Angelides. It also includes nine public prosecutors, twenty senior lawyers of the Republic, thirty-two first-class lawyers, fifty lawyers of the Republic, as well as administrative staff and other officials who work tirelessly to uphold justice. In the course of their work, they sometimes face threats and have even been targeted in bomb or arson attacks. At the same time, they contend with public frustration over certain high-profile decisions made by the two heads of the Legal Service, particularly regarding the suspension of criminal prosecutions. These decisions remain unchecked, are not made public, and have sparked widespread public outrage whenever details have emerged.
The lack of transparency on this issue is not new. In the past, there was a case in which an Attorney General suspended the criminal prosecution of his own son, who had been accused of serious offences, in order to prevent him from ending up in prison. This incident illustrated, in the clearest possible way, the pressing need for accountability.
Against this backdrop, a particularly significant development occurred on the fourth of the month: the Ministry of Justice submitted to Parliament a bill introducing judicial oversight of the Attorney General's and the Deputy Attorney General's until now unchecked decisions.
The bill is currently before the Parliamentary Legal Affairs Committee. According to the explanatory report, it provides for the review by the Supreme Court of the final decisions of the Director of Public Prosecutions, specifically concerning: a) the decision not to initiate criminal proceedings for a particular offence, and b) the suspension of criminal proceedings in cases before the Assize Court.
The review will be carried out on the basis of specific grounds set out in the bill, which may be invoked by the entitled persons who challenge such decisions. Who are these entitled persons? Natural and legal persons who have suffered harm or damage, including physical, psychological or emotional harm, as well as economic loss directly caused by the offence for which no prosecution was brought or the proceedings were suspended. Such a person is recognised as a victim for the purposes of this law. A first degree relative of the victim may also appeal to the Supreme Court in cases where the victim died as a result of the offence.
At present, the Attorney General serves simultaneously as the state's legal adviser and Director of Public Prosecutions. Once the reform bills are passed, these two roles will be separated: the legal adviser to the state and the Director of Public Prosecutions will be two different individuals.
Only in Cyprus...
-
Cyprus remains the only EU member state in which there is no form of oversight of the Attorney General's decisions, whether through judicial review or internal administrative review.
-
According to European standards, the absence of legal remedies against decisions of public prosecutors, such as decisions not to bring criminal charges, is not considered acceptable, as it carries a high risk of a lack of accountability and, consequently, arbitrariness.
-
The need for accountability and judicial oversight of the Director of Public Prosecutions' decisions has been consistently highlighted by international bodies, such as the Organisation for Economic Co operation and Development (OECD) and the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe.
-
Most importantly, and directly linked to the protection of human rights, the absence of any means to challenge the Attorney General's decisions violates the right of affected individuals to an effective remedy before a court. This concerns, for example, victims of criminal acts or first degree relatives of victims who died as a result of such acts.
Through Christodoulides government's initiative to establish judicial review of these decisions, the Republic of Cyprus aligns itself with European practice and restores a fundamental right of citizens: the ability to challenge prosecutorial decisions that materially affect them. Parliament is now called upon to complete this important reform as soon as possible by passing the relevant bill before February 2026, when its term ends ahead of the forthcoming parliamentary elections.