Cyprus Fumbles ECHR Judge Selection – Again

Prominent judge withdraws candidacy in protest over 'botched process'

Header Image

KATERINA ELIADI

According to prominent lawyer and law professor Christos Clerides, political interference and behind-the-scenes manoeuvring have once again damaged the process for the selection of a Cypriot ECHR judge.

Clerides, who represents two candidates for the position, said this is the second time the process has been botched.

“This is what happens when powerful groups treat judicial appointments like their own property or try to control judges and court decisions,” Clerides wrote in a Facebook post.

Clerides was referring to ongoing procedural irregularities, political interference, and undue influence over what is supposed to be a merit-based, impartial process for appointing a Cypriot judge to the ECHR.

“For two years, there have been calls for a fair and transparent process free of interference. But some people, unfortunately, never learn.”

Resignation in protest

According to Politis sources, Elena Ephraim, a well-respected judge with strong credentials, has withdrawn her candidacy — reportedly in protest over how the process was handled. Her exclusion, despite being considered a strong contender, is widely seen as the result of partisan interference. The candidate herself is said to have felt personally insulted by what one source described as a “mockery of a process.”

Selection committee decision in Paris

The official recommendation for Cyprus’s ECHR judge was made on Monday, 15 September 2025 in Paris, by the Committee on the Election of Judges of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE). As Politis reported last Sunday, immediately following the decision, Mr Clerides sent a formal letter to Petra Bayr, Austrian MP and Chair of the PACE committee overseeing judicial appointments, demanding answers.

In the letter, Clerides questioned why the committee ignored serious procedural violations in the Cypriot selection process, including:

  • Lack of transparency

  • Withholding of information from candidates and the public

  • Interference by the executive branch

  • Humiliating treatment of a candidate

  • Promotion of nominees who did not meet the Article 21 criteria of the European Convention on Human Rights

  • Manipulation of facts and dates

  • Failure to publish the list of candidates in Cyprus, in violation of Council of Europe guidelines

These are all breaches of the 2012 Guidelines of the Committee of Ministers regarding the selection of ECHR judges.

Demand for answers

Clerides’ letter calls on Ms Bayr to clarify:

  • Whether she presented all the relevant information to her committee

  • How much time the committee devoted to reviewing such complex issues

  • The reasoning behind the dismissal of objections

  • Whether any unofficial meetings or political consultations took place outside formal sessions — including between political groups — that may have influenced the final decision

  • Whether there was any pressure or guidance from the PACE President Theodoros Roussopoulos, Cypriot MPs, or the Cyprus Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Process to restart again

The final decision on Cyprus’s ECHR judge (all three shortlisted candidates were women) was expected to be made at the next PACE plenary session, scheduled for 29–30 September. The vote was to be held by secret ballot, with all three names appearing, along with the committee's recommendation.

However, following Judge Ephraim’s withdrawal, it is now expected that the candidate list will be returned to Cyprus, forcing the process to restart for a third time.

According to Politis sources, coming from three independent channels, a senior official close to President Christodoulides within DISY allegedly intervened with the European People’s Party (EPP) — further fuelling concerns of political manipulation.

Comments Posting Policy

The owners of the website www.politis.com.cy reserve the right to remove reader comments that are defamatory and/or offensive, or comments that could be interpreted as inciting hate/racism or that violate any other legislation. The authors of these comments are personally responsible for their publication. If a reader/commenter whose comment is removed believes that they have evidence proving the accuracy of its content, they can send it to the website address for review. We encourage our readers to report/flag comments that they believe violate the above rules. Comments that contain URLs/links to any site are not published automatically.