The Attorney-General’s “Anelegton”
The office of the Attorney-General traces its origins in mid-13th century England, where the King, unable to appear in person before the courts, required an advocate to represent him and pursue civil and criminal cases on behalf of the Crown. Following the establishment of a British protectorate over Cyprus in 1878, the colonial administration introduced the office of King’s Advocate to the island in 1881, which was later renamed as Attorney-General.
Cyprus won its independence on 1960. The Constitution of the Republic of Cyprus provides for the appointment by the President of the Republic of an Attorney-General and a Deputy Attorney-General, both holding office until they attain the age of sixty-eight. Article 113.2 of the Constitution empowers the Attorney-General (or the Deputy Attorney-General) to institute or discontinue any proceedings for a criminal offence against a person, at their discretion in the public interest.
It has been authoritatively determined by the English Courts[1], the Cyprus Supreme Constitutional Court[2] and the Supreme Court[3] that the Attorney-General’s discretion to invoke public interest and discontinue criminal proceedings (nolle prosequi) is not a judicial function and thus, it cannot be subject to the control of the courts. The filing of a nolle prosequi puts an end to the prosecution but does not operate as a bar, discharge or acquittal on the merits and the suspect remains liable to be re-charged or re-indicted.
Both the Attorney-General and the Deputy enjoy an “Anelegton” (absolute discretion, not subject to judicial control) over their nolle prosequi decisions. Cyprus courts have held that this non-reviewable discretion does not violate human rights. In practice, the Attorney-General interprets the notion of public interest at will and applies the principle to the circumstances of each case. He offers no evidence to the court; he may give no reasons for the discontinuation, unless he chooses to do so. Unlike in England, where the office is ministerial, the Attorney-General and the Deputy in Cyprus are independent officers with significant powers, heading the Law office of the Republic. Consequently, while the discretion exercised by the English Attorney-General is open to criticism by the legislature and its abuse is prevented by the ordinary principle of Ministerial responsibility, no such checks and balances exist in Cyprus.
In recent years, legal practioners, institutions such as the European Commission[4] and other stakeholders have raised concerns about the contradiction between this absolute and unchecked power and the rule of law. The concentration of powers vested in the Attorney-General and the Deputy, who advise the Government, appear in Court on behalf of the Republic and serve as prosecutors, has faced severe criticism. In 2024, increased political and legal pressure prompted the Attorney-General to announce the implementation of an internal procedure within the Law Office for the adoption and review of decisions not to prosecute or discontinue criminal proceedings. However, this internal process was suspended, as on the 2nd of July 2025 the Cypriot Council of Ministers approved a legislative package, comprised of several draft bills for the reform of the Law Office, amending the Cyprus Constitution and introducing fresh legislation. The proposed reform restructures the Law Office and transfers prosecutorial powers from the Attorney-General and the Deputy to a new independent institution, the General Public Prosecutor. The proposal envisages an eight-year, non-renewable tenure for both officials and their deputies, who shall be appointed by the President of the Republic.[5]
The Cyprus House of Representatives has the authority to amend non-basic Articles of the Constitution, such as Article 113, based on the Law of Necessity. This power was established amidst the armed rebellion and insurrection against the Cypriot Government in 1963-64, and the withdrawal of the Turkish Cypriot judges and Members of the House of Representatives. The Supreme Court adopted the Doctrine of Necessity, which permits the Court to temporarily consider as valid and effective laws that are constitutionally flawed, in order to maintain the rule of law.[6]
The Attorney-General voiced strong objections to the proposed reform of the Law Office, citing concerns over its constitutionality and maintaining that the desired separation of powers could be achieved through internal restructuring of the Law Office. In January 2025, a Committee of Experts concluded by majority that the reform did not violate the Constitution, considering the judicial development of the Law of Necessity.[7] Two former Supreme Court Judges, however, dissented. The contentious matter remained pending when the ECHR issued its below stated ruling.
On November 27, 2025, the Council of Ministers approved a draft bill, the Review of the Decisions of the General Public Prosecutor Law of 2025. Pursuant to the provisions of the bill, any decisions by the Public Prosecutor to not indict a person or to discontinue criminal proceedings (nolle prosequi) pending before an Assize Court, can be subject to internal or judicial review, depending on the case. The Assize Court hears and determines at first instance criminal cases where the sentence provided by law for the offense exceeds 5 years’ imprisonment. Offenses punishable with up to 5 years’ imprisonment are tried by the District Courts.
The Public Prosecutor’s decision not to indict will be subject to internal review within the Law Office, followed by judicial review by the Supreme Court. A decision to discontinue criminal proceedings (nolle prosequi) pending before an Assize Court will be subject to judicial review by the Supreme Court. Decisions related to criminal proceedings pending before District Courts shall be governed by separate legislation. Any natural or legal person who has suffered direct harm or damage from an offense for which no criminal proceedings have been initiated or discontinued shall have the right to appeal. Furthermore, the first-degree relatives of a victim are also entitled to appeal, if the victim’s death was a result of the offense.
The Supreme Court shall have the power to annul the decision, among other grounds, when it finds bad faith or non-adherence to the established criteria and guidelines governing the Public Prosecutor’s exercise of powers. In the event of annulment, the Public Prosecutor will be obliged to re-examine the case within a reasonable timeframe. It is crucial to emphasize that the new legislation, if adopted by the House of Representatives, shall only come into effect upon the implementation of the constitutional and legislative reform of the Law Office mentioned above.
ECHR judgment in N.T vs Cyprus imposes procedural constrains on unrestricted authority
The European Court of Human Rights, in its July 2025 judgment in the case of N.T. vs Cyprus[8], found that the Cypriot authorities failed to effectively discharge their positive obligations under Articles 3 (prohibition of torture or inhuman treatment), 8 (protection of private life) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case concerned the Cypriot authorities’ failure to investigate the applicant’s allegations that she was raped in 2021 by a politician.
The Court, without expressing an opinion on the suspect’s guilt, held that the authorities’ response to the applicant’s allegations of rape in the present case fell short of Cyprus positive obligations to apply the relevant criminal provisions in practice, through effective investigation and prosecution.
ECHR considered EU and national laws and the 2022 Baseline Evaluation Report[9] on Cyprus published by the Group of Experts on Action against Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (GREVIO), an independent expert body responsible for monitoring the implementation of the Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (the Istanbul Convention). GREVIO had highlighted the existence in Cyprus of “rampant prejudices and patriarchal attitudes among the police” and the display of sexist and misogynist attitudes towards women victims of sexual violence by, inter alia, certain prosecutors who appeared to “have an inadequate understanding of the paradigmatic shift in proving rape”.
The Court found that the investigation made by the authorities was not effective. More importantly, though, the Court focused on the Deputy Attorney-General’s decision to discontinue the criminal proceedings initiated against the suspect, based on doubts about the victim’s credibility and a perceived low chance of success of the case in court. ECHR used strong language to indicate serious failure:
“The Deputy Attorney General’s conclusion appears selective, with a victim‑blaming attitude. It exposed the applicant to secondary victimization through guilt-inducing, moralizing and sexist stereotypes, placing disproportionate emphasis on her expression of sentiment towards A.T., while failing to consider key elements that may have pointed to the absence of consent (see J.L. v. Italy, cited above, § 141, and the GREVIO report cited in paragraph 53 above).
……the Court also finds highly problematic the fact that the applicant was refused access to the case file without any reasons given in that regard (see paragraph 43 above). In the Court’s view, that refusal limited the applicant’s effective participation in the process and the possibility of effectively challenging, even by way of internal – if not judicial – review, the decision of the Deputy Attorney General.”
The ruling effectively abolishes the principle of uncontrolled discretion regarding nolle prosequi. When determining public interest in (dis)continuing criminal proceedings, the Attorney-General or the Deputy should, from now on (i) examine whether a proper investigation was conducted and appropriate support was granted to the victim according to international and domestic normative standards, (ii) follow proper procedures ensuring the autonomy of prosecution (iii) protect the victim’s human rights, and (iv) make the investigation sufficiently accessible to the victim and allow its effective participation in the process.
Execution of the ECHR ruling triggers reforms and poses constitutional challenges– Judicial dialogue and the 16th ECHR Protocol’s advisory mechanism
As per the established jurisprudence of the ECHR, the state responsible for a wrongful act must not only compensate the injured applicant but also abide by the ECHR judgment and take all effective measures for restitution. Compliance with the ECHR judgment in hand poses several challenges.
Firstly, the Republic of Cyprus should adopt individual execution measures to address T.N.’s rights violations. Ιt must be stressed here that the Deputy Attorney-General, largely held accountable for violations of T.N.’s rights, also serves as the Agent of Cyprus before the ECHR and the competent national authority to supervise and monitor the execution of the N.T Judgment in Cyprus. This presented a clear conflict of interest and a few days after the ruling, the Deputy Attorney-General declared himself exempt from the case, following a request of T.N.’s lawyers. Furthermore, nolle prosequi does not bar the re-filing of criminal proceedings against the suspect. As part of the individual execution measures, the Attorney General has initiated a fresh investigation and a re-assessment of the case’s evidence. Re-indicting the suspect before a criminal court appears quite probable.
Secondly, in the context of general execution measures, the Cypriot authorities have announced specific processes to ensure effective investigation and safeguard victims’ rights, including those affected by rape or other sexual offences. As regards the adoption and review of decisions by the future General Public Prosecutor not to prosecute or discontinue criminal proceedings, given Article 113.2 of the Constitution and the established jurisprudence of Cyprus courts, firstly, we will have to ascertain the position of the House of Representatives on the proposed legislative packages, which transfer prosecutorial powers from the Attorney-General to the General Public Prosecutor and provide for the review of the decisions of the Public Prosecutor. Until the adoption and entry into force of these reforms, Cypriot supreme courts will have to give to the ECHR ruling a direct effect, meaning implement it, pending any constitutional or legislative changes, and interpret the Constitution in a Convention-compliant manner.
Pending the proposed constitutional and legislative reforms, the Cypriot judiciary faces the challenge of harmonizing its jurisprudence on nolle prosequi decisions to align with the binding ECHR ruling. This necessity underscores the interplay of constitutional pluralism in the legal landscape. Cyprus is a member state of the EU and a state party to the European Human Rights Convention. Domestic courts must navigate the complex interplay between the national Constitution, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the European Convention of Human Rights. As pointed out by the President at that time of the Hellenic Legal Council of State[10], domestic courts are also EU and ECHR courts, acting as guarantors for the provision to the citizens with a cohesive and effective protection of human rights. A symbiotic and productive “dialogue’ should take place between domestic courts and the European Court of Human Rights. While the national Constitution may supersede the ECHR convention in formal terms, the German Federal Constitutional Court has ruled that the interpretation and implementation by domestic courts should adhere to the principle of selecting the most symbiotic and ECHR-friendly interpretation and enforcement. So far, the executive, legislative and judiciary in Cyprus have abided with past ECHR rulings, whether through legislative amendments, change in administrative practices or aligned jurisprudence.
On 1 August 2018, Protocol 16 to the European Convention on Human Rights (Protocol) entered into force. Twenty-five State Parties of the Convention (including Greece) have ratified the Protocol. Cyprus has not. In the countries that have ratified the Protocol, designated high courts can request the ECHR for a non-binding opinion on the interpretation or application of the Convention in a pending case.
This advisory opinion procedure aims to strengthen the dialogue between national high courts and the ECHR, thereby enhancing the protection of human rights at national level. The recent ECHR ruling could grant an additional impetus to the Cypriot authorities for the ratification of the Protocol. The case at hand, marked by constitutional limitations, institutional resistance and long-established jurisprudence, could serve as an ideal precedent for the Protocol’s first activation in Cyprus, by virtue of a high court’s request for the ECHR’s opinion on the Convention’s application.
Michail Kamperis
Lawyer and Partner at Ierotheou, Kamperis & Co. LLC
Candidate PhD (Panteion University)
[1] R. v. The Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, [1899] 1 Q.B. 909, The office of Attorney-General – Shawcross “Parliamentary Affairs” Vol VII No. 4 Autumn 1954, Gouriet v Union of Post Office Workers (1977) 3 All ER 71.
[2] In Re Attorney-General, Supreme Constitutional Court (Plenary), Request 1/2024, 18 September 2024, p.188.
[3] Xenophontos v. Republic, 2 R.S.C.C. 89, Police v. Athienitis (1983) 2 C.L.R. 194, Onoufriou ν. Tryfonides a.o. (2016) 2 C.L.R. 29.
[4] European Commission, 2025 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Cyprus, 08.07.2025, SWD(2025) 913 final.
[5] Ibid, p.p. 3-4.
[6] The Attorney-General of the Republic v. Ibrahim 1964 C.L.R. 195.
[7] Nicolaou ν. Nicolaou (No. 2) (1992) 1 C.L.R. 1338 and Koulountis ν. House of Representatives (1997) 1 C.L.R. 1026.
[8] N.T. v Cyprus, no. 28150/2022, 3 July 2025.
[9] Council of Europe Expert Group on Action against Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (GREVIO), Baseline Evaluation Report on Cyprus, GREVIO/Inf (2022) 29, published on 23 November 2022.
[10] Ioannis – Konstantinos Chalkias, “The execution of EctHR rulings as a condition for the respect of ECHR”, Speech made on 17 January 2020 at the event organised by KYKLOS IDEON (Circle of ideas for the national reconstruction), ‘The execution of ECtHR rulings as a fundamental condition for the respect of ECHR’.
