Acting on behalf of two candidates in the selection process for Cyprus’ judge at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), lawyer Dr Christos Clerides sent a letter to President Nikos Christodoulides, calling for a fresh domestic procedure to draw up a new shortlist. According to a statement from Clerides’ office, the national process has already failed twice, with the Council of Europe’s organs returning Cyprus’ list.
Claims of opacity and interference
In his letter, Dr Clerides says the current process has been marked by opacity, political interventions and conflicts of interest, which he argues led to capable candidates being excluded. He adds that a Supreme Court judge withdrew her candidacy in protest after political interference during proceedings before the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE).
A key concern raised is the accuracy of candidates’ academic qualifications. Dr Clerides asks the president to order verification of degrees for all applicants and nominees, including those excluded, citing information about inaccuracies or mismatches in stated credentials. He argues that candidate names and CVs should have been published domestically before Cyprus’ list was sent to PACE, something he says did not happen.
Warning of institutional fallout
Dr Clerides warns that, without corrective action, the affair could become one of the Council of Europe’s most serious institutional scandals, undermining the credibility of the Republic of Cyprus, PACE, and the ECHR itself.
He proposes what he calls the only institutionally and ethically sound solution: the launch of a new, fully transparent and independent national procedure with published rules, objective evaluation of all candidates, and the preparation of a “new list”, a course of action he notes was also referenced by Petra Bayr, Chair of PACE’s Committee on the Election of Judges to the ECHR.
Appeals to European bodies
In parallel, Dr Clerides addresses the PACE Secretary General and Ms Bayr, raising procedural concerns and urging the competent organs to assume responsibility for the conduct and legality of the selection process. Among other points, he flags alleged outside pressure on the committee during the Cypriot process and what he describes as Cyprus’ violations of PACE criteria being overlooked.
Questions to the committee chair
Dr Clerides asks Ms Bayr to explain alleged political interventions, motivations, alliances and irregular consultations during the ECHR judge selection related to Cyprus, and whether any of these matters intersect with her reported intention to seek the PACE presidency in January 2026.
He further asks why, on 29 September 2025, she allegedly failed to inform fellow PACE members about the reasons for a Cypriot candidate’s withdrawal, which he attributes to political interference, and about the manner in which she referred to the withdrawn candidate, a sitting Supreme Court judge.
According to Clerides’ statement, further questions will be put to Ms Bayr about a series of grievances raised by candidates concerning the Cypriot process, including alleged misinformation sent by Cypriot authorities to PACE in a 4 July 2025 letter, ministerial dominance of the procedure, a potential conflict of interest involving the Cypriot foreign minister and his former university, lack of transparency and refusal to disclose procedural details, and the claim that a suitable candidate was denied an interview and that issues he raised were not examined.
Source: CNA