Nature

Court Hearing Concludes on Environmental Challenge to Pentakomo Port Project

Environmental groups challenge planning permit for Pentakomo port, citing risks to the endangered Mediterranean monk seal.

Header Image

PAVLOS NEOPHYTOU

The hearing of the appeal filed by the Cyprus BirdLife Association and Friends of the Earth Cyprus against the planning permit for a port in Pentakomo, intended exclusively to serve fish farms, concluded last Tuesday at the Administrative Court in Nicosia.

After listening for around three hours to the arguments presented by lawyers for both sides, the judge announced that she would now review the evidence and positions before delivering a ruling.

Legal sources told Politis that the case has proceeded unusually quickly for the Administrative Court, with a decision expected in the coming months. They noted that the pace reflects the growing recognition that environmental cases in Cyprus cannot be allowed to drag on when irreversible damage to habitats is at stake, in this case, the habitat of the Mediterranean monk seal (Monachus monachus).

Although construction had been temporarily halted at an earlier stage, works on the port have since resumed. In late May, the court lifted the interim order that had effectively “frozen” the project for almost two months.

Arguments in court

During the hearing, the environmental organisations’ lawyers cited case law, scientific evidence, and data on the project’s potential impacts. They also argued that the authorities’ environmental assessment of the project had been inadequate and flawed.

In response, lawyers for the Legal Service, along with representatives of the contractors’ consortium and the aquaculture operators, defended the project. Their arguments sought to downplay concerns about negative environmental impacts and stressed the economic purpose of the port.

A landmark case for environmental justice

According to legal observers, the Pentakomo permit case represents another landmark in the handling of environmental appeals in Cyprus.

They highlighted that an earlier interim ruling by the Administrative Court in April, temporarily halting construction works after the NGOs’ appeal, was historic. It was the first time in Cyprus that an injunction had been issued solely on environmental grounds, setting a legal precedent.

Environmental representatives told Politis that this precedent is a crucial step forward, empowering NGOs and citizen groups to challenge state decisions in court to protect the environment.

This momentum follows the 4 May 2023 “Limni” case in Chrysochous, where the court recognised, for the first time, the legal standing of environmental NGOs to appeal state decisions, paving the way for more such challenges.

Two appeals in progress

It should be noted that the NGOs have filed two separate appeals against the Pentakomo project. The first, lodged in 2023, challenges the environmental authorisation of the project and is still ongoing. The second, filed in January 2025, contests the planning permit, the case now awaiting judgment.

The port project

The Pentakomo port is designed solely for aquaculture use and will include:

  • Berths for 35 vessels, including space for one longer than 24 metres.

  • Eight storage units, offices, a maintenance area for fish cages, and a waste facility.

  • A fenced perimeter, roadworks, and parking for 40 vehicles.

  • Infrastructure for fuel storage and refuelling.

The site is an ecologically sensitive marine area, hosting a mosaic of habitats, Posidonia seagrass meadows, sandbanks, reefs, and sea caves, just two kilometres from one of Cyprus’s few known breeding and resting areas for the endangered Mediterranean monk seal.

Both local authorities and civil society groups have voiced strong opposition to the project.

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.