From Process Misstep to Environmental Milestone: Cyprus’s New Constitutional Right

Cyprus has recently amended its Constitution to introduce a broad state duty concerning sustainability and a right to a safe, clean, healthy, and sustainable environment. The amendment also incorporates procedural rights such as access to information, justice, and effective remedies. Though initially marred by a procedural misstep, the amendment was reapproved with broad support. The new right strengthens both substantive and procedural environmental protections, though it remains to be seen whether courts will allow standing for environmental associations and horizontal application against private actors – write Theognosia Kouspi & Achilles C. Emilianides.

The Cypriot House of Representatives passed a long overdue constitutional amendment during its last session of 2024, establishing a new constitutional right: the right to a safe, clean, healthy, and sustainable environment. This is the 19th constitutional amendment to the 1960 Cypriot Constitution. It is also the first time since the enactment of the Constitution that a new individual right has been added to the Fundamental Rights and Liberties section of the Constitution (Part II), as well as the first third generation right to be awarded constitutional status. This significant constitutional milestone was, however, overshadowed in the public debate due to an unfortunate procedural error. This piece highlights the procedural problem, and how it was eventually overcome, and discusses the substance of the constitutional amendment. It is argued that the new amendment significantly enhances environmental protection and may also lead to a direct and horizontal application of the right, including through the recognition of a procedural right to file recourse in environmental protection cases.

Disputed Amendment Process

According to Article 182 of the Constitution, non-fundamental constitutional provisions may be amended by a law passed by a majority vote comprising at least two-thirds of the total number of the parliamentarians belonging to the Greek Community and at least two-thirds of the total number of representatives belonging to the Turkish Community. Since the constitutional crisis of 1963 and the withdrawal of the Turkish Cypriot Community from all state functions, no Turkish Cypriot representatives have been elected in the House of Representatives. Thus, by virtue of the Cypriot doctrine of necessity, first established in the 1964 Ibrahim case and solidified in the 1992  Nicolaou case, the amendment of a non-fundamental constitutional provision may be enacted with a two-thirds majority of all existing members of parliament (MPs), without the need for separate majorities. As there are currently 56 MPs, an amendment must be supported by at least 38 MPs in order to be enacted.

The proposed bill was backed by all parliamentary political parties and by the vast majority of MPs. However, during the discussion of the proposal at the House of Representatives’ plenary session held on 5 December 2024, there was a heated discussion, not on the substance of the amendment, but on whether a sufficient number of MPs were present for the amendment to be properly enacted. A significant number of MPs were absent during that particular session, either due to official visits abroad, or unspecified reasons; as a result, there were not 38 MPs present during the vote. The parliamentary debate focused on the lack of proper parliamentary participation, which was feared would hinder the enactment of a widely popular proposal for a constitutional amendment. Following an erroneous confirmation by the parliamentary services that there was legal precedent, and despite various objections, the President of the House of Representatives accepted that 37 votes were sufficient to satisfy the two-thirds majority requirement and therefore declared the constitutional amendment valid.

The President of the House of Representatives, after reviewing the situation, admitted almost immediately that there had been an error in applying the legally required majority for a constitutional amendment . . .

The authors of this article immediately indicated that there had been an unprecedented procedural error, as the enactment necessitated the support of a minimum of 38 (and not 37) MPs. The President of the House of Representatives, after reviewing the situation, admitted almost immediately that there had been an error in applying the legally required majority for a constitutional amendment and assumed personal responsibility. The Attorney-General of the Republic also agreed and advised the President of the Republic to exercise his powers pursuant to Article 51 of the Constitution and refer the constitutional amendment back to the House of Representatives for re-examination. Following the referral, the House resubmitted the bill for a vote, and it passed on 12 December with 46 MPs in favour, five against, and two abstentions out of the 53 MPs present. It was published in the Official Gazette on 31 December 2024.

Nicos Tornaritis, chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal Affairs, Justice and Public Order praised the amendment for enhancing access to environmental information and judicial protection. Independent MP Andreas Themistocleous opposed the amendment, citing climate-skeptic arguments. Initially supporting the amendment, the National People’s Front (ELAM) reversed its stance during the second session without providing a specific explanation.

Substance of the Amendment and Procedural Uncertainty: Will Associations have Standing?

The new Article 7A of the Constitution has been inserted between articles 7 (right to life) and 8 (prohibition of torture). It covers three separate but essentially interlinked objectives, namely: (a) the establishment of an individual right to a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment; (b) the right to specific procedural mechanisms that allow for—or aim to better facilitate—the justiciability of the right to a safe environment including via the right to information, access to justice, and effective remedies for violation of the right; and (c) the formulation of a positive obligation of the State to take all necessary precautionary, preventive, or restorative measures in line with the principle of sustainability. These rights are subject to the typical legally prescribed limitations, i.e., public security, public order, public health or the protection of other individual rights and liberties. The language reflects the emerging standard of constitutional and legislative protection of environmental rights, as also seen in international conventions (e.g., the 1998 Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters). The preamble of the amendment goes further by acknowledging the individual and collective duty to prevent environmental destruction and combat the climate crisis, emphasizing the principle of intergenerational equity, and affirming the responsibility for environmental protection not only by the state but also by private entities—especially multinational corporations.

The absence of a standalone right to a healthy environment in the Constitution had long been the subject of debate in both Supreme Court case law and legal scholarship . . . 

Article 7A is found in Part II of the Constitution, generally modelled on the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), with extensions and enlargements of certain provisions and the addition of several social and economic rights to meet the basic requirements of a modern society. The absence of a standalone right to a healthy environment in the Constitution had long been the subject of debate in both Supreme Court case law and legal scholarship. A main issue of contention was whether applicants should be considered as possessing the required legitimate interest to file for recourse before the Administrative Court under Article 146 of the Constitution when seeking to annul a state decision affecting the natural environment.

The initial position adopted by the Supreme Court in the 1990s was that the protection of the natural environment is inextricably linked to the right to life in Article 7 of the Constitution: a right that is both individual and collective in its scope, thereby providing a sufficient basis for individuals or associations to seek judicial protection. For a legitimate interest to be recognised, a substantial link (geographical, financial, cultural or otherwise) must be established between a state decision affecting the environment and the group of people seeking judicial protection.

In 2000, however, the Plenary of the Supreme Court backtracked from this initial position and concluded that allowing associations, organizations, or committees to seek judicial remedies for environmental issues through Article 7 would be akin to recognising a right to actio popularis. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that only individuals and municipalities with a direct and substantial link to the affected area could claim a legitimate interest to challenge a state decision, whereas a public entity with no such link or a non-profit association generally campaigning for the protection of the environment could not.

Although the new amendment lays out clear substantive and procedural protections relating to environmental protection, a pressing question remains as to whether these provisions confer sufficient standing on environmental organizations to challenge state actions and if the new article will give rise to horizontal application of the right to a healthy environment (e.g., against a private corporation).

Alignment with EU Law

Since Cyprus became a member of the EU in 2004, the Constitution was amended to incorporate Article 1A, which established the principle of the primacy of EU Law over national law. Since at least 2006, Cypriot courts could therefore readjust their previous restrictive position regarding judicial access by invoking Article 1A and compatibility with EU law. The case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union supports the view that  procedurally restricting an environmental organisation from access to justice on environmental issues might amount to a violation of the right to effective judicial protection under Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Further, the Aarhus Convention, which both Cyprus and the EU have ratified, incorporates specific provisions that aim to enhance access to justice for non-governmental environmental organisations.

Over time, the judiciary in Cyprus has gradually shifted from previous case law in order to stay aligned with the direct application of EU law. The Appellate Court in a 2024 judgment ruled that Article 146 of the Constitution should be interpreted in a way that affirms the primacy of EU law, and accordingly dismissed the argument that an individual or an association without a substantial link to a state action affecting the environment lacks sufficient legitimate interest to seek judicial protection, even if the Constitution does not explicitly guarantee an individual or collective right to a healthy environment. Given the new amendment directly establishing the right to a healthy environment, and the evolving application of EU law, it is likely that in the future courts will be compelled to reinterpret Article 146 to allow broad standing for environmental associations, removing this obstacle to enhanced environmental protection.

A further question is whether the new constitutional provisions could be invoked against private actors that violate the right to a healthy environment . . . 

A further question is whether the new constitutional provisions could be invoked against private actors that violate the right to a healthy environment. In the past the Supreme Court of Cyprus has not automatically permitted constitutional rights to be enforced horizontally. For example, it found that Article 2 (the right to life) does not apply directly between private parties. Yet the Court has allowed direct and horizontal application for other constitutional rights (e.g., privacy), framed as a personal right against any interference and lacking alternative legal remedies. By explicitly noting in the amendment’s preamble that environmental protection is also a duty of private entities, the new provisions strongly suggest legislative intent to enable direct accountability for private-sector harm to the environment. This reading would further align with EU and Aarhus Convention principles, which emphasize that effective environmental protection demands broad standing and private‑sector responsibility, not merely vertical obligations of the state.

Theognosia Kouspi is a practicing advocate and adjunct faculty at the University of Nicosia. A graduate of Democritus University Thrace, University of Westminster, and University of Nicosia, she has practiced for nearly 20 years in constitutional, administrative, and EU Law.

Achilles C. Emilianides is a Professor of Law and practicing advocate, Dean of the School of Law of the University of Nicosia, and President of the Cyprus Academy of Sciences, Letters, and Arts.

♦ ♦ ♦ 

Suggested citation: Theognosia Kouspi and Achilles C. Emilianides, ‘From Process Misstep to Environmental Milestone: Cyprus’s New Constitutional Right’, ConstitutionNet, International IDEA, 4 April 2025, https://constitutionnet.org/news/voices/process-misstep-environmental-milestone-cypruss-new-constitutional-right