The Nicosia district court has annulled the failure of the interior ministry to act upon a citizenship application concerning a child of a Turkish Cypriot mother and Turkish father, finding that the authorities ‘did not examine the request within a reasonable timeframe’.

The case centres on an 11-year-old born in Strovolos in 2015 whose application for Cypriot citizenship was submitted in September 2018 through his mother, a Cypriot citizen.

No response was given by the ministry until June 2021, when an appeal was filed challenging the lack of action.

The child’s older brother, born in Ankara in 2010, had already acquired Cypriot citizenship in 2011, a fact recorded in the court proceedings as part of the background to the case.

During the hearing, the interior ministry argued that delays were due to a large number of pending applications, stating that “the department has a large number of applications pending from alleged Turkish Cypriots”, referring to individuals of Arabic origin claiming Turkish Cypriot descendance.

The court found that this explanation did not apply to the present case.

It remarked that the applicant’s mother is a Cypriot citizen born in Nicosia, while the applicant himself was born in Cyprus, and that his brother already holds Cypriot citizenship.

In April 2022, after the appeal had been filed, the ministry sent a letter confirming that the applicant meets the criteria for registration as a Cypriot citizen.

However, it stated that the application would be placed on a waiting list and forwarded to the cabinet only when instructed by the ministry.

The court identified the core issue as the failure to examine the application within a reasonable period, which had reached two years and ten months by the time legal action was taken.

In its decision, it stated that “the administration has failed to exercise its jurisdiction to examine within a reasonable period of time the applicant’s request to register as a Cypriot citizen”.

It ruled that the omission was unlawful and declared it invalid under Article 146.4(c) of the constitution.

“Consequently, the appeal succeeds,” the court stated, adding that “whatever has been omitted must be enforced”.