By Kritonas Kapsalis
The legal challenge brought by former Auditor General Odysseas Michaelides before the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) over his dismissal has now been narrowed to a single issue: freedom of expression.
The ECHR has communicated to the Republic of Cyprus the complaint concerning freedom of expression, while, according to the Legal Service, all the other complaints raised by the former Auditor General have been rejected.
The development significantly narrows the scope of the case that remains before the Strasbourg court.
Three strands originally at issue
Michaelides lodged his application in December 2024, following the unanimous decision of the Supreme Constitutional Court on 18 September 2024 to remove him from office for misconduct.
From the outset, he made clear that he was not asking the ECHR to act as an appeal court and rehear the domestic case. Instead, he asked the court to examine whether his rights under the European Convention on Human Rights had been breached during the proceedings and in the final decision.
His application originally centred on three main issues: the right to a fair trial, the right to reputation and freedom of expression.
Michaelides argued that the complaint concerning his reputation related to what he considered particularly severe language used in the Supreme Constitutional Court's judgment.
On freedom of expression, he maintained that he had been dismissed because of public statements he made in the course of carrying out his official duties.
Only Article 10 complaint remains
The picture is now considerably narrower.
According to the Legal Service, “all other complaints of the former Auditor General have been rejected”, meaning that the complaints relating to a fair trial and his reputation will not continue to be examined by the ECHR.
The only issue that remains open is the complaint under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects freedom of expression.
Legal implications of the remaining complaint
Legal circles following the case do not consider the development, in itself, to mean that the Supreme Constitutional Court’s decision to dismiss Michaelides is at risk of being overturned.
A legal source told Politis that Michaelides’ dismissal was not based on a single incident or a single legal ground, but on 14 separate grounds.
According to the same source, each of those grounds was considered sufficient to justify the former Auditor General’s dismissal.
On that basis, the assessment is that even an ECHR finding concerning freedom of expression would not automatically overturn the overall legal foundation on which the dismissal decision was based.
Michaelides welcomes Strasbourg development
Michaelides’ side, however, is focusing on the issue that remains before the ECHR.
In a statement, he described as a “significant and positive development” the decision of the President of the ECHR’s Fifth Section, dated 20 August 2026, to communicate the Article 10 complaint to the Republic of Cyprus.
In his interpretation, the complaint goes to the heart of the case: whether his dismissal breached his right to make public statements on matters of public interest as part of his institutional role.
He also highlighted the possibility of a “chilling effect” resulting from the dismissal of an independent public official over public interventions.
At the same time, however, he acknowledged that the communication of the complaint does not prejudge either its admissibility or, more importantly, the court’s eventual judgment.
What the ECHR communication means
This distinction is legally important.
The communication of an application, or part of an application, to the respondent state does not amount to a finding in favour of the applicant.
Cyprus will now be asked to submit observations on both the admissibility and the merits of the specific complaint.
By contrast, the remaining complaints, which according to the Legal Service have already been rejected, will not be subject to further examination.
Two questions at the centre of the case
In the Michaelides case, the ECHR is asking the Republic of Cyprus to address two central questions.
The first is whether his dismissal from office amounted to an interference with his freedom of expression.
If so, the second question is whether that interference was prescribed by law, pursued a legitimate aim and was necessary in a democratic society.
These questions will form the core of the proceedings that remain before the Strasbourg court.
Previous ECHR cases cited
Particular importance is being attached by Michaelides’ side to cases cited by the ECHR, including Baka v Hungary, Kövesi v Romania and Danileţ v Romania.
Those cases concern the protection of freedom of expression for individuals holding institutional or judicial positions.
Michaelides’ side argues that the references reinforce the significance of the examination that will now take place.
Two different readings of the same development
The two sides are therefore placing emphasis on different aspects of the same procedural development.
The Legal Service and legal circles supporting its interpretation stress that most of the original complaints have already been rejected and that the dismissal was based on multiple, independent legal grounds.
Michaelides, meanwhile, is highlighting the fact that the ECHR has sought the Republic’s position on what he considers the most substantive element of his application.
The next stage of the case will therefore revolve around a specific question — not whether the Cyprus Supreme Constitutional Court was ultimately right or wrong in its overall decision, but whether the dismissal of Michaelides, and specifically the conduct and statements connected with it, breached the protection afforded to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
