The Administrative Court of Appeal has unanimously upheld four grounds of appeal in a case concerning the rejection of a Ukrainian national’s application for Cypriot citizenship by naturalisation, finding that the first-instance court examined the case on an incorrect factual basis.
The appeal challenged a decision by the Administrative Court which had upheld the rejection of the woman’s citizenship application.
Three marriages in Cyprus
According to the facts recorded in the judgment, the applicant first arrived in Cyprus in 2000 to work as a waitress.
In 2001, she entered into a civil marriage with a Greek Cypriot. Following investigations into the authenticity of the marriage, detention and deportation orders were issued against her, and she was deported on 25 October 2001.
She subsequently returned to Cyprus and married a second Greek Cypriot, who died in 2009. In 2011, she married for a third time.
On 7 December 2012, she submitted an application to obtain Cypriot citizenship through naturalisation.
Application rejected in 2017
The views submitted by the Cyprus Intelligence Service on 22 April 2014 contained no security-related information against her, while the views of Interpol dated 23 April 2014 were negative.
The applicant was interviewed on 12 January 2017, and a memorandum recommending rejection of her application was prepared for the Interior Minister on 19 January.
The Administrative Court of Appeal found that the internal memorandum of 19 January 2017 carried a handwritten note reading “Reject”, together with the Interior Minister’s signature.
The court concluded from the evidence as a whole that the minister had exercised his decision-making authority by adopting the recommendation contained in the memorandum.
Appeal Court identifies error
However, the Appeal Court found that the first-instance court had wrongly treated the notification letter as the substance of the contested decision, rather than examining the Interior Minister’s decision itself and the reasoning contained in the internal memorandum.
The memorandum included the recommendation “To be rejected because of her history”, along with information and assessments concerning the applicant’s actions and activities in Cyprus and her marriages.
The Appeal Court held that the reasoning behind the decision could not be limited to what was contained in the notification letter.
It therefore concluded that the first-instance court had examined the case on an incorrect factual basis.
As a result, the second, third, fourth and fifth grounds of appeal were upheld.
Case returned for new decision
The original judgment, including the order on legal costs, was set aside.
The case has now been returned to the first-instance court for a new decision, which must be made in accordance with the findings of the Administrative Court of Appeal.
The appellant was also awarded €3,000 in legal costs, plus VAT, to be paid by the respondent.
