Cyprus' Administrative Court of Appeal has ruled that the authorities acted unlawfully by failing for years to decide on a citizenship application concerning the minor child of a Cypriot citizen, stressing that the administration is obliged to examine and respond to requests within a reasonable time, even when the final decision involves the exercise of discretionary powers.
In a unanimous judgment dated 17 July 2026, the court upheld the mother's appeal, overturned an earlier ruling by the Administrative Court and annulled the administration's failure to decide on her application.
The case concerned an application submitted in 2016 by a Cypriot mother seeking the registration of her minor child as a Cypriot citizen under the provisions of the Civil Registry Law. The Administrative Court of Appeal noted that no decision had been issued on the request by the time the appeal was heard.
The Administrative Court had dismissed the challenge, finding that the application had not been submitted to the competent authority, namely the Council of Ministers, but to the Civil Registry and Migration Department. It also held that consideration of such applications falls within the discretionary powers of the Council of Ministers and therefore did not constitute a failure to perform a legally required act.
The Administrative Court of Appeal adopted a different approach, clarifying that the case did not concern the merits of the citizenship request but the administration's obligation to examine it and reach a decision.
Obligation to reply within reasonable time
As stated in the judgment, "The Appellant, through her Recourse, does not seek approval of her application, but rather to receive a response to a request concerning an executory administrative act."
The court further noted that, under Article 29 of the Constitution and legislation governing the General Principles of Administrative Law, the administration is required to examine requests and make decisions within a reasonable period.
Particular emphasis was placed on the fact that the application had remained pending for several years.
"The essence of the issue in the present case is that the Appellant seeks to receive a response to her application, which she did not receive from 2016 until at least 2022, when the appealed judgment was issued," the court said.
In its conclusion, the court stated that "the passage of such an extensive period of time constitutes, in the circumstances, an obvious omission by the administration to fulfil its obligation to examine the Appellant's application."
The court also accepted the appellant's argument that even if the application had initially been filed with an incompetent administrative body, the administration was obliged under the law to forward it to the competent authority and inform the applicant accordingly.
The appeal was upheld, the first instance judgment set aside and the administration's failure to respond within a reasonable time to the disputed application was declared null and void. The court also ruled that the omitted action should have been carried out and awarded the appellant costs of €3,000.
Source: CNA
