The European Court of Human Rights has found that Cyprus violated the right to a fair trial in the case of Konstantinou v. Cyprus, according to an announcement by the Legal Service.
In its judgment issued on 7 May 2026, the ECtHR ruled that Cyprus breached Article 6.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights because the applicant had no access to judicial review after a 2023 decision by the transitional Supreme Council of Judicature not to promote him to President of a District Court.
The Legal Service said the court found that there had been a lack of access to a court.
The case arose during Cyprus’s justice reform, when the transitional Supreme Council of Judicature, established until the reforms were fully implemented, proceeded with promotions of judges to the post of President of a District Court.
The applicant, who was among the candidates for the post, was not promoted and sought to challenge the council’s decision.
The issue before the ECtHR was whether the complete absence of judicial review of the procedure for promoting judges before the transitional Supreme Council of Judicature was compatible with the rule of law and Article 6.1 of the Convention.
Although the court accepted that Cyprus’s legal system was undergoing structural reform, it held that this could not justify abolishing judicial review of decisions affecting the careers of judges. According to the Legal Service, the court also found no substantial reasons that could exceptionally justify the lack of judicial review in this case.
The ECtHR therefore ruled that Cyprus had violated the applicant’s right to a fair trial, recalling its settled case law that restrictions on access to a court are rarely allowed and only for exceptional reasons.
The court did not award any amount for non-pecuniary damage, finding that the ruling itself constituted just satisfaction for the violation. It did, however, award the applicant €13,887.60 in costs and expenses.
The Legal Service noted that, since 1 July 2023, decisions of the Supreme Council of Judicature have been subject to review by the Supreme Constitutional Council of Judicature, which acts as a second-instance judicial council.
