GZG is delighted to announce a groundbreaking legal victory on behalf of our client following a twelve-year pursuit of justice that culminated today with a favorable ruling by the Administrative Court of Appeal in Appeal 25/25. This landmark decision represents not only a personal vindication for our client but also confirms vital precedent regarding the application of fundamental administrative law principles to administrative decisions.
The case, which began in 2013, presented novel legal challenges as it uniquely involved parallel procedures in both the Administrative Court and the Industrial Disputes Court– a procedural complexity that underscores the multifaceted nature of disputes arising out of the 2013 Resolution Law for Credit and Other Institutions, as it stood at that time. Our client's perseverance through this extended litigation, including a successful appeal at the Administrative Court of Appeal, demonstrates the importance of steadfast advocacy in securing justice.
The Appellant was a senior executive at the Bank of Cyprus ("the Bank"). On 22 March 2013, the Central Bank of Cyprus was appointed as the Resolution Authority of the Appellant pursuant to the Resolution of Credit and Other Institutions Law of 2013, Law 17(I)/2013, and on 25 March 2013, the Bank was placed under resolution. On the same day, the Central Bank of Cyprus appointed a Special Administrator for the Bank of Cyprus, pursuant to the provisions of the above law.
On 29 March 2013, without any prior warning, the Appellant received a letter from the Central Bank of Cyprus—copied to the Special Administrator—informing him of the Central Bank's decision to remove him from his position, "with a view to better achieving the objectives of Article 3 of the Law," referring to the 2013 Resolution Law for Credit and Other Institutions, as it stood at that time.
The Appellant filed a recourse to the Administrative Court and also an application before the Industrial Disputes' Court. In the former, he sought a declaration that the act and/or decision included in the Central Bank's letter—acting as the Resolution Authority—removing him from the position of Senior General Manager, was null and void. In the labour dispute, he sought compensation for unlawful dismissal under the Termination of Employment Law of 1967.
The decision builds upon the firm's previous experience in related proceedings, as detailed in our earlier analysis of the Industrial Disputes Court procedure [HERE] . The convergence of administrative law, employment law, and banking regulation in this matter exemplifies the complex legal landscape that institutions and individuals face in the aftermath of resolution procedures.
The September 10, 2025 decision of the Administrative Court of Appeal addresses a decision by the Central Bank of Cyprus acting as the Resolution Authority, an area of law that has gained increasing significance in the post-financial crisis regulatory landscape. Importantly, the Court's decision extends far beyond the specific facts of this case, confirming crucial precedent that administrative law principles – including the requirement for proper justification of administrative decisions, due diligence, and natural justice .
The Administrative Court (first instance) held that because the Credit and Other Institutions Law made no provision requiring justification when issuing decisions, the Resolution Authority had no obligation to provide reasons.
In contrast, the Administrative Court of Appeal determined that the removal of the Appellant from his duties resulted from the exercise of discretionary power by the Central Bank acting as the Resolution Authority. The Court found this to be an adverse decision with detrimental consequences for the Appellant's employment status, as he was subsequently dismissed by his employer following this decision.
The Court reiterated Articles 26 and 28 of the General Principles of Administrative Law (Law 158/(I)/1999), which provide that when administrative bodies issue discretionary decisions that have adverse consequences for individuals, such decisions must be justified. All of the appellant's grounds of appeal relevant to this point were accepted.
The decision of the Administrative Court of Appeal confirms that regardless of the breadth of discretionary power granted to administrative authorities, the fundamental tenets of administrative law – proper justification, due process, and natural justice – remain inviolate.
The case demonstrates the firm's expertise in navigating complex, multi-jurisdictional proceedings and our commitment to achieving justice regardless of the time and resources required.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
