In 2010, the Cypriot House of Representatives enacted the Law on Effective Remedies for the Violation of the Right to a Determination of Civil Rights and Obligations within a Reasonable Time (Law 2(I)/2010).

This legislation was a direct response to numerous individual applications filed against the Republic of Cyprus before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).

The ECtHR had repeatedly found Cyprus in violation of Article 6(1) of the ECHR for failing to have civil rights and obligations determined within a reasonable time, and a further violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) because the Republic lacked adequate domestic remedies to address these delays.

Core Provisions of Law 2(I)/2010

The Law establishes a domestic remedy that allows individuals to seek compensation from the Republic of Cyprus if they believe their civil case took an unreasonable amount of time to resolve.

Scope of Application

The Law applies to cases (at the District Court, Court of Appeal, or Supreme Constitutional Court) that are either pending at any stage (including execution) or have been concluded by a final judgment.

Legal Action

An individual can file a lawsuit or a primary application (for pending cases) against the Republic seeking material and non-material damages, as well as legal costs.

Time Limit

A lawsuit must be filed within one (1) year from the date the case was concluded by a final judgment or the date of execution, unless the court deems it was not reasonably possible to file within that period.

Remedy for Pending Cases

For a pending case, a party may file a primary application without suspending the main proceedings. If the court finds a violation, the decision is transferred to the Supreme Court, which issues instructions to accelerate the process (e.g., setting an immediate hearing date, prioritizing the case).

Factors for Determining an Unreasonable Time

Article 11 of the Law outlines the criteria the court must consider when assessing whether the right to a determination within a reasonable time has been violated. These factors are heavily influenced by established ECtHR jurisprudence:

  • Total Duration: The overall time the case has been pending or took to resolve.
  • Nature and Complexity: The nature and complexity of the case.
  • Conduct of the Applicant: The behavior of the party bringing the claim during the proceedings (e.g., avoiding dilatory tactics).
  • Conduct of Judicial Authorities: The actions or omissions of the judicial authorities at various stages, including execution.
  • Conduct of Other Authorities: The actions of other state authorities, where relevant (e.g., during execution).
  • ECtHR Jurisprudence: Any other factors deemed relevant by the ECtHR in its case law.

Key Judicial Interpretation

Cypriot and ECtHR case law provide crucial interpretation of the Law's application:

Defining "Reasonable Time": In Demetriou v. Attorney General (2014), the Supreme Court affirmed that there are no standard parameters for "reasonable time." The assessment must be based on the specific circumstances of the case, focusing on the complexity, the conduct of the parties and authorities, and what is at stake for the applicant (citing ECtHR cases like Frydlender v. France). The state has an obligation to ensure the judiciary is organised to prevent excessive delays.

The State's Responsibility: In C.S.G. Neokleous Brothers Constructions Ltd v. Attorney General (2019), the Court confirmed that the state is responsible for the acts or omissions of judicial authorities. Crucially, the volume of old cases ("backlog") cannot justify systemic delay in the administration of justice, even if it explains a specific adjournment in the early stages.

ECtHR Scrutiny of the Law: The effectiveness of Law 2(I)/2010 was challenged at the ECtHR in the case of ALTIUS INSURANCE LTD v. Cyprus (2023). The applicant challenged the domestic court's approach of separating the duration of the first instance proceedings from the appeal proceedings when calculating the overall delay.

ECtHR's Finding: The ECtHR found that this separation violated the ECHR. The Court stressed that an effective remedy for excessive length of proceedings must cover all stages of the proceedings and take into account their total duration (citing Kirinčić and Others v. Croatia). The judicial delay is a progressively evolving event whose gravity increases over time.

The ALTIUS INSURANCE judgment is highly significant, compelling Cypriot courts to interpret the 2010 Law in line with the established principle that the entire duration of the proceedings—from filing to final resolution—must be considered when assessing a violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time.

This article is for informational purposes only. For more information and advice for your specific case, please contact us by email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.