Nicosia District Court rejected the application of 103 citizens against Covid-19 measures

Οn 27/07/2021, the District Court of Nicosia, rejected in its entirety the interim application submitted by 103 citizens of the Republic of Cyprus, requesting the issuance of a number of interim orders, which prohibit the Republic of Cyprus from imposing and obliging, inter alia, the presentation of a negative test for Covid-19 or a vaccination certificate or proof of illness, as a condition for entry and/or presence in various areas (known as ‘SafePass’), as well as the mandatory use of a mask. The Court also ruled that the procedure for Decree issuance by the Ministry of Health was legal and the power delegated to the Minister of Health to issue those Decrees was in accordance with the Constitution and the applicable legislation.

Specifically, the Court pointed out that the Applicants do not have good chances to win the lawsuit, rejecting their position on the unconstitutionality and illegality of the Decrees of the Minister of Health.

The main points of the Court Decision are the following:

1. The Decrees do not violate the right to life nor the right to a dignified life and do not constitute inhuman and/or degrading treatment

2. Τhere was no ban from entering the country; the conditions set for the exercise of this right do not constitute a violation.

3. The right to liberty, freedom of movement, respect for private and family life, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, the right to education, the right of peaceful assembly and the right to a free choice of profession may be subject to restrictions on public health grounds.

4. The Republic of Cyprus has a positive obligation, according to the Constitution, to protect the right to life and physical integrity. The measures imposed are part of the effort to protect society as a whole.

5. Vaccination is not compulsory. Nonetheless, the European Court of Human Rights judged that in some cases compulsory vaccination does not violate the right to life, personal liberty and security, private and family life and freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

6. The evidence provided by the Law Office of the Republic of Cyprus, such as the recommendations of the World Health Organization, the European Center for Disease Prevention and Control, the Advisory Epidemiological Committee constitute the prevailing scientific opinion and contradicts the evidence provided by the Applicants.

7. The protection of public health was the catalyst for the non-issuance of the interim orders.

8. The Court ruled that it could not prevent or restrict or interfere with the executive powers of the Government and the implementation οf health policy, as this does not respect the principle of Separation of Powers.
It should be noted that the Court had not entered the substance of the cause of action put forward by the Plaintiffs/Applicants, therefore the issues at stake will be judged at the hearing stage.

Τhe Applicants have the right of appeal before the Supreme Court of Cyprus within 14 days as from the date of issuance of the Decision.   


We are delighted to announce our membership of the AEA INTERNATIONAL LAWYERS NETWORK
Extended Maternity Leave: New Benefits for First-Time Parents
Season’s Greetings
Navigating the World of Timeshare Agreements: What you need to know


57 Spyrou Kyprianou Avenue, Bybloserve Business Center, Larnaca 6051, Cyprus


+357 24 81 25 81/82



Answer the question below:
= nine + six
Click here to Subscribe