The decision on whether to submit a request to the Supreme Court for the lifting of parliamentary immunity rests exclusively with the Attorney General, according to constitutional law expert Achilleas Emilianides and the Deputy Director General of the House of Representatives Andreas Christodoulou, who spoke to CNA.
They explained that the procedure is clearly defined in Article 83 of the Constitution and is applied very rarely in the Republic of Cyprus. Since 1960, requests for the lifting of parliamentary immunity have been approved only four times.
What the Constitution provides
Speaking to CNA, Emilianides said that the process for lifting parliamentary immunity is explicitly set out in the Constitution and requires the submission of a request by the Attorney General to the Supreme Court. Whether such a request is filed is entirely at the discretion of the Attorney General, he noted.
From his side, Christodoulou said that it is the Legal Service that assesses whether a request for the lifting of immunity should be brought before the Supreme Court, in accordance with Article 83.2 of the Constitution.
He explained that the prosecuting authorities must apply to the Supreme Court and secure permission for the lifting of immunity before criminal proceedings can move forward, provided the Legal Service determines that such proceedings should be pursued.
No role for the House of Representatives
Christodoulou stressed that, at an institutional level, the House of Representatives has no involvement in the process. He clarified that even if immunity is lifted, the MP concerned continues to exercise their parliamentary duties as normal, while the criminal investigation or proceedings are allowed to proceed.
The scope of parliamentary immunity
Under Article 83 of the Constitution, MPs are not subject to criminal prosecution and bear no civil liability for opinions expressed or votes cast in the House of Representatives. In addition, MPs cannot be prosecuted, arrested, or detained while in office without the permission of the Supreme Court.
An exception applies in cases involving offences punishable by imprisonment of five years or more, if the individual is caught in the act. In such cases, the Supreme Court, once notified by the competent authority, decides whether to allow the continuation of prosecution or detention for as long as the individual remains an MP.
The Constitution also provides that if the Supreme Court refuses permission for prosecution, the period during which the MP cannot be prosecuted is not counted towards the statute of limitations. Similarly, if the court refuses permission for the execution of a prison sentence imposed on an MP, the enforcement of the sentence is suspended until the individual ceases to be an MP.
Rarely applied in Cyprus
The lifting of parliamentary immunity in Cyprus is extremely rare. Only four such requests have been approved since the establishment of the Republic.
The most recent case was in 2016, when the immunity of MP Andreas Themistocleous was lifted in relation to traffic code violations. In 2015, the Supreme Court approved the lifting of immunity for MP Pheidias Sarikas, to investigate allegations of bribery, corruption, and abuse of power linked to his time as mayor of Paphos.
Earlier cases include the lifting of immunity in 1984 for MP Giorgos Georgiou in a forgery case, and in 1961 for MP Lefkios Rodosthenous in a case involving extortion.