Regular procedure

Author

Cyprus Refugee Council Visit Website

According to the law, the Asylum Service shall ensure that the examination procedure is concluded as soon as possible, without prejudice to an adequate and complete examination.[1] Furthermore, the Asylum Service shall ensure that the examination procedure is concluded within 6 months of the lodging of the application.[2] In instances where the Asylum Service is not able to issue a decision within six months, it is obliged to inform the applicant of the delay and, upon request of the applicant, provide information on the reasons for the delay and on the time-frame in which a decision on the application is expected.[3]

The six month time-frame can be extended for a period not exceeding a further nine months, where: (a) complex issues of fact and/or law are involved; (b) a large number of third-country nationals or stateless persons simultaneously apply for international protection, making it very difficult in practice to conclude the procedure within the six-month time limit; (c) where the delay can clearly be attributed to the failure of the applicant to comply with their obligations as provided for under the law.[4] By way of exception, the Asylum Service may, in duly justified circumstances, exceed the time limits laid down by a maximum of three months where necessary in order to ensure an adequate and complete examination of the application.[5]

The Head of the Asylum Service may postpone concluding the examination procedure where the Asylum Service cannot reasonably be expected to decide within the time limits laid down, due to an uncertain situation in the country of origin which is expected to be temporary. In such a case, the Asylum Service shall conduct reviews of the situation in that country of origin at least every six months; inform the applicants concerned within a reasonable time of the reasons for the postponement; and inform the European Commission within a reasonable time of the postponement of procedures for that country of origin.[6] Finally, the law states that in any event, the Asylum Service shall conclude the examination procedure within a maximum time limit of 21 months from the lodging of the application.[7]

In practice, the time required for the majority of decisions on asylum applications exceeds the six-month period, and in cases of well-founded applications, the average time taken for the issuance of a decision is approximately two years.[8] It is not uncommon for well-founded cases to take up to three or four years before asylum applicants receive a first instance decision. With the increase in examiners there has been an improvement in the time required to process cases. However, in view of the backlog and the suspension of examination of certain nationalities, the waiting time remains long for many cases.[9]

Decisions are based on a recommendation issued either by Asylum Service caseworkers or EUAA caseworkers. Present in Cyprus since 2014, the EUAA (then EASO) has been providing technical support to the Asylum Service since 2017 in an effort to address the backlog and speed up the examination of asylum applications. From 2020 onwards, the Ministry of Interior has also introduced measures specifically targeted at reducing the backlog and examination times of asylum applications, mainly by increasing the examiners. The result of these actions is evident from 2021 onwards as there has been a significant increase in the number of decisions issued.

Information provided by Cyprus Asylum Service.

Delays in issuing decisions do not lead to any consequences and the Asylum Service does not inform the asylum applicant of the delay as provided for in the law unless the applicant specifically requests information on the delay. Even when such a request is submitted to the Asylum Service, the written response briefly mentions that the decision will be issued within a reasonable time, yet no specific time frame or reasons for the delay are provided to the applicant. Cases have been brought before the IPAC challenging the delay and omission to issue a decision but usually this leads to the Asylum Service proceeding with examination and issuing a decision, which leads to the cases having to be withdrawn and the Court not issuing a decision on the issue of delays.

Overall, the backlog of pending applications had consistently increased from 2017 onwards, from 3,843 applicants in 2017, to 18,995 applicants at the end of 2020. In 2021, the backlog was slightly reduced, counting 18,808 applicants at first instance. However, in 2022 it increased sharply to 29,715 applicants due, partly, to the increase in asylum applications but also because of the practice to not examine asylum applications from Syrian nationals from February onwards with very few exceptions.[10] In 2023, the number of asylum applications decreased significantly, however at year end the backlog remained high at 26,599 applicants.[11]

In 2024, the backlog was reduced to 17,244 cases concerning 20,576 applicants, 13,793 of which were Syrian nationals due to the measure initiated in April 2024 to suspend the examination of cases of Syrian nationals. At the end of 2025, the backlog stood at 15,777 applicants, out of which 11,393 are Syrian nationals.[12]

Regarding the quality of the decision, the absence of a formal quality assurance unit established at the Asylum Service, as well as the absence of Standard Operating Procedures, guidelines and mechanisms for internal quality control, contribute to diverse approaches in the examination of cases. Such differences are noted between examiners of the same agency (Asylum Service and EUAA), but also in the approach followed by the Asylum Service in comparison to the approach followed by the EUAA. Examples of cases where a diverse approach has been noted include cases with torture claims, LGBTIQ claims, and cases of Palestinians and the application of article 1d of the Geneva Convention.[13] Furthermore, interviews often differ with regards to the structure and the collection of data.[14] The CyRC often identifies cases where issues such as gender-based violence, torture, human trafficking, exploitation, and trauma are not detected or not considered, or  if they are considered there is often a divergence as to how they are assessed.[15]

Specifically, in LGBTIQ+ cases, it was noted that, although the examiners applied the Difference, Stigma, Shame, and Harm (DSSH) model,[16] they did so in a problematic way. For example, using closed questions whereas the DSSH model is supposed to operate as a set of conversation ‘triggers’ to enable a detailed narrative.[17]  In a judgment issued by the IPAC in 2024, reservations were expressed about the use of the Difference-Shame-Stigma-Harm (DSSH) model, where the judge stated ‘that the DSSH model, while offering a structured approach, can limit understanding of the complexity of applicants’ experiences if it is not applied with sensitivity to cultural differences and the unique experiences of each individual. This is because it implicitly imposes a fixed pattern that everyone, regardless of culture or knowledge of sexual orientation concepts, will experience in the development of their sexual identity’.[18]

Furthermore, there seems to be a lack of understanding regarding specific issues that might affect LGBTIQ+ persons outside of Europe. As a result, applicants were found to be non-credible including in cases where they were in the process of contracting a civil partnership with their partner or had arrived in the country with their partner who was granted refugee status.[19]

Prioritised examination and fast-track processing

The Refugee Law includes a specific provision for the prioritised examination of applications, within the regular procedure, applicable where:[20]

• the application is likely to be well-founded;
• the applicant is vulnerable,[21] or in need of special procedural guarantees, in particular unaccompanied minors.

Although efforts are made to ensure prioritisation is given especially to cases concerning vulnerable persons such as to victims of torture, violence or trafficking, this is not always possible due to the high number of cases pending. Furthermore, other important safeguards are not always followed, such as the evaluation of vulnerability and psychological condition and how this may affect their capability to respond to the questions of the interview (see section on Special Procedural Guarantees). In addition, these cases may start out as prioritised but there are often delays due to the heavy workload of examiners handling vulnerable cases, the lack of interpreters, or requirements for other examinations to be concluded before a decision can be made, such as examinations of victims of torture by the Medical Board or of victims of trafficking by the Anti-Trafficking Department of the Police.[22]

There have been concerted efforts with the EUAA to ameliorate and shorten the examination of claims by vulnerable persons, through screening of applications, dedicated case workers, additional personnel. However, the duration of examination in many cases remains long and exceeds 12 months (see section on Special Procedural Guarantees).

Based on the vulnerability assessments carried out in Pournara (see section on Guarantees for vulnerable groups), in 2023, 2,706 persons were identified as vulnerable during the registration of their asylum application; in 2024, 2,309 persons were identified and in 2025, 1,554 were identified.[23]

In addition to the instances of prioritisation mentioned in the Refugee Law, the Asylum Service prioritises certain caseloads and examines them within the regular procedure and not the accelerated procedure, under two circumstances:

• When the country of origin is deemed generally safe;[24]
• If a conflict is taking place in the country of origin, such as for Iraqi nationals in the past and Syrian nationals until the end of 2021.

In 2020, attempts were made to speed up the examination of cases of Syrians. Such efforts continued in 2021, however due to the rise in asylum applications, the timeframe to examine cases of Syrian nationals and Palestinians ex Syria increased to 18-24 months if not longer.[25] In early 2022 and continuing until mid-2023, the Ministry of Interior put on hold the examination of applications from Syrian nationals and Palestinians ex Syria, even though the Ministry of Interior at the time acknowledged that Syria is not considered a safe country and that returns to Syria cannot be made.[26] Indicatively 1,939 decisions were issued in 2021 for Syrian nationals, compared to only 267 decisions in 2022 and 54 decisions from January to June 2023.[27] In response to a request made by the Cyprus Refugee Council the Ministry had attributed the low number of decisions to the backlog.[28]  From July 2023 onwards examination resumed and by the end of the year 1,651 decisions were issued concerning 2,083 persons.[29]

In April 2024, due to the increase in arrivals of Syrian nationals, the government announced that the examination of asylum applications of Syrian nationals is suspended.[30] From April 2024 until early 2025 the examination of asylum applications of Syrian nationals remained suspended with only a very low number of applications examined concerning vulnerable persons. From April onwards, the examination of asylum applications of Syrian nationals resumed, focusing on new arrivals and in many cases carrying out examination while they are still in Pournara. Most cases examined concern men that are alone in Cyprus, from areas in the north of Syria, mainly Idlib and are rejected. By December 2025, 581 cases concerning 598 applicants of Syrian nationality were rejected.[31]

Personal Interview

According to the law, all applicants, including each dependent adult, are granted the opportunity of a personal interview.[32] The personal interview on the substance of the application may be omitted in cases where:[33]

• The Head of the Asylum Service is able to take a positive decision with regard to refugee status on the basis of already available evidence; or
• the Asylum Service is of the opinion that the applicant is unfit or unable to be interviewed owing to enduring circumstances beyond their control. When in doubt, the Asylum Service shall consult a medical professional to establish whether the condition that makes the applicant unfit or unable to be interviewed is of a temporary or enduring nature.

In practice, all asylum applicants are interviewed, and all adult family members receive a separate interview. The waiting time for the interview has always been lengthy, with a significant number of cases reaching 18-24 months after the lodging of the application, which continued in 2024. From 2020 onwards, attempts were made to interview newly arrived asylum applicants residing in Pournara during their stay in the Centre by using the adjacent Asylum Examination Centre. In such cases, the interview takes place soon after the lodging of the asylum application and often close to the vulnerability assessment, with no access to legal advice. From 2022 onwards, attempts have been made to prioritise cases of nationals from countries included in the safe list (see section on Accelerated Procedures).[34]

According to the law where simultaneous applications by a large number of third-country nationals or stateless persons make it impossible in practice for the determining authority to conduct timely interviews on the substance of each application by the Asylum Service, the Refugee Law allows the Ministerial Council to issue an order, published in the Gazette, providing that experts of another Member State who have been appointed by the EUAA or other related organisations are to be temporarily involved in conducting such interviews.[35] In such cases, the concerned personnel shall, in advance, receive the relevant training and shall have acquired general knowledge of problems which could adversely affect an applicant’s ability to be interviewed, such as indications that the applicant may have been tortured in the past.

This provision was triggered in 2017, enabling then EASO experts to conduct in-merit interviews between May 2017 and January 2018.[36] EASO presence has continued ever since.[37] The presence of EASO examiners initially sped up the examination of applications but due to the increasing number of applications it had not impacted the backlog significantly (see Regular Procedure: General)

Interviews are carried out at the following locations: the offices of the Asylum Service (two locations), the offices of the EUAA, the Asylum Examination Centre adjacent to ‘Pournara’ Centre, Kofinou Reception Centre, at AIU offices and, in cases of immigration detainees, at the Menogia Detention Center and at times in the Central Prison for cases of asylum applicants serving prison sentences.[38] Regardless of the location of the interview, all interviews are carried out by Asylum Service officers, temporary agency workers or EUAA experts.

In 2025, the EUAA carried out interviews for 1,349 applicants, of which 98% related to the same 10 citizenships, mainly applicants from Democratic Republic of Congo (650), Iran (277), Guinea (121), Cameroon (67), Afghanistan (61) and Iraq (61).[39]

In 2025, the EUAA drafted 1,535 concluding remarks, of which 97% related to the same 10 citizenships, mainly applicants from Democratic Republic of Congo (715), Iran (310), Guinea (122), Iraq (116) and Cameroon (104).[40]

Quality of interview

According to the law,[41] the Asylum Service shall take appropriate measures to ensure that personal interviews are conducted under conditions that allow the applicant to explain, in detail, the reasons for submitting the application for asylum. In order to do so, the Asylum Service shall:

• Ensure the competent officer who conducts the interview is sufficiently competent to take account of the personal or general circumstances surrounding the application, including the applicant’s cultural origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or vulnerability;
• Wherever possible, provide for the interview with the applicant to be conducted by a person of the same sex if the applicant so requests, unless the Asylum Service has reason to believe that such a request is based on grounds which are not related to difficulties on the part of the applicant to present the grounds of their application in a comprehensive manner;
• Select an interpreter who is able to ensure appropriate communication between the applicant and the competent officer who conducts the interview. The communication shall take place in the language preferred by the applicant unless there is another language which they understand and in which they are able to communicate clearly. Wherever possible, an interpreter of the same sex is provided if the applicant so requests, unless the Asylum Service has reasons to believe that such a request is based on grounds which are not related to difficulties on the part of the applicant to present the grounds of their application in a comprehensive manner;
• Ensure that the person who conducts the interview on the substance of an application for international protection does not wear a military or law enforcement uniform;
• Ensure that interviews with minors are conducted in a child-appropriate manner.

Furthermore, when conducting a personal interview, the Asylum Service shall ensure that the applicant is given an adequate opportunity to present elements needed to substantiate the application in accordance with the law as completely as possible.[42] This shall include the opportunity to give an explanation regarding elements which may be missing and/or any inconsistencies or contradictions in the applicant’s statements.[43]

All interviewers (Cyprus Asylum Service and EUAA) are required to undertake the three core EUAA modules: (i) evidence assessment; (ii) interviewing methods; and (iii) inclusion.[44] For CAS caseworkers, there are additional mandatory trainings, including on trafficking and SGBV, and the majority of caseworkers have also undergone the Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI) training. Caseworkers assigned to interview cases of vulnerable persons have also undergone EUAA training on interviewing vulnerable persons, claims related to on sexual orientation and gender identity and on interviewing children.[45]

Although the implementation of the EUAA trainings has improved the quality of interviews in recent years, the absence of Standard Operating Procedures, guidelines and mechanisms for internal quality control contribute to diverse approaches in the examination of cases. Such differences are noted between examiners of the same agency (Asylum Service and EUAA), but also in the approach followed by the Asylum Service in comparison to the approach followed by the EUAA. Examples of cases where a diverse approach has been noted include cases with torture claims, LGBTIQ claims, and cases of Palestinians and the application of article 1d of the Geneva Convention.[46] Furthermore,  interviews often differ with regards to the structure and the collection of data.[47] CyRC has often identified where issues such as gender-based violence, torture, human trafficking, exploitation, and trauma are not detected or not considered, and  if they are considered there is often a divergence on how they are assessed.[48]

Specifically, in LGBTIQ+ cases, it was noted that, although the examiners applied the Difference, Stigma, Shame, and Harm (DSSH) model,[49] they did so in a problematic way. For example, using closed questions whereas the DSSH model is supposed to operate as a set of conversation ‘triggers’ to enable a detailed narrative.[50] Furthermore, there seems to be a lack of understanding regarding specific issues that might affect LGBTIQ+ persons outside of Europe. As a result, applicants were found to be non-credible including in cases where they were in the process of contracting a civil partnership with their partner or had arrived in the country with their partner who was granted refugee status.[51]  In a judgment issued by the IPAC in 2024,  reservations were expressed about the use of the Difference-Shame-Stigma-Harm (DSSH) model, where the Judge stated ‘that the DSSH model, while offering a structured approach, can limit understanding of the complexity of applicants’ experiences if it is not applied with sensitivity to cultural differences and the unique experiences of each individual. This is because it implicitly imposes a fixed pattern that everyone, regardless of culture or knowledge of sexual orientation concepts, will experience in the development of their sexual identity’.[52]

The Law provides that the examiner[53] and the interpreter[54] can be of the same gender as the applicant, if they make such a request. In practice, if such a request is made (same gender or opposite gender) it is usually granted. However, due to the absence of information and legal advice or representation (see Regular Procedure: Legal Assistance), most applicants are unaware of their right to make such request.

Children may be present in the interview room with their parents, especially children of young ages who cannot remain in the reception area by themselves. Examiners often encourage parents to arrange childcare, however this is not provided by the Cyprus Asylum Service and single parents especially often do not have such options. The presence of children is problematic as they may hear disturbing details or witness their parent in distress. Furthermore, their presence can be distracting for the parent and disruptive for the interview process. For unaccompanied minors, see Legal representation of unaccompanied children.

 Interpretation

Caseworkers of the Asylum Service or the EUAA often conduct interviews in English, even if Greek is their native language, and use interpretation where needed. This is because it is easier to identify interpreters that can speak the applicant’s language and English rather than Greek. However, this often affects the quality of interviews where the caseworker would arguably be more comfortable using Greek instead of English. The language barrier is often visible in the interview transcript and recommendation, which often have several grammar, spelling and syntax mistakes. As such, statements may be misunderstood or passages poorly drafted or unclear.[55]

Although interpreters are always present in interviews, they are rarely professional interpreters, often inadequately trained, and with limited guidelines on conduct.[56] Asylum applicants often complain about the quality of the interpretation as well as the impartiality/attitude of the interpreter, but their complaints are seldom addressed by the Asylum Service.[57] It has been noted that although asylum applicants are asked by the interviewing officer whether they can understand the interpreter, they may be reluctant to admit that there is an issue with comprehension and prefer to proceed with the interview. For example, this may be because they feel they have no other choice or are unwilling to wait for a longer period of time (sometimes months) for another interview to be scheduled.[58] In addition, there have been cases where the applicant has complained about the interpreter regarding the quality of interpretation or attitude, and this has been perceived as a lack of cooperation on behalf of the applicant.[59]

In the case of interviews carried out by EUAA caseworkers, the interpreters are often provided under the EUAA Support Plan and may have been brought to Cyprus for this purpose. These interpreters have received training and follow Standard Operating Procedures, and the quality is in most cases evidently better.[60]

Recording and transcript

The Refugee Law permits audio/video recordings.[61] However, in practice only a verbatim transcript of the interview is drafted.

The law also foresees that the examiner must provide the applicant with an opportunity to make comments and/or provide clarifications orally and/or in writing with regard to any mistranslations or misconceptions appearing in the written report or in the text of the transcript, at the end of the personal interview or within a specified timeframe before a decision is taken by the Head of the Asylum Service on the asylum application.[62] Furthermore, the legal representative/lawyer can intervene once the interview is concluded,[63] and this is the only stage at which corrections are permitted. However, in practice, the situation varies between examining officers, as some officers will allow such corrections and will only take into consideration the corrected statement, whereas others will allow for corrections but then consider the initial statement and the corrected statement to be contradictory and then use this as evidence of lack of credibility on behalf of the applicant. In some cases, the officer does not accept any corrections at all.[64]

There are often complaints by asylum applicants that the transcript does not reflect their statements, which is attributed either to inadequate interpretation or issues with the examining officer, such as examining officers not being impartial, having a problematic attitude, not being adequately trained and not allowing corrections or clarifications on the asylum applicant’s statements. Such complaints are at times raised during the examination of cases of vulnerable persons or sensitive issues, especially for cases of vulnerable persons that were not identified or examined by an examining officer trained to deal with such cases. As only a verbatim transcript of the interview is drafted it is difficult for applicants to substantiate their complaints. [65]

According to the law, before the decision is issued on the asylum application, the applicant and/or the legal advisor/lawyer has access either to the report of the personal interview, the text of the audio, and/or visual recording of the personal interview.[66] When the audio and/or visual recording of the personal interview is carried out, access is provided only if the applicant proceeds with a judicial review of the asylum application before the IPAC,[67] with the exception of applications examined under the accelerated procedure.

As audio/video recording is not used in practice, access to the report of the personal interview should be provided, prior to the issuance of the decision. According to the Asylum Service, such access is provided and applicants are informed of this right during the personal interview. However, very few applicants seem to be aware of this right and there is no evidence of anyone exercising it.[68] Access entails reviewing the report, which is usually in English, without translation/interpretation and without having a right to receive a copy of it, which may also contribute to applicants not being able to access this right. Furthermore, very few applicants have a legal advisor/lawyer at first instance, and even if they do, few lawyers are familiar with this right to access or will take the time to request access. However, in the rare cases where access is requested, it seems to be granted.[69]

Regarding asylum applications examined whilst in detention, the overall quality of the examination of the claim is not particularly affected by the fact that the applicant is in detention, as the examination, including the personal interview, is carried out by an officer/caseworker from the Asylum Service with the assistance of an interpreter. However, it is evident that the psychological state of individuals in detention is rarely taken into consideration during the interviewing process, including possible victims of torture, trafficking or violence. Interviews are in most cases carried out in a private room in Menogia Detention Centre by a caseworker of the Asylum Service, stationed in Menogia. If detained in Menogia, the interview usually takes place within 1-2 months. However, if detained in holding cells in a police station, the interview is often delayed, sometimes reaching 6 months without an interview. Such cases have been identified since 2020 onwards.[70]

Appeal

Appeal bodies

In order to ensure that asylum applicants in Cyprus have a right to an effective remedy against a negative decision before a judicial body on both facts and law in accordance with Article 46 of the recast Asylum Procedures Directive, the relevant authorities initiated the modification of the appeal procedure in 2015.  Under the previous procedure the appeal body for asylum applications was the Refugee Reviewing Authority (RRA) a second level first-instance decision-making authority that examined recourses (appeals) on both facts and law, but was not a judicial body, and instead provided for a judicial review on both facts and law. Under the new procedure the general Administrative Court was appointed as the appeal body for asylum applications and started to receive cases in 2016. However, as the Administrative Court has jurisdiction to review all administrative decisions, the asylum decisions contributed to a heavy caseload. In view of this, the decision was made to create a specialised court and the International Protection Administrative Court (IPAC) was established and initiated its operations in June 2019. [71]

The RRA continued to operate between 2016 to 2020 examining the existing backlog and finally ceased operations in December 2020. At the time, approximately 400 cases were not concluded and were transferred back to the Asylum Service. In 2022, the Asylum Service set up a team to examine these cases. At the end of 2023, 281 decisions had been issued, of which 54 were granted refugee status; 23 subsidiary protection; 127 rejections; 28 explicit withdrawals and 49 implicit withdrawals; and 89 cases remained pending. In 2024, 52 cases were examined, which corresponded to 93 persons, of which 15 were granted refugee status; 5 granted subsidiary protection; 19 rejections; 4 explicit withdrawals; 7 implicit withdrawals; 1 unequivocal renunciation of subsidiary protection, and 1 cessation of subsidiary protection.  37 cases remained pending by the end of 2024.[72]

The IPAC is competent to examine appeals relating to provisions of the Refugee Law. The IPAC examines both facts and law for asylum applications and can issue a positive decision that may grant refugee status or subsidiary protection status, or it can issue a dismissal of the first instance decision and order the Asylum Service to review the application again. The IPAC can also issue a rejection on the merits, or a negative decision based on implicit and explicit withdrawal. Furthermore, the IPAC can reject an appeal on merits but cancel the return decision. When the IPAC initiated operations in July 2019, the existing backlog from the Administrative Court – which at the time was estimated to be approximately 800 cases – was transferred onto the new Court, with the exception of cases that were at the final stages and pending the issuance of a decision.[73]

In 2023, 8,159 appeals concerning 8,399 applicants were registered (regular and accelerated procedure) and 9,880 decisions were issued, including rejections, positive decisions, order to review and implicit and explicit withdrawals. The top 5 nationalities registering an appeal were Nigeria, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Democratic Republic of Congo and Nepal.

In 2024, 6,339 appeals concerning 6,661 applicants were registered (regular and accelerated procedure) and 4,672 decisions were issued, including rejections, positive decisions, order to review and implicit and explicit withdrawals. The top 5 nationalities registering an appeal were Cameroon, Nigeria, Democratic Republic of Congo, Sierra Leone and Liberia.

In 2025, 3,786 appeals concerning 4,191 applicants were registered (regular and accelerated procedure) and 3,708 decisions were issued concerning 3,941 applicants, including rejections, positive decisions, order to review and implicit and explicit withdrawals. The top 5 nationalities registering an appeal were Democratic Republic of Congo, Nigeria, Cameroon, Syria and Iran.

Information on the number and result of appeals in 2025 were provided by the IPAC, and are reported in the following table:

Source: IPAC.

Note 1: All statistics concern people, including children and dependents.

Since its establishment, the main challenges identified in relation to the IPAC have been the lack of comprehensive rules of procedures, infrastructure challenges, a lack of administrative and logistical support and the size of the backlog (consisting of rising new cases, the backlog from the Administrative Court and appeals against decisions by the Reviewing Authority).

The Court receives support from the EUAA. According to the EUAA, in 2022, the proposed line of cooperation regarding second instance determination was focused on: a) backlog reduction; b) supporting the creation of efficient management workflows; c) administrative support, by assisting the administrative tasks of the IPAC and enhancing the procedural rules of the Court; d) coordination (with CAS and internal) and quality level, through supporting the development of quality control mechanisms and the overall coordination of deployed EUAA personnel.[74] Throughout 2022 the above support was implemented however it had limited impact on the backlog that rose significantly, as well as on the time required to examine cases which has increased especially for complicated and well-founded cases. Furthermore, submitting the initial recourse/appeal or further submissions to the Court is extremely time-consuming, as everything must be submitted in person and not digitally, as is the case for other courts in Cyprus. Additionally, the staff of the IPAC Registrar that receives such submissions is not sufficient to address the numbers.

According to the latest version of the 2022-2024 operational plan, by the end of the third quarter of 2022, the number of appeals pending at the IPAC had reached 7,819 (29% increase compared to the same period in 2021). One of the expected outcomes of the operational plan is that the IPAC has a strengthened capacity to manage second instance appeals in line with CEAS by the end of 2024. No information on the progress of this objective is publicly available. However, at the end of 2025, the backlog remained significant at 6,665 appeals concerning 7,370 applicants.

Rules and time limits

In 2020, the RoC amended the Cyprus Constitution and key legislation in order to reduce time limits to submit an appeal against a decision before the IPAC from 75 days to 30 days for decisions issued in the regular procedure and 15 days for the decisions listed below. In February 2026, the Law was amended reducing yet again the appeal times from 30 days to 20 days for decisions issued in the regular procedure[75] and from 15 days to 10 days for the decisions listed below.[76] The reduction in time limits combined with limited access to legal counselling and legal aid is expected to impact negatively applicants’ access to appeal procedures.

• A rejected application which has been examined in accordance with the accelerated procedure under section 12D of the Refugee Law,
• A decision by which an application for refugee status and/or subsidiary protection status is certified as “unfounded”,
• A decision to determine an asylum application as “inadmissible” in accordance with section 12B(fourth) [12Βτετράκις],
• A decision which refers to section 9 of the Refugee Law relating to the grant, withdrawal or reduction of benefits foreseen in any of the provisions of the said Law,
• A decision with is made under the provisions of section 9E (residence and movement) and 9JA(4)(b) [9ΙΑ(4)(β)] (place of residence) of the Refugee Law,
• A decision made under section 16B (implicit withdrawal), 16C (explicit withdrawal), or section 16D(3)(d) (a subsequent application deemed “inadmissible”) of the Refugee Law.

Information on when and where to appeal is included in the first instance decision issued by the Asylum Service.

Following the amendments to the Refugee Law of October 2020, the Asylum Service currently issues a rejection and return decisions in the same document. For cases examined under the regular procedure, a returns decision is automatically suspended once an appeal is submitted.[77] However, appeals relating to cases examined in the accelerated procedure, subsequent applications, decisions that determine the asylum application unfounded or inadmissible, and decisions related to explicit or implicit withdrawal, do not have automatic suspensive effect. A separate application must be submitted to the IPAC requesting the right to remain pending the examination of the appeal. This procedure was not provided for in the procedural rules and there was no available application form or given process aside from jurisprudence which holds that the right to remain must be requested within the given deadline for the submission of the appeal.

In 2022, the new amended procedural rules provide that an application for the right to remain must be submitted at the same time as the appeal, or at least, within the given deadline for the submission of the appeal, which is 15 days.[78] However, very few applicants or their lawyers submit such an application and it is still unclear what the consequences of late submission would be and if it would lead to automatic rejection of the application.[79] The Court’s procedural rules also now include the application form to be used for the right to remain which is an ex parte application.[80] However, there is no information provision at the IPAC regarding the need to submit the right to remain application alongside the appeal and although the requirement to make such an application is included in the first-instance decision issued by the Asylum Service, applicants are not adequately informed.[81] Furthermore, the  form is not readily available at the counter of the Registry of the IPAC, although according to the Court it can be obtained following request by the applicants.

All negative decisions issued by the IPAC can be appealed before the Court of Appeals within 14 days. The onward appeal before the Court of Appeals examines only points of law and does not have suspensive effect. Moreover, this remedy is not communicated in the decision that rejects the appeal before the IPAC.

When the IPAC accepts an appeal, the decision of the Asylum Service is cancelled. The Court may either return the decision to the Asylum Service to be reviewed or directly grant refugee status or subsidiary protection.[82] If a lawyer submits an appeal without including a request to grant status, the Court will only annul the decision and order review. It has been noted that lawyers do this mostly due to lack of knowledge on refugee law or, in lesser cases, when there may be procedural issues but the case is weak on merits.[83] It has also been noted that certain judges will proceed with the ex nunc examination of the case and grant status. Others prefer to annul and order review, especially when there are procedural matters. In such cases, they often site that only the annulment of the contested decision and the referral of the case back to the administration, meaning the Asylum Service, can ensure that the case will be re-examined based on the full implementation of the legal and procedural guarantees for a full and fair examination of the asylum application.[84] Lastly, there are also cases where the Asylum Service will revoke their decision especially when it is clearly evident that there were serious procedural issues.[85]

There have been opposing opinions within the IPAC, on whether it is in the Court’s jurisdiction to take certain procedural steps that the Asylum Service should have taken, such as referrals for physical or mental health examinations, in cases with claims of torture or violence, so that the Court can carry out an ex nunc examination of the case.[86] In a 2023 case, the judge made a referral to a psychologist for assessment of a claim of violence. However the legal representative of the state submitted an application/ certiorari before the Supreme Court, which led to the referral being quashed as the Supreme Court decided that the IPAC had acted beyond its jurisdiction.[87] The Supreme Court decision was appealed before the second instance procedure of the Supreme Court which upheld the first instance decision confirming that the IPAC does not have such jurisdiction.[88] Following these decisions, where the IPAC finds substantial procedural errors it is obliged to annul the first instance decision and order a review by the Asylum Service. The IPAC proceeded to submit a request for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 on whether the IPAC has the power to order a medical examination.

In April 2025 the European Court of Justice ruled that in order to satisfy the requirement of a full and ex nunc examination, a national court of first instance hearing an action against a decision of the determining authority refusing to grant an application for international protection must have the power to order a medical examination of the applicant for international protection, where it takes the view that the use of that examination is necessary or relevant for the purposes of assessing that application.[89] Following the ECJ decision, in a case that was brought before the Court of Appeals which again raised the issue of the lack of a medical examination, the Court of Appeals ordered the IPAC to carry out a medical examination.[90] In view of these decisions, the IPAC in such cases orders the Asylum Service to carry out a medical examination. [91]

In 2023, the IPAC issued 14 decisions granting refugee status, 5 decisions granting subsidiary protection, and 23 decisions ordering review. In 2024, the IPAC issued 25 decisions granting refugee status, 4 decisions granting subsidiary protection, and 40 decisions ordering review. In 2025, the IPAC issued 19 decisions granting refugee status, 6 decisions granting subsidiary protection, and 35 decisions ordering review [92]

Procedure

For information on the procedure before the previous appeal body Refugee Reviewing Authority (RRA)

please refer to previous updates of the AIDA country report.[93]

The procedure before the IPAC is judicial. Asylum applicants can submit an appeal with or without legal representation. The court fees to submit an appeal are € 96 if the applicant submits it without a lawyer, whereas if the appeal is submitted by a lawyer the court fees are € 137. If the appeal does not succeed, the decision will be issued with a cost order in most cases of approximately 600-800 EUR if not represented by a lawyer and approximately 1,000-1,300 EUR if represented by a lawyer, which the applicant is expected to pay. In the past, these orders were rarely pursued however, from 2022 onwards these orders are systematically pursued and when an applicant applies for voluntary return these amounts will often be deducted by the monetary incentive offered as part of the voluntary return program.[94]

Upon submitting the appeal and during court proceedings, applicants without legal representation rely heavily on court interpreters for assistance, including guidance for hearings and written submissions. Furthermore, the objection of the State or the written submission of the lawyer of the State, is translated to the applicant outside of chambers and at times a summary is provided, instead of a full translation of the document. As a result, the court interpreters fill the gap created by the lack of legal representation often leading to incorrect advice and guidance and in some instances raising questions of exploitation.[95] In view of the sharp increase in appeals submitted in 2021 and onwards, the Court Registrar utilised the court interpreters to cope with the flow of applicants, so as to facilitate access. This, however, led to concerns on the information provided and on the possible exploitation of applicants by interpreters. For example, reports were received about applicants being requested to pay interpreters, when such costs are in fact supposed to be covered by the Court and even reports of an interpreter advising the applicant on the chances of success of the case. Throughout 2025, the situation remains the same, although interpreters seem to be more careful on the advice they give to applicants. However, it was also observed that interpreters are being used for translation from and to Greek, although they are not fluent in Greek, causing a lot of miscommunication. [96]

The Refugee Law allows access, before the first instance decision is issued, to the interview transcript, assessment/recommendation, supporting documents, medical reports, and country of origin information (COI) that was used in support of the decision.[97] However, the vast majority of asylum applicants as well as legal advisors/representatives do not know of this right, and/or do not exercise it. In the case of asylum applicants this is likely due to the lack of information on this right as it is not communicated to them in any way or at any part of the procedure, as well as due to language obstacles as the content of the file is in most cases in English. In the case of legal advisors/representatives only an extremely small number of asylum applicants have legal representation at first instance and in the few cases that do have a legal representative, they may not have knowledge of the right or may not consider it being a worthwhile use of time and will wait for the issuance of the decision.[98]

Access is also provided after the rejection of the asylum application, which is mentioned briefly in the rejection letter. Again, the vast majority of asylum applicants do not seem to be aware of this right or do not exercise it. Access consists of first reviewing the file and taking notes about the documents before an administration officer of the Asylum Service; the copying or scanning of the documents is strictly prohibited. Even if an asylum applicant is aware of this right, as documents are mostly in English, such as COI reports, it is difficult for individuals to effectively access their file as they will not be able to understand the content or take copies for someone to translate or to assess. Up until 2022 the first instance decision constituted a single page, with very limited information on the reasoning of the decision. However, from late 2022 onwards, a detailed reasoning of the decision is provided in cases of negative decisions. This is a positive development as it provides the applicant and legal advisors/lawyers with immediate access to the reasons the asylum application has been rejected. The reasoning is only provided in English.[99]

Legal advisors/representatives also have a right to access the file upon issuance of a negative decision, however in practice this will very rarely be done as once an appeal is submitted a copy of the entire file is provided to both parties.

The procedural rules followed by the IPAC were not considered sufficient, as they are extremely brief and, for the most part, refer to the procedural rules of the Administrative Court, which examines only points of law.[100] This entails important gaps concerning issues related to asylum claims, such as the examination of expert witnesses or the examination of additional evidence or submissions of additional documents provided by the applicant during the procedures. EASO highlighted the need to invest in enhancing the case management system and procedural rules of the IPAC in the 2021 operating plan for Cyprus.[101] In the EUAA’s Operating Plan for 2022-2024, the enhancement of the procedural rules has been included as support provided to the Court.[102]

In 2022 the Regulations were amended in an attempt to address these issues; however, many remain unresolved and unclear such as:[103]

• The procedure that needs to be followed when applicants wish to add evidence in support of their claims remains unclear, especially in relation to the cross-examination by lawyers representing the State. The current procedure being followed is the procedure followed under civil procedure rules, however, given the administrative nature of the IPAC, in practice this often results in confusing and unclear procedures. This is especially the case concerning the burden and standard of proof that should be applied; the purpose of the cross-examination by the state lawyer – who is not considered a competent national officer to conduct asylum interviews; the conclusions to be drawn from such an examination in relation to the credibility of the applicant and more.

In 2025, regarding the submission of additional documents and cross-examination it was noted that practices vary among judges. Specifically, in some cases although cross-examination is intended to be limited strictly to the new matters introduced through the additional affidavit, in practice, the questioning is often expanded by both the judge and the state counsel into a wide-ranging examination, beyond the additional submissions. As a result, it transforms what should be a limited cross-examination into a full interview.

• Regarding the introduction of the fast-track/accelerated procedure[104] the Attorney General has been removed from the procedure and the Asylum Service is obliged to send the facts and relevant case-file to the Court directly, which has led to faster examination of cases. However, the Court retains the right to request the Attorney General to appear which happens in a significant number of cases.
• Rule 4 of the amended procedural rules obliges applicants to submit a proof of payment of any previous pending judicial cases before the IPAC, in the case of submitting a new appeal. Failure to do so may result in the rejection of the new appeal, without any further examination of the substance of the case. It is not clear whether applicants are adequately informed about this by the Court Registry when submitting a new appeal. In 2023, cases were reported where the applicant was requested to present proof of payment, however practice differs between judges as some may request the proof of payment immediately, others may allow the applicant to provide proof by the end of the procedure of the new appeal and others may not request such proof. In 2024 there was increase in proof of payment being requested. In 2025, proof of payment is requested by all judges and in some cases the judge has rejected the new appeal as payment on the previous case had not been made.
• Rule 12 of the amended procedural rules oblige applicants to be present during the last hearing of their case and upon the announcement of the judge’s decision, regardless of whether they are being represented by a lawyer.

In early 2023, there were reports of applicants being arrested immediately after the rejection of their appeal by the IPAC, which effectively terminates their right to remain. This practice was confirmed throughout 2023 with the Immigration police being present at the IPAC and certain judges informing the Immigration Police of cases where the appeal would be rejected which led to arrest of the applicant. In late 2023, this practice was abandoned by the IPAC but resumed in 2024 and early 2025 with regards to certain judges.

Legal assistance

 Legal advice

According to the Law, asylum applicants have a right to legal assistance throughout the asylum procedure, if they can cover the cost.[105] In practice, few asylum applicants are able to cover the cost and free legal assistance is not easily accessible at first or second instance. Pro bono work by lawyers was interpreted as being prohibited under the Advocates Law up to 2018.[106] Since its amendment in 2018, the Advocates Law does not explicitly prevent pro bono work. However, the IPAC has resisted pro bono representation, especially for legal aid applications, considering them against the rules of conduct. In addition, according to the Advocates Law,[107] only lawyers who ‘practice the profession’ can represent cases before courts. Registration as a lawyer who ‘practices the profession’ requires a law graduate to complete the Bar Associations exams; complete 1 year pupillage at a law office; and practice a legal profession as their main profession. The Bar Association does not consider persons who are employed by legal entities (companies or NGOs) that are not Law firms as practicing a legal profession as their main profession. As a result, legal advisors who are employed by an NGO are not permitted to appear before any court, regardless of if they have completed the Bar Association exams and pupillage and their main duties are of a legal nature. Therefore, NGOs can only carry out litigation by contracting the services of an external lawyer or law firm. This restriction limits even further access to free legal assistance for asylum applicants.

Lawyers or legal advisors intervening in international protection cases, whether at first or second instance are not required to have followed specific training.

In 2021, the Bar Association took steps to set up a scheme to provide pro bono legal advice to persons who do not have the financial means to contract the services of a lawyer however the scheme does not include assistance for cases eligible for legal aid. Furthermore, only persons receiving the Guaranteed minimum Income (GMI), a form of State benefit, are eligible for assistance on the scheme and asylum applicants are not eligible for the GMI.[108]

 Legal information and assistance at first instance

For first instance examination, the Refugee Law mandates that the State ensures, upon request, and in any form the State so decides, that applicants are provided with legal and procedural information free of charge, including at least information on the procedure in light of the applicant’s particular circumstances and in case of rejection of the asylum application, information that explains the reasons for the decision and the possible remedies and deadlines.[109]

According to the law,[110] such information can be provided by:

• Non-governmental organisations;
• Professional public authorities, provided that they secure the consent of the State authorities;
• Specialised government agencies, provided the consent of the specialised government agencies is secured (by the Head of the Asylum Service) State authorities;
• Private lawyers or legal advisers;
• Asylum Service officers who are not involved in processing applications.

Furthermore, according to the Law, the Head of the Asylum Service has the right to reject a request for free legal and procedural information provided that it is demonstrated the applicant has sufficient resources. They may require for any costs granted to be reimbursed wholly or partially if and when the applicant’s financial situation has improved considerably or if the decision to grant such costs was taken on the basis of false information supplied by the applicant. If the applicant refuses or fails to satisfy this requirement, the Head may take legal action to recover the relevant amount due as a civil debt to the RoC.[111]

In practice, the above provision of the Law has never been implemented by the State and the only free legal assistance available at first instance is extremely limited, provided by NGOs and dependent upon funded projects. Due to the lack of State-provided legal assistance, UNHCR has consistently funded the “Strengthening Asylum in Cyprus” project, implemented by the NGO Future Worlds Centre from 2006-2017 and by the Cyprus Refugee Council (CyRC) since 2018.[112] Currently the CyRC is the only provider of free legal assistance. Furthermore, the Project provides for only three lawyers for all asylum applicants and beneficiaries of international protection (BIPs) in the country and, therefore, concentrates on the provision of legal advice to as many persons as possible and legal representation only for selected cases (mostly precedent-setting cases). The Project has the capacity to provide legal advice to approximately 500 persons per year whereas from 2022 onwards there have been over 20,000 applicants pending at first and second instance.

Although legal assistance was included as a priority under the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF) at a national level, a relevant call for proposals has still not been issued since the introduction of the AMIF as of February 2026.[113] The lack of legal assistance provided by the State, the lack of funding for non-State actors to provide such assistance combined with the overall lack of information provided on asylum procedures  (see section on Information for Asylum Applicants and Access to NGOs and UNHCR) leads to a major gap in the asylum procedures in Cyprus.

Regardless of the significant rise in the number of asylum applicants in recent years, there has been no indication that the State has taken steps to ensure the right to free legal and procedural information. The only reference to the provision of information is in the 2021 EASO operational plan for Cyprus and concerns only persons in the First Reception Centre, Pournara. From mid-2021 onwards, two (2) EUAA Information Providers were stationed at the ‘Pournara’ Centre, providing group sessions in the presence of interpreters. According to the EUAA, 408 information sessions were delivered in Cyprus, and 1,021 counselling sessions were provided in Cyprus in 2022.[114] These include information on the registration process in the Reception Centre, as well as the asylum procedure and reception conditions. However, as the sessions are provided to persons while in Pournara, soon after they entered the country, and not throughout the complicated and often lengthy asylum procedures, the majority of persons require information or further counselling at later stages.[115]

Asylum applicants reach NGOs (currently only CyRC) providing legal assistance through social media and word of mouth, especially since information to asylum applicants is often not available or outdated (see section on Information for Asylum Applicants and Access to NGOs and UNHCR) or via other NGOs that do not have legal assistance. Individual officers working in various departments of the government that encounter asylum applicants may refer them to NGOs to receive legal assistance, whereas asylum applicants residing in the reception centre may be referred by the staff. Asylum applicants in detention come into contact with NGOs again through other detainees and through NGOs monitoring visits to the detention centre.[116]

Legal assistance in appeals

Legal aid is offered by the State only at the judicial stage of the asylum application before the IPAC.[117] The application for legal aid is subject to a “means and merits” test.[118] Regarding the “means’ part of the test, an asylum applicant applying for legal aid must show that they do not have the means to pay for the services of a lawyer. This claim is examined by an officer of the Social Welfare Services who submits a report to the IPAC. In the majority of cases, asylum applicants are recognised as not having sufficient resources. However, if an applicant is working regardless of how low the salary is, including below minimum wage, the legal application will be rejected.  [119]

The “merits” part of the test is extremely difficult to satisfy. The applicant must show that the “the appeal has a real chance of success”, meaning they must convince the judge, without the assistance of a lawyer, that there is a possibility the Court may rule in their favour if it later examines the appeal. Additionally, in this process the State lawyer representing the Republic acts as an opponent and always submits reasons why the appeal does not have a real chance of success and why legal aid should not be provided, leading to an extremely unequal process. As a result, it is nearly impossible for a person with no legal background to satisfy this requirement. Since the extension of legal aid to the asylum procedure in 2010, a low number of legal aid applications are submitted annually and a low number granted.[120]

In 2023, 189 legal aid applications were submitted challenging decisions on asylum applications; 55 applications were rejected, 34 implicitly withdrawn, 5 explicitly withdrawn and 21 were positive.[121] Considering that over 8,000 appeals were submitted before the IPAC in 2023, the number still remains extremely low.

In 2024, some 219 legal aid applications were submitted challenging decisions on asylum applications; 113 applications were rejected, 37 implicitly withdrawn, 17 explicitly withdrawn and 39 were positive.[122] Considering that over 6,000 appeals were submitted before the IPAC in 2024, the number still remains extremely low.

In 2025, some 219 legal aid applications were submitted challenging decisions on asylum applications; 107 applications were rejected, 40 implicitly withdrawn, 17 explicitly withdrawn and 24 were positive.^[123] Considering that over 4,000 appeals were submitted before the IPAC in 2025, the number still remains extremely low.

In 2024, an amendment to the Legal Aid Law was passed which included the following:[124]

• Legal aid applications will be deemed inadmissible if the appeal is submitted past the appeal deadline.
• When an applicant is awarded legal aid, they can either choose a lawyer or have one appointed by the Court. However, a lawyer cannot be re-appointed until all lawyers registered under the “Lawyers’ Registry” have either been chosen to represent or have refused to represent. Therefore, if a lawyer is selected to represent an applicant receiving legal aid, that lawyer cannot be chosen to represent any other legal aid beneficiary, until every other lawyer on the list has been considered.
• Provisions for drafting the “Lawyers’ Registry” and how lawyers can register to be included in it.
• The penalties for fraudulent statements to secure legal aid have increased. Upon conviction, penalties have risen from £450 (Cypriot pounds) to €3000 and imprisonment from 6 months to 2 years.
• Introduction of penalties for lawyers who request and receive any additional amount in relation to the services provided under the framework of legal aid, beyond the remuneration received in accordance with the Legal Aid Law.

In 2025, the procedure followed by the registrar was still unclear. According to the Court Registrar, an asylum applicant that has been granted legal aid can submit the name of a lawyer, however if the lawyer is already representing a case that was granted legal aid they cannot take up a new case, until all lawyers in the Registry have been contacted. However, there are lawyers that have mentioned that they have never been contacted by the Court Registrar, whereas others have more than one case awarded legal aid.[125]

In 2019, the UN Committee against Torture (UNCAT) stated its concern that prospective recipients of legal aid must argue before a court to convince it about the prospects of success of their claim before being granted legal aid.[126] Moreover, the report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review of Cyprus included a recommendation to ensure that asylum applicants have free legal aid during the examination of their application in first instance and from the assistance of a lawyer.[127]

[1]  Article 13(5) Refugee Law.

[2]  Article 13(6)(a) Refugee Law.

[3] Article 13(6)(b) Refugee Law.

[4] Article 13(7) and Article 16 Refugee Law.

[5] Article 13(8) Refugee Law.

[6] Article 13(9) Refugee Law.

[7] Article 13(10) Refugee Law.

[8] See, UNHCR, Thematic Fact Sheet on Reception in Cyprus with updates through December 2024, available here.

[9] Information provided by the Cyprus Refugee Council.

[10] Based on statistics issued by the Cyprus Asylum Service.

[11] Information provided by Cyprus Asylum Service.

[12] Information provided by Cyprus Asylum Service.

[13] Information provided from cases represented by Cyprus Refugee Council.

[14] Based on review of cases between 2006-2018 by the Cyprus Refugee Council and previously the Humanitarian Affairs Unit of the Future Worlds Centre.

[15] Information provided by Cyprus Refugee Council.

[16] The DSSH model 2 was created in 2011 by United Kingdom barrister S. Chelvan. This model is referred to by the UNHCR in its Guidelines on international protection no 9. EASO has applied DSSH to its training materials since 2015 for claims based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

[17] Assessing the Refugee Claims of LGBTI People: Is the DSSH Model Useful for Determining Claims by Women for Asylum Based on Sexual Orientation? Jasmine Dawson* and Paula Gerber⁺, International Journal of Refugee Law, 2017, Vol 29, No 2, pp. 292-322.

[18] IPAC, Case no. 1243/2022, C.F.N.S v. Asylum Service, Decision issued 25 September 2024, available in Greek here.

[19] Based on cases represented by the Cyprus Refugee Council.

[20] Article 12E Refugee Law.

[21] Within the meaning of Article 9KΔ Refugee Law.

[22] Information provided by Cyprus Refugee Council.

[23] Cyprus Asylum Service.

[24] Note that this is also a ground for using the accelerated procedure.

[25] Information provided by the Cyprus Refugee Council.

[26] Announcement of the Ministry of Interior, 31 March 2022, available in Greek here.

[27] Based on official statistics issued by the Cyprus Asylum Service.

[28] Information provided by the Cyprus Refugee Council.

[29] Based on official statistics issued by the Cyprus Asylum Service.

[30] Phileleftheros, President: The examination of asylum applications in all cases of persons of Syrian origin is suspended, 13 April 2024, available in Greek here.

[31] Information provided by Cyprus Refugee Council and official statistics issued by the Cyprus Asylum Service.

[32] Article 13A(1) Refugee Law.

[33] Article 13A(2) Refugee Law.

[34] Information provided by the Cyprus Refugee Council.

[35] Article 13A(1A) Refugee Law.

[36] Ministerial Decree 187/2017 of 9 June 2017 pursuant to Article 13A(1A) of the Refugee Law, available in Greek here.

[37] Ministerial Decree 297/2019 of 13 September 2019 pursuant to Article 13A(1A) of the Refugee Law, available in Greek here.

[38] The majority of asylum applicants sentenced to prison sentences have committed immigration-related offences such as irregular entry/stay or have attempted to travel to other EU member states on forged travel documents or travel documents belonging to other persons.

[39] Information provided by the EUAA, 05 March 2026.

[40] Information provided by the EUAA, 05 March 2026.

[41] Article 13A(9) Refugee Law.

[42] Article 16(2)(a) and Article 18(3)-(5) Refugee Law.

[43] Article 13A(10) Refugee Law.

[44] EUAA, Introduction – European Asylum Curriculum, available here.

[45] Information provided by the Cyprus Refugee Council.

[46] Information provided from cases represented by Cyprus Refugee Council.

[47] Based on review of cases between 2006-2018 by the Cyprus Refugee Council and previously the Humanitarian Affairs Unit of the Future Worlds Centre.

[48] Information provided by Cyprus Refugee Council.

[49] The DSSH model 2 was created in 2011 by United Kingdom barrister S. Chelvan. This model is referred to by the UNHCR in its Guidelines on international protection no 9. EASO has applied DSSH to its training materials since 2015 for claims based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

[50] Assessing the Refugee Claims of LGBTI People: Is the DSSH Model Useful for Determining Claims by Women for Asylum Based on Sexual Orientation? Jasmine Dawson* and Paula Gerber⁺, International Journal of Refugee Law, 2017, Vol 29, No 2, pp. 292-322.

[51] Based on cases represented by the Cyprus Refugee Council.

[52] IPAC, Case no. 1243/2022,  C.F.N.S v. Asylum Service, Decision issued 25 September 2024, available in Greek here.

[53] Article 13A(9)(b) Refugee Law.

[54] Article 13A(9)(c) Refugee Law.

[55] Based on review of cases by the Cyprus Refugee Council.

[56] KISA, Comments and observations for the forthcoming 52^nd session of the UN Committee against Torture, April 2014, available in Greek here, pp. 39-40.

[57] Information provided by the Cyprus Refugee Council.

[58] Information from legal advisors of the Cyprus Refugee Council present at the interviews.

[59] Information based by on cases reviewed the Cyprus Refugee Council.

[60] Information based by on cases reviewed the Cyprus Refugee Council.

[61] Article 18(2A)(a)(i) Refugee Law.

[62] Article 18(2A)(a)(iii) Refugee Law.

[63] Article 18(1A) Refugee Law.

[64] Information based on cases reviewed by the Cyprus Refugee Council.

[65]  Information based on cases reviewed by the Cyprus Refugee Council.

[66] Article 18(2B)(a) Refugee Law.

[67] Article 18(2B)(b) Refugee Law.

[68] Information provided by the Cyprus Refugee Council.

[69] Information based on cases reviewed by the Cyprus Refugee Council.

[70] Information based on cases reviewed by the Cyprus Refugee Council.

[71] Law N. 73(I)/2018 on the establishment of the Administrative Court for International Protection.

[72] Information provided by the Cyprus Asylum Service.

[73] Information provided by Cyprus Refugee Council.

[74] EASO, Operating Plan, Cyprus 2022-2024, December 2021, available here.

[75] Article 12A(1) Law N. 73(I)/2018 on the establishment of the Administrative Court for International Protection. (IPAC Law).

[76] Article 12A(2) Law N. 73(I)/2018 on the establishment of the Administrative Court for International Protection. (IPAC Law).

[77] Article 8 (1A) Refugee Law.

[78] Rule 13 of International Protection Administrative Court Procedural Rules of 2019 (3/2019), as amended.

[79] Information provided by Cyprus Refugee Council.

[80] Form no. 4 annexed to the IPAC Procedural Rules of 2019.

[81] Information provided by Cyprus Refugee Council.

[82] Article 11 IPAC Law.

[83] Information provided by Cyprus Refugee Council.

[84] Applicant v Republic of Cyprus through the Asylum Service (Κυπριακή Δημοκρατία και/ή μέσω Υπηρεσίας Ασύλου), Application No 595/2022, 30 September 2024, available in Greek here and an EUAA summary in  English here.

[85] Information provided by Cyprus Refugee Council.

[86] Ibid.

[87] Supreme Court, First Instance Jurisdiction, Application No. 31/2023, 7 April 2023, available in Greek here.

[88] Supreme Court, Second Instance Jurisdiction, Application No. 30/2023, 15 May 2023, available in Greek here.

[89] CJEU, Case C‑283/24,  Barouk, judgment of 3 April 2025, available here.

[90] Court of Appeals, EAE v. Republic, No. 137/2023, available in Greek here.

[91] Information provided by Cyprus Refugee Council

[92] Information provided by the IPAC.

[93] AIDA, Country Report: Cyprus, 2020 Update 2020, p. 38, April 2021, available here; AIDA, Country Report: Cyprus, 2019 Update, pp. 34-37, April 2020, available here.

[94] Information provided by Cyprus Refugee Council.

[95] Ibid.

[96] Ibid.

[97] Article 18(2B) and (7A) Refugee Law.

[98] Information provided by the Cyprus Refugee Council.

[99] Information provided by the Cyprus Refugee Council.

[100] International Protection Procedures on The Functioning of The Administrative Court Regulations Of 2019, available in Greek here.

[101] EASO, Operating Plan 2021, December 2020, available here. 

[102] EASO, Operating Plan, Cyprus 2022-2024, available here.

[103] Information provided by Cyprus Refugee Council.

[104] Rule 3 (ε) IPAC Regulations. 

[105] Article 11(9) Refugee Law.

[106] Article 17(9) Advocates Law.

[107] Articles 2 and 11 Advocates Law.

[108] Cyprus Bar Association, Announcement, 25 October 2021, available in Greek here; Alphanews, Justice for All: A step closer to legal aid for vulnerable groups, 13 July 2022, available in Greek here.

[109] Article 18(7Γ)(a) Refugee Law.

[110] Article 18(7Γ)(c) Refugee Law.

[111] Article 18(7Γ)(d) and (e) Refugee Law.

[112] Cyprus Refugee Council, available here.

[113] Ministry of Interior, European Funds Unit webpage, available here.    

[114] EUAA, Asylum Report 2022, available here, p. 63.

[115] Information provided by the Cyprus Refugee Council.

[116] Information provided by the Cyprus Refugee Council, based on visits to the detention centre.

[117] Article 6B(2) Legal Aid Law.

[118] Article 6B(2)(b)(bb) Legal Aid Law.

[119] Legal Aid Application No. NA 30/2022.

[120] Based on statistics provided by IPAC.

[121] Information provided by IPAC.

[122] Information provided by IPAC.

[123] Information provided by IPAC.

[124] Legal Aid Law, Amendment 170(I)/2024, available here.

[125] Information provided by Cyprus Refugee Council

[126] UN CAT, Concluding Observations on the Fifth Periodic Report of Cyprus, 23 December 2019, available here.

[127] UN Human Rights Council, Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review: Cyprus, Twenty seventh session, 5 April 2019, available here.