The Supreme Constitutional Court of Cyprus has unanimously rejected the appeal of Eda Hancer against the Republic of Cyprus, upholding an earlier ruling which denied her request for Cypriot citizenship. The case was based on Article 109 of the Civil Registry Law, which allows for citizenship by birth or descent, provided that at least one parent entered or resided in the Republic legally.
The appellant, born in Nicosia in 1978 to a Turkish Cypriot mother and a Turkish father, applied for citizenship in 2004. Her application was not examined on its merits, as the authorities argued that she did not meet the criteria adopted by the Council of Ministers in 2007, which define how exceptions under Article 109 can be granted. The response from authorities placed her application on a pending list for possible future reconsideration, which might have been in her favour.
Hancer appealed to the Administrative Court, arguing that the rejection violated her constitutional and international rights—particularly the principle of equality and her entitlement to European citizenship. She claimed that the exception in Article 109, though neutrally worded, disproportionately affects Turkish Cypriots because it hinges on the legal status of parental residence, a matter inherently linked to the events of 1974.
The lower court rejected her claims, ruling that Article 109 and the criteria established did not violate equality or introduce indirect discrimination. It affirmed that granting citizenship is a sovereign act and subject to state discretion—it is not an automatic right, even if formal conditions appear to be met. The only obligation, the court added, is for the administration to act in good faith, which it found had not been breached in this case.
On appeal, Hancer focused on the argument that Article 109 and its application criteria constitute indirect ethnic discrimination. She cited international case law and legislation, including the European Convention on Human Rights, and Protocol 12. However, the Court found that these claims had not been clearly or fully outlined in the original appeal, making it procedurally impossible to examine them at this stage.
Nonetheless, the Court addressed some core legal arguments, particularly regarding European citizenship. It referenced rulings by the Court of Justice of the European Union (e.g., Rottman) and the European Court of Human Rights (Genovese, Zeggai), which emphasise that naturalisation and the granting of citizenship fall within national sovereignty, provided that relevant laws are applied in good faith. It stressed that European citizenship is not a stand-alone right—it requires prior recognition of national citizenship by a member state.
The Court also stated that the principle of equality, as enshrined in the Constitution and the Convention, prohibits arbitrary discrimination but does not require numerical equality. The provisions of the law were deemed proportionate and part of the legitimate framework through which the Republic of Cyprus exercises its sovereign right to define citizenship—especially given the historical and political context, including the Turkish invasion and ongoing occupation.
Ultimately, the Court concluded that the challenged decision did not violate any constitutional or international provision, and that the state acted within the bounds of its lawful sovereign authority. Specifically, it noted:
“Within the framework of its sovereign powers, the State enacted the Law and criteria, which bear a reasonable and proportionate relation to the specific conditions the Republic of Cyprus faces. They do not constitute arbitrary discrimination against any particular group of individuals.”
The appeal was therefore dismissed. Given the novel nature of the case, no legal costs were awarded.
Also read: UN awaiting response by Turkish Cypriot side on negotiators’ meeting
