Introduction

Cyprus is often described as a single country with a complex political reality. That complexity is not only political; it is also legal. Depending on where a legal dispute arises on the island, very different rules may apply as to which courts have jurisdiction, which law governs the dispute, and which State may ultimately be responsible for protecting fundamental rights.

This blog post explains how Cyprus can be understood as operating under four distinct legal jurisdictions for the purposes of human‑rights‑related disputes. The aim is to help non‑lawyers understand why location matters so much, what legal routes may be available, and where the main uncertainties lie.

The discussion is based on a human‑rights perspective, focusing in particular on jurisdiction and responsibility under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECtHR). It is based on a presentation given by Achilleas Demetriades to the Cyprus Bar Association on 16 December 2025.

Why jurisdiction matters

In everyday terms, jurisdiction answers a simple question: which authority has the legal power to deal with a dispute? Closely linked to this is the question of applicable law: which set of legal rules will be used to decide the case?

In most countries, the answer is straightforward. In Cyprus, however, the answer depends heavily on geography. Over the past decades, courts (especially the ECtHR) have developed the concept of effective control to determine which State bears legal responsibility in a given area.

From this perspective, Cyprus can be divided into four distinct geographic and legal areas.

The four legal areas of Cyprus at a glance

From a human‑rights and jurisdictional standpoint, Cyprus can be understood as consisting of:

  1. Areas where the Republic of Cyprus exercises effective control
  2. Areas where the Republic of Cyprus does NOT exercise effective control
  3. The UN Buffer Zone (the “Green Line”), under UNFICYP control
  4. The British Sovereign Base Areas

Each of these areas raises different legal questions and leads to different procedural paths.

  1. Areas under the effective control of the Republic of Cyprus

In areas controlled by the Republic of Cyprus, the legal position is the most familiar and predictable.

Jurisdiction and Courts

The courts of the Republic of Cyprus clearly have jurisdiction. Individuals must normally exhaust all available domestic remedies before seeking international redress before the ECtHR. This usually means:

(a) Proceedings before a first‑instance court

(b) An appeal to the Court of Appeal

(c) In some cases, Constitutional proceedings

Only after these remedies are exhausted can an application be made to the ECtHR, and this must be done within four months of the final domestic decision.

Applicable Law

Cypriot law applies, including Constitutional provisions. Importantly, under Article 169 of the Constitution, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) forms part of Cypriot law and has superior force (supremacy) over ordinary legislation.

Human Rights Responsibility

There is no legal doubt that, in these areas, the Republic of Cyprus bears responsibility for any violation of rights under the ECHR. Both jurisdiction and responsibility are clear.

  1. Areas NOT under the effective control of the Republic of Cyprus

The legal situation becomes far more complex in areas where the Republic of Cyprus does not exercise effective control, namely the northern part of the island, which is under Turkish control since 1974. This control is not only military but extends to economic and political.

Exhaustion of remedies

Although these areas are not internationally recognised as a state, the ECtHR has required applicants to exhaust available remedies there before applying to Strasbourg. Since there is a subordinate to Turkey local administration which Turkey has jurisdiction over. In practice, this includes proceedings before bodies such as:

(a) The Immovable Property Commission, dealing with claims of Greek Cypriot property owners in the areas under Turkish control

(b) Local administrative courts

(c) Appellate Court

This requirement even though controversial is well‑established in the ECtHR’s case-law.

Jurisdiction before the ECtHR

For the purposes of the ECHR, the ECtHR has held that Turkey exercises effective control in these areas. As a result, applications concerning alleged human rights violations are essentially brought against Turkey, not against the Republic of Cyprus.

Enforcement challenges

Even when an applicant succeeds before the ECtHR, a further practical question arises: does the judgment lead to an effective remedy on the ground? Enforcement and implementation remain a persistent concern. For more information on this topic, please see our blog post here.

  1. The UN Buffer Zone (Green Line)

The UN Buffer Zone occupies a unique position. It is controlled by the United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP) and in effect governed by a special legal framework.

Legal background

UNFICYP was established by a UN Security Council resolution in 1964. Its presence is regulated through a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), which defines its powers and immunities.

Who has jurisdiction?

For many years, the position of the Republic of Cyprus has been that it does not exercise effective control over the Buffer Zone and therefore does not have jurisdiction therein.

However, in Ioannides v. Cyprus,[1] the European Court of Human Rights held that Cyprus does have jurisdiction for ECHR purposes in relation to certain acts occurring in the Buffer Zone.

Responsibility and immunity

This raises difficult and still unresolved questions:

(a) If jurisdiction exists, does responsibility automatically follow?

(b) Where does the immunity of UNFICYP begin and end?

(c) Can individuals obtain an effective remedy when UN involvement is central to the facts?

The answers are not yet fully settled, making this one of the most legally sensitive areas on the island.

  1. The British Sovereign Base Areas

The British Sovereign Base Areas (SBAs) are a legacy of Cyprus’ colonial past and continue to operate under a distinct legal system, having remained part of the UK when independence was granted to the Republic.

A separate legal order

The SBAs have their own courts and laws, primarily based on local Ordinances. While these laws are expected to broadly reflect Cypriot law, they are not identical.

The court structure includes:

(a) A first‑instance court

(b) An appellate court, with judges visiting from the UK

(c) The Privy Council in London, which acts as a third-instance court

Human rights framework

The ECHR applies in the SBAs. However, not all Protocols apply in the same way. For example, Protocol No. 1 on property rights does not apply directly, although similar protections exist in local legislation.

This creates important practical implications, particularly for property and development matters, which also related to the arrangements between the Republic and the SBA on zoning, for which the latter reserve final judgment.

International responsibility

A further issue is whether the United Kingdom bears responsibility before the ECtHR for acts occurring in the SBAs in relation to violations of their right to peaceful enjoyment of property rights, and under what conditions such cases may be brought.

Why this complexity matters in practice

Understanding these four jurisdictions is not merely an academic exercise. It has real consequences for:

(a) Property disputes

(b) Commercial transactions

(c) Access to courts and remedies

(d) The protection of fundamental rights

Choosing the wrong legal route can lead to years of delay or the dismissal of a claim altogether.

Concluding thoughts

Cyprus is one island, but from a legal and human‑rights perspective, it operates under four distinct jurisdictional realities. Effective control, not formal sovereignty alone, appears to determine which courts have authority and which State bears responsibility.

For individuals and businesses alike, understanding where a dispute arises is the first and most crucial step in understanding how it can be resolved. As case-law continues to evolve (particularly in relation to the Buffer Zone and the SBAs) these issues will remain central to access to justice in Cyprus.

* The content of this blog post is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this blog does not create a lawyer-client relationship.

[1] Application no. 32879/18, judgment of 16 January 2025