The case was brought to the Supreme Court by 16 individuals who are descendants of a Cypriot citizen and a Turkish citizen, claiming that they applied to register as citizens of Cyprus but never received a response from the authorities. They argued that they are stateless and that Cyprus failed to grant them Cypriot citizenship. The Supreme Court noted the adverse consequences of statelessness, referring to jurisprudence of the ECtHR, but found that all but one applicant are Turkish citizens. For all applicants, the Court concluded that the authorities’ failure to respond to the citizenship applications fell under the jurisdiction of the Administrative Court, and thus rejected the applications.
- The Civil Registry Law Of 2002, (L.141(I)/2002)
- Articles 15, 146 and 155.4 of the Constitution of the Republic of Cyprus
- The Refugees (Amendment) Law of 2018 Ν.80(Ι)/2018
- The Convention on the Rights of the Child (Ratification) (Amendment) Law of 2000 Law 5(III)/2000
- 1954 Statelessness Convention
- 1961 Statelessness Convention
- Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights
- Article 8 European Convention of Human Rights
The sixteen applicants, some of whom were born before the 1974 invasion of Cyprus, claimed to be children or descendants of Cypriot and Turkish citizens, and applied to the Civil Registry and Migration Department for Cypriot citizenship. They received no reply and were not granted citizenship, and it was later discovered that the Department had either put their applications on a waiting list, or rejected some due to insufficient data, without notifying the applicants of the status of their applications.
Considering themselves stateless and believing that the Cypriot State had failed in its obligation to grant them citizenship, the applicants appealed to the Supreme Court. Specifically, they asked it to issue a mandamus warrant, which would order the Department to develop a specific procedure with clearly defined criteria and/or conditions for the recognition of stateless children per the 1954 and 1961 Statelessness Conventions and international laws.
The Court first noted that Cyprus had not acceded to the international conventions invoked by the applicants, namely the 1954 and 1961 Statelessness Conventions. Furthermore, all the applicants, except one, had Turkish citizenship, as one or both of their parents were Turkish citizens. The extent to which they were at risk of losing their Turkish citizenship was not established by the applicants. Therefore, they were not stateless as they had claimed, with the exception of a minor, who was born in Cyprus and was of Cypriot origin due to male parentage.
The Court acknowledged that the statelessness status has been acknowledged in legislation and case law. For example, it agreed that stateless persons are negatively affected regarding the rights to privacy and family per Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental rights, Article 8 of the ECHR and Article 15 of the Constitution of the Republic of Cyprus. The extent to which this right is affected is also reflected in the dissenting decision of Judge Pinto De Albuquerque in Ramadan v Malta, and referenced in Cypriot legislation, including the Refugees (Amendment) Law of 2018 and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (Ratification) (Amendment) Law of 2000.
However, as the Court summarised, the matter was about Turkish citizens requesting Cypriot citizenship. Consequently, there was no question of the establishment of factors towards determining the status of the applicants. Additionally, whether there was a procedural failure to inform the applicants was a question for the Administrative Court. Thus, the sole applicant who did not have Turkish citizenship could appeal to the Administrative Court.
Agreeing with the Attorney General and finding in favour of the Cypriot State, the Court held that the application had failed and would be rejected, with the applicants liable for costs at €500 per applicant.