When family relationships are disputed, scientific evidence becomes essential. Cyprus Family Courts have wielded genetic testing as a tool for establishing paternity since 2006, when Article 24A was introduced to the Children (Affiliation and Legal Status) Law. The legal framework balances the right to truth with fundamental privacy protections, creating a nuanced system where consent remains paramount but refusal carries legal consequences.

In the landmark case Mary Jane Supatan v. Nikola Peristianu (2006) 1 A.A.D. 1417, the Court of Appeal clarified that while courts can issue directions for blood sampling, they cannot compel compliance. What they can do is draw inferences from refusal. This distinction protects constitutional rights while recognizing that DNA evidence, when voluntarily provided, offers near-certainty in paternity disputes. The question is not whether genetic testing violates privacy, but how courts navigate the tension between establishing familial truth and preserving individual autonomy.

The Legal Framework

Article 24A of Law 187/91 grants Family Courts authority to issue directions for hematological, genetic or other appropriate examinations to determine biological paternity. The distinction between directions and orders is critical: the alleged father retains the right to refuse testing without facing contempt proceedings or forced compliance.

However, refusal is not without consequence. When a party declines testing after court directions, the tribunal may draw any inference that appears reasonable under the circumstances. As the Supreme Court held in subsequent appeals, refusal to submit to DNA testing, absent compelling justification, creates a strong inference of paternity when combined with other evidence. The framework protects both the child’s right to know their parentage and the alleged father’s bodily autonomy, resolving the tension through evidentiary inference rather than physical compulsion.

Privacy Rights and Consent

The intersection of genetic testing with privacy rights remains carefully guarded. Article 15 of the Cyprus Constitution and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights protect private and family life from arbitrary interference. Medical procedures, including blood sampling, constitute interventions that require legal justification and individual consent.

Cyprus legislation respects these protections while recognizing that family law disputes involve competing rights: the mother’s right to establish paternity, the child’s right to know their biological parents, and the alleged father’s right to privacy and bodily integrity. The system resolves this through procedural safeguards: courts issue directions only when paternity is genuinely disputed, testing follows medical protocols that protect data confidentiality, and results are used strictly for the judicial proceedings at hand. This calibrated approach ensures that genetic evidence serves justice without becoming an instrument of invasive state power.

When DNA Testing Becomes Necessary

Paternity disputes typically arise in three contexts: mothers seeking child support from alleged fathers who deny parentage, fathers seeking custody or contact rights when mothers dispute biological connection, and inheritance cases where legitimacy determines estate distribution. In each scenario, genetic evidence can resolve factual disputes that would otherwise devolve into credibility contests with limited probative value.

Strategic timing matters. Requesting DNA testing early in proceedings demonstrates good faith and can accelerate resolution, particularly when the alleged father genuinely doubts paternity. Conversely, waiting until trial to raise testing objections may be interpreted as tactical delay rather than principled opposition. For mothers pursuing support claims, establishing biological paternity is typically the first step toward obtaining maintenance orders. For alleged fathers, voluntary testing that excludes paternity provides complete defense, while refusal to test when paternity is plausible creates evidentiary burdens that are difficult to overcome. The legal framework makes cooperation advantageous when one is confident in the biological facts, and makes refusal costly when doubt exists.

Need detailed analysis of Cyprus case law, constitutional considerations, and strategic approaches to DNA evidence in family proceedings?

Read my full article (Greek)

Cyprus’ civil justice system stands at a crossroads. The 2023 Civil Procedure Rules represent the most radical transformation since independence, elevating mediation from peripheral option to central pillar of dispute resolution. What was once a system frozen in 1958 now embraces pre-action protocols, judicial case management, and structured alternative dispute resolution.

Yet this revolution brings profound tensions: Can mandatory mediation coexist with the right to access courts? How do we balance efficiency with justice, confidentiality with accountability, voluntary participation with institutional pressure? As Cyprus navigates between European directives and local legal culture, these reforms reshape not just procedure but the very philosophy of how disputes should be resolved.

The Procedural Revolution

The overriding objective transforms litigation from adversarial combat to managed resolution. Pre-action protocols now require parties to exchange information, narrow issues, and genuinely consider settlement before filing suit. Small claims under €10,000 follow simplified procedures, while judges wield unprecedented powers to direct cases toward mediation.

This isn’t merely administrative reform—it’s a cultural shift. Lawyers must now justify why they haven’t mediated. Courts can impose cost sanctions on unreasonable refusals. The message is clear: litigation is the last resort, not the first response. Yet implementation reveals friction between Anglo-Saxon efficiency models and Mediterranean legal traditions.

Ethics & Enforcement Dilemmas

Mediation’s promise of voluntary resolution meets complex ethical terrain. Private caucus sessions, while enabling frank discussion, raise questions about information asymmetry and mediator influence. The balance between absolute confidentiality and the need for transparency when settlements are challenged creates a fundamental tension in the process.

Cyprus’ proposed Article 15A, mandating initial mediation for disputes under €5,000, exemplifies the broader European debate. Drawing from precedents like Halsey and Alassini, courts must determine whether mandatory ADR represents proportionate reform or constitutes an unacceptable barrier to justice under Article 6 ECHR. The challenge lies in preserving mediation’s voluntary essence within increasingly institutionalized frameworks.

Navigating the New Landscape

The intersection of EU Directive 2008/52/EC, Cyprus Law 159(I)/2012, and the 2023 CPR creates a complex regulatory matrix. Mediation Settlement Agreements now achieve «super contract» status—enforceable as court orders through simplified Part 8 procedures. Yet this elevation brings scrutiny: How do we balance the sanctity of confidentiality against claims of duress? Can mandatory initial sessions under proposed reforms survive Article 6 ECHR challenges?

International dimensions add further complexity. While the Singapore Convention promises global enforceability for mediated settlements, Cyprus remains outside this framework. Meanwhile, English precedents from Halsey to Lomax shape local interpretation, as courts grapple with when refusal to mediate becomes unreasonable—and when compulsion violates fundamental rights. The path forward demands not blind adoption but thoughtful calibration between efficiency imperatives and justice principles.

Reimagining Dispute Resolution under Cyprus’ CPR 2023
Explore how the 2023 Civil Procedure Rules revolutionize Cyprus’ civil justice framework through the lens of mediation. This comprehensive analysis examines the “overriding objective” that now governs all litigation, dissects the three pre-action protocols that reshape lawyer-client dynamics, and evaluates how small claims procedures and cost sanctions create powerful incentives for settlement. Drawing from English precedents and early implementation experiences, the article assesses whether Cyprus is genuinely transitioning to a mediation-forward model or merely adding procedural layers. Essential reading for practitioners navigating the new rules, understanding enforcement mechanisms for Mediation Settlement Agreements, and anticipating how judges will exercise their expanded case management powers.

Read Part 1: CPR & Mediation Framework

Mediation under Pressure: Ethics, Duress & Mandatory Models
This comprehensive analysis examines the tension between mediation’s theoretical foundations and its practical implementation across European jurisdictions. The article explores the ethical dimensions of private caucus meetings, the enforceability challenges of Mediation Settlement Agreements when duress is alleged, and the evolving jurisprudence on mandatory ADR schemes. Through detailed examination of landmark cases including Halsey v Milton Keynes NHS Trust, Alassini v Telecom Italia, and recent English precedents, it evaluates whether mandatory mediation schemes comply with Article 6 ECHR guarantees of access to justice. The analysis covers Cyprus’ proposed Article 15A amendments requiring initial mediation sessions for disputes under €5,000, the implications of the Singapore Convention for international commercial settlements, and the elevated legal status of MSAs as «super contracts» under the new CPR framework. Essential for practitioners navigating the constitutional limits of compulsory ADR and understanding the proportionality principles that govern modern dispute resolution policy.

Read Part 2: Ethics & Mandatory Mediation

In December 2021, I defended a related case in the Larnaca District Court where the prosecution’s evidence hinged on thousands of images and videos found in browser cache files. The technical challenge was profound: proving that automatic app storage doesn’t constitute legal possession under Cyprus criminal law.

My client accessed content through Telegram groups and web browsers—ordinary internet usage that generated over 3,000 cached files without his knowledge or control. The prosecution argued these cached terrorism-related materials proved “possession” under Article 9 of the Counter-Terrorism Law. We demonstrated that cache files are ephemeral technical residues: created automatically, stored invisibly, and beyond user control. The case crystallized a fundamental question for the digital age: when machines store data autonomously, where does criminal liability begin?

The Legal Framework

Criminal possession requires both knowledge and control. The Cyprus Penal Code’s definition demands awareness that material exists and the ability to exercise dominion over it. Cache files fail both tests: users don’t know they exist, can’t access them without technical expertise, and have no control over their creation or deletion.

The Ninth Circuit’s landmark decision in United States v. Kuchinski established the principle that cached files without user knowledge cannot constitute possession. Cyprus courts have followed this reasoning, recognizing that viewing content online differs fundamentally from deliberately storing it. The distinction protects citizens from strict liability for their browsers’ automated processes.

Technical Realities

Browsers cache content to improve performance, not preserve evidence. Files appear and vanish according to algorithms users never see. The cache directory sits buried in system folders, inaccessible through normal navigation. Even finding these files requires specialized knowledge most users lack.

This automation matters legally. When prosecution conflates temporary technical storage with intentional possession, it criminalizes the act of browsing itself. Every click potentially becomes a crime if the wrong content gets cached. Such interpretation would make the internet legally unusable, turning standard web protocols into instruments of strict criminal liability.

Defending Digital Rights

Cache possession cases reveal how criminal law struggles with digital reality. The traditional mens rea framework—requiring both knowledge (Wissen) and will (Wollen)—remains essential for justice. Without it, automated processes become tripwires for prosecution, and technical ignorance becomes criminal negligence.

For defense counsel, the strategy is clear: distinguish deliberate downloading from passive caching, demonstrate the defendant’s lack of technical knowledge, and emphasize the absence of user control. Expert testimony on browser mechanics often proves decisive. Courts increasingly recognize that «possession» cannot extend to files users neither created, accessed, nor knew existed. This precedent protects not just individual defendants but the principle that criminal law requires human agency, not machine automation.

Want the complete analysis—case law, technical frameworks, and defense strategies for cache possession cases?

Read the full article

The DAC7 Directive represents a decisive shift in how the EU approaches tax compliance for digital platforms. What began as a gig-economy measure now covers almost every platform-mediated transaction—services, rentals, and goods. For operators, the challenge is no longer only technical integration but ongoing governance under evolving tax regulations.

This professional overview outlines key takeaways for businesses and advisors navigating this fast-changing regulatory environment.

Key implications

Platform operators face expanded reporting duties, including verification of seller data, quarterly aggregation, and OECD-standard XML filings. Even outside the EU, companies with EU users must comply—extending the directive’s reach beyond European borders.

This expansion aligns with global transparency goals but imposes structural costs that smaller platforms and start-ups often struggle to absorb.

Market dynamics

Exemptions, such as those for large listed entities or high-volume rental operators, tend to shield incumbents while leaving smaller service providers exposed. The result is a competitive asymmetry that risks slowing innovation across digital marketplaces.

Businesses must treat DAC7 as more than a formality: it reshapes operational models and requires strategic planning alongside legal and financial expertise.

Looking ahead

The EU is unlikely to stop at DAC7. Additional layers of technology regulations are on the horizon, meaning compliance is becoming a permanent discipline. For business leaders, early adaptation is not just risk management—it can also serve as a differentiator in trust, transparency, and market positioning.

To explore deeper legal analysis and case-specific commentary, I invite you to read the full essay on my blog.

Want the full essay with detailed examples, legal analysis, and unintended consequences of DAC7?

Read the full article on my Blog

On 1 August 2025 the Radio Equipment Directive (RED) entered a new phase for the EU market. What used to be a radio/spectrum framework has become a baseline for cybersecurity compliance across most connected products. Phones, routers, wearables, IoT sensors—if it talks to a network, it now lives under a tougher playbook.

Three levers drive the shift: Article 3(3)(d) on network protection, 3(3)(e) on personal data safeguards (with extra attention to toys/childcare/wearables), and 3(3)(f) on fraud prevention. Their technical expression is the EN 18031 series, which turns high-level legal duties into testable security outcomes: access control, secure updates, storage/comms security, monitoring, and resilience.

What changes in practice

The new technology regulations push manufacturers to prove they’ve embedded security by design—strong authentication, sane defaults, hardened update paths, and meaningful logging. That’s good news for users and for providers tired of botnets fueled by cheap, insecure devices.

The flip side: implementation isn’t trivial. EN 18031 can limit self-declaration, nudging products toward Notified Body reviews when features (e.g., open firmware loading) break the assumptions behind presumption of conformity. Real costs rise, timelines stretch, and market entry becomes a governance exercise as much as an engineering one.

Innovation vs. lock-down

Here lies the tension. Security hardening is essential, but blunt restrictions risk collateral damage to openness, repairability, and research. Projects that rely on custom ROMs or community firmware can be caught in the compliance crossfire, even when their security posture is exemplary.

The EU’s broader policy mix complicates the picture: Right to Repair and the Digital Markets Act promote user choice and longevity, while strict readings of RED may incentivize locked bootloaders and closed ecosystems. Smart guidance is needed so cybersecurity regulations don’t quietly erode user agency.

Looking ahead

RED isn’t the end of the journey. The upcoming Cyber Resilience Act will raise the floor again, and overlapping regimes will make compliance a continuous discipline. Treat RED as more than a checkbox: it’s a chance to build trust, reduce incident costs, and differentiate on engineering quality.

A pragmatic playbook: map product features against EN 18031; document threat models and secure-update chains; avoid dark corners (weak password policies, silent telemetry); and, where openness matters, design for user-enrollable keys and verifiable modding paths. That’s how technology regulations and innovation can coexist.

Want the deep dive—EN 18031 mechanics, self-declaration pitfalls, and the bootloader controversy?

Read my full article

ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) serves as the global custodian of the internet’s domain name system. Founded in 1998 as a non-profit organization based in the United States, it undertook the critical mission of managing the Domain Name System (DNS) and allocating IP addresses. Unlike traditional international organizations such as the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), ICANN operates through a unique “multi-stakeholder” model, where governments, the private sector, academic community, and users collaborate in internet governance.

ICANN’s importance is decisive: every domain name registered worldwide is subject to the rules and policies established by the organization. For businesses and professionals who increasingly rely on their digital presence for international transactions and e-commerce, ICANN’s decisions have a direct impact on their digital assets. You can find more information about ICANN’s founding and political dimension here.

The New Registration Data Policy

The Registration Data Policy (RDP) coming into effect on August 21, 2025, represents the most significant restructuring of domain name ownership data management since 2018. This policy is not merely a technical adjustment, but a comprehensive overhaul affecting how the legal owner of a domain name is determined.

The most critical aspect of the new policy concerns the hierarchy of ownership data. According to paragraph 6(6)(2) of the RDP, if the “Organization” field in the registrant’s details contains the name of an organization or company, that organization will automatically be considered the legal owner of the domain. The individual listed in the contact details will now be treated only as a point of contact, without ownership rights.
This change reverses the existing practice where the registrant’s first and last name determined ownership. For example, if a company director has registered the business domain in their name but has filled in the company name in the “Organization” field, from August 21st the company will automatically become the domain owner, regardless of the individual’s name.

The Impact on Ownership

From a legal perspective, this change raises significant issues requiring immediate attention. Under Cypriot law, domain names are treated as intangible assets with substantial commercial value. The automatic transfer of ownership from an individual to a legal entity can have implications for contractual relationships, corporate agreements, and even in cases of divorce or inheritance.

Particular attention is required in cases where entrepreneurs have registered domains in their personal name for convenience or control purposes, but have entered the company name in the “Organization” field. After August 21, 2025, these domains will pass to company ownership, creating potential complications in cases of shareholder departures, sale of shares, or corporate disputes.

Additionally, this change affects the domain transfer process. Any modification to the “Organization” field will automatically trigger a change of registrant procedure, requiring email verification. Failure to complete verification within the specified timeframe can lead to domain suspension, with catastrophic consequences for business operations.

GDPR & Data Protection and Transparency

The new Registration Data Policy is a direct result of the implementation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) that came into effect in 2018. ICANN was forced to redesign the WHOIS system, which traditionally published all personal details of domain name holders freely, in order to comply with the strict requirements of the European regulation.

The RDP introduces significant restrictions on the collection and publication of personal data. Mandatory fields for administrative and billing contacts are abolished, while technical contacts become optional and can be generic email addresses. Importantly, Organization details will not appear in public WHOIS unless the holder gives explicit consent. This approach aligns with the principles of data minimization and privacy protection provided by GDPR, ensuring that only absolutely necessary information is collected and processed.

Practical Guidelines

Domain name holders, technicians, and administrators must take immediate action to protect their digital identity. We recommend immediate review of all registered domains and checking the “Organization” field.

If the intention is personal ownership, the “Organization” field must remain empty. Conversely, if corporate ownership is desired, you must ensure that the company name is correctly registered.

Particular attention is required for domains used for investment purposes or as part of a personal portfolio. The presence of a company name in the “Organization” field can create unwanted legal obligations and/or problems.

Other Important Technical Changes

Beyond the critical change in ownership determination, the Registration Data Policy introduces three additional technical changes that directly affect domain name management.

First, the obligation to collect Administrative, Billing, and Technical Contact fields is completely abolished. From August 21, 2025, registrars will collect exclusively the “minimal data set” limited to the absolutely necessary Registrant details. This simplification aligns with GDPR’s data minimization principles, while reducing the administrative burden for businesses maintaining multiple domains.

Second, and perhaps more critical from a business perspective, registrars are required to permanently delete all historical Administrative, Billing, and Technical contact data held in their systems.

Third, the Technical Contact becomes an optional field and can now be filled with generic email addresses, such as “support@example.com“, instead of specific employees’ personal details. This flexibility helps businesses maintain stable contact points regardless of internal personnel changes.

From WHOIS to RDAP

Alongside the changes in the Registration Data Policy, ICANN completed the final retirement of the WHOIS protocol on January 28, 2025, replacing it with the modern Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP). WHOIS, which had been operating since 1982, had significant weaknesses: lack of data standardization and inability to support international characters. RDAP addresses these challenges by providing structured data in JSON format, mandatory use of HTTPS, and the ability for tiered access based on the requester’s identity.

For legal professionals and domain management specialists, the transition to RDAP means that access to non-public registration data now requires identity verification and documentation of legitimate interest. ICANN has introduced the Registration Data Request Service (RDRS) as a pilot program to facilitate such requests, particularly for law enforcement, intellectual property protection, and cybersecurity cases. This change creates new procedural requirements for obtaining information in cases of domain disputes or investigations into trademark infringements.

Upcoming Reforms to Domain Transfers

Beyond the immediate changes of the Registration Data Policy, ICANN is preparing significant reforms to the Transfer Policy expected to take effect within 2026. The most significant change concerns the reduction of the lock period from 60 to 30 days, both for new registrations and for transfers between registrars. Additionally, the 60-day lock that applied after changes to registrant details is being completely abolished, a development that significantly facilitates domain portfolio consolidation and corporate restructuring.

The new rules also introduce standardized procedures for bulk domain transfers (Bulk Transfer After Partial Portfolio Acquisition – BTAPPA), with a maximum charge of $50,000 for portfolios over 50,000 domains. At the same time, the list of valid reasons for transfer denial is being updated, including explicit reference to DNS abuse cases as defined in ICANN’s soft law. These changes are expected to significantly simplify transfer procedures while reducing the risk of fraud and abuse.

Conclusion

ICANN’s new Registration Data Policy signals a new era in domain name management. Understanding and timely adaptation to the new requirements is not simply a matter of technical compliance, but a critical issue for protecting domain names. The deadline of August 21, 2025 is approaching.

Further Reading on Digital Governance and Technology Policy

For readers interested in exploring broader themes of internet governance, data protection, and digital market regulation, I invite you to explore my other articles. These pieces examine critical intersections between technology, law, and corporate power:

• ICANN’s Registration Data Policy: Critical Domain Ownership Changes (Greek Version): The comprehensive Greek edition of this article provides additional context on ICANN’s historical development and its impact on the European digital landscape.
• The Consent Paradox: How EU Regulations Enabled Corporate Data Harvesting: A critical examination of how GDPR’s cookie consent requirements inadvertently created a surveillance infrastructure controlled by 8–10 Consent Management Platform companies, demonstrating how privacy regulations can paradoxically expand data collection capabilities.
• Apple v. Pepper: Robbing Developers of Their Autonomy: An analysis of the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case addressing whether iPhone users can sue Apple for monopolistic practices in the App Store, exploring the implications for developer independence and digital marketplace competition (Greek Version).
• Facebook Welcomes Us to the Post-Data Era & Why GDPR is Dangerous Nonsense: A provocative critique of GDPR’s fundamental limitations, arguing that traditional data protection frameworks cannot address the sophisticated data inference capabilities of modern platforms and the emergence of “post-data” surveillance techniques (Greek Version).
• When the GDPR Goes Wrong: A case study examining the Cyprus Data Protection Authority’s misapplication of GDPR to labor relations, illustrating the dangers when data protection authorities exceed their mandate and attempt to regulate matters beyond privacy concerns.
• The Founding of ICANN: A Historical and Political Approach: An in-depth exploration of ICANN’s creation in 1998, examining the political forces that shaped internet governance and the ongoing tension between technical administration and geopolitical interests (Greek Version).

The introduction of consensual divorce in Cyprus marks a significant shift in our family law landscape, representing a modernization of our legal system that aligns with contemporary societal needs. This change is particularly noteworthy as it introduces a more amicable and efficient approach to ending a marriage, potentially reducing the emotional and financial toll often associated with traditional divorce proceedings.

In December 2022, the Cyprus Parliament approved a significant amendment to the divorce law, introducing consensual divorce. This new provision allows both spouses to jointly file for divorce, eliminating the need for one party to file against the other – a process that often exacerbated conflict and hindered post-divorce relationships, especially in cases involving children. The consensual divorce option enhances the child-centric nature of the law and accelerates proceedings, saving court time and resources.

This innovation was necessary to modernize the law, allowing citizens to separate amicably without the need for extensive legal representation and high costs. It’s important to note that while this new option is available, the existing grounds for divorce in Cyprus remain valid, providing flexibility in addressing various marital situations.

One of the most striking aspects of the new law is the reduced waiting period for filing a consensual divorce. Couples can now initiate the process after just six months of marriage, a significant reduction from previous requirements. This change recognizes the reality that some marriages may irrevocably break down early, and provides a legal avenue for a swift and mutually agreed upon dissolution.

It’s crucial to understand the conditions for divorce in Cyprus. For any type of divorce to be filed in the Cyprus Family Courts, one of the spouses must have been continuously residing in the Republic of Cyprus for a period of 3 months. Interestingly, couples who were married abroad are not precluded from filing for divorce in Cyprus, provided they meet this residency requirement.

Specifically for consensual divorce, additional conditions apply. The couple must have been married for at least six months, and if there are minor children involved, they must have either already arranged or be in the process of mutually agreeing on matters related to parental responsibility and contact. This refers to the “Parental Responsibility Order” and “Contact Order” respectively. This requirement underscores the law’s child-centric approach, encouraging parents to prioritize their children’s needs and reach agreements on crucial matters before finalizing the divorce. While the new process aims for efficiency, it maintains a focus on due diligence, particularly regarding the well-being of children and the fair resolution of financial matters.

27.-(1) A marriage may be dissolved by a court decision, following the filing of a divorce action, for the following reasons:

—

(a) When the relationship between the spouses has been strongly shaken for a reason concerning the person of the defendant or both spouses to such a degree that the continuation of the marital relationship is reasonably unbearable for the plaintiff:

Provided that, unless the defendant proves otherwise, the relationship between the spouses is presumed to have been shaken and the continuation of the marital relationship is unbearable for the plaintiff for a reason concerning the person of the defendant in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (a) of subsection (1), in case of bigamy, adultery or abandonment of the plaintiff, or conspiracy against the life of the plaintiff by the defendant or exercise of violence against the plaintiff or against a child by the defendant, as defined in the term “violence” by the provisions of the Violence in the Family (Prevention and Protection of Victims) Law;

—

(b) when the relationship between the spouses has been irrevocably shaken due to their separation for at least two (2) years:

Provided that, the completion of the prescribed separation period is not prevented by short interruptions made as an attempt to restore the relationship between the spouses and which in total do not exceed three (3) months;

—

(c) when the relationship between the spouses has been irrevocably shaken because the spouses, with free and uninfluenced will, mutually consent to dissolve their marriage by an application for consensual dissolution of the marriage:

Provided that, the application may be filed jointly or by one of the two (2) spouses at least six (6) months after the celebration of the marriage:

Provided further that, the consent of the spouses is declared before the Court:

Provided further that, in case there are minor children, the Court issues a decision for the dissolution of the marriage during the said session, provided that the spouses have filed with the Court a copy of the court decision, which regulates issues of child custody or communication with them, or an application requesting the Court to issue a consensual decision on these issues, which is issued in the same session;

—

(d) due to a change of gender of the defendant or the plaintiff; and

—

(e) due to the disappearance of the other spouse.

—

(2) The death of one of the two (2) spouses results in the dissolution of the marriage.

Article 27 (Grounds for divorce) of The Marriage Act of 2003 (Act 104(I)/2003)

As legal practitioners, our role has evolved to encompass a broader range of approaches to divorce proceedings. While traditional methods of resolving disputes through court battles remain available, the introduction of consensual divorce offers new opportunities for couples seeking a more amicable separation. An ethical lawyer should, before initiating preparations for courtroom disagreements, explore all available options with their clients. This approach not only aligns with the spirit of the new legislation but also has the potential to save couples significant amounts of money and reduce emotional stress. By guiding our clients through more cooperative processes where appropriate, we can facilitate discussions that may lead to mutually beneficial agreements. This shift challenges us to enhance our skills in conflict resolution and negotiation, fostering an environment where couples can work together to find solutions. Ultimately, our focus should be on helping our clients navigate complex emotional and practical issues in the most constructive manner possible… and in the best interest of any children involved.

The introduction of consensual divorce also aligns Cyprus more closely with international trends in family law, potentially making our country more attractive for international couples considering residence or retirement here. As we navigate this new legal landscape, it is our responsibility as legal professionals to not only offer these services but also to educate the public about their legal options and rights under the new law. The Law Office of Panayotis Yannakas is committed to providing comprehensive guidance through these new processes, ensuring that my clients fully understand and benefit from these progressive changes in Cyprus family law.

Further Reading on Family Law

For those interested in delving deeper into family law issues, I invite you to explore my other articles. These pieces cover a range of important topics in family law:

• Parental Alienation Syndrome: A Legal Game of Psychology?: An in-depth examination of Parental Alienation Syndrome, its recognition in legal contexts, and the challenges it presents in family court proceedings (Greek Version).
• Genetic Testing as a Tool in Cyprus Family Courts for Paternity Verification: An analysis of the use of genetic testing in Cyprus Family Courts, discussing legal implications, ethical considerations, and procedural aspects in paternity cases.
• Blood Relatives, Surviving Spouse Rights, and the feature of Hotchpot: A comprehensive look at the rights of blood relatives and surviving spouses in inheritance law, exploring the concept of contribution in estate distribution.
• Ιmplementing Surrogacy in the Republic of Cyprus: A critical analysis of surrogacy laws in Cyprus, discussing ethical considerations, legal challenges, and the future of assisted reproduction in the country.