Indicator history

 Revision of discriminatory laws: The duty to ensure that discriminatory laws and provision have been explicitly repealed (as required by the Employment Equality Directive, Article 16 and the Racial Equality Directive, Article 14) has not been fully complied with. No review of the existing laws was made to ensure compliance with the Directives. Practice suggests that the process of formal repeal of older laws which do not comply with the Directives is somehow ‘triggered off’ only after a complaint is submitted to the equality body. There is no procedure for continuous reviewing of existing legislation for the purpose of assessing compatibility with the anti-discrimination directives. The equality body has the right to refer laws, regulations and practices containing discriminatory provisions to the Attorney General, who has an obligation to advise the competent Minister or the Council of Ministers of measures to be taken and prepare the corresponding law (The Combating of Racial and Some Other Forms of Discrimination (Commissioner) Law N. 42(1)/ 2004, articles 39(1) and 39(3) respectively). However, not all the recommendations of the equality body were taken up by the Attorney General, as a result of which the discriminatory law/ regulation/ practice remains in force (until expressly repealed by law) in contravention of article 16 of the Employment Equality Directive and of article 14 of the Racial Equality Directive. In its annual report for the years 2007-2008, the equality authority (one of the two bodies comprising the equality body, which deals with matters in the employment field) expressed concern over the ineffective operation of article 39 of the Combating of Racial and Other Forms of Discrimination (Commissioner) Law, which sets the procedure for revising discriminatory provisions in laws and regulations. The report notes that very often its proposals are viewed with suspicion by the executive and do not lead to any correction of the law.

Implementing the anti-discrimination laws and devoting resources to the Equality Body: The Third Opinion on Cyprus of the Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities issued in 2010 states that in view of the growing number of discrimination complaints, awareness-raising efforts should be intensified and the institutional framework for combating discrimination needs to be strengthened, whilst the competent authorities must be provided with more adequate resources. Since its inception in 2004, the equality body has been greatly understaffed and under-funded by the government. In his 2006 report (dated 29.03.2006), the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe Mr. Alvaro Gil-Robles expresses his regret for the fact that the necessary increase in funding to deal with the extra work-load has not been provided to the Ombudsman and recommends that greater resources be devoted to this office to enable it to deal effectively with its new competencies.  Similarly, in its third report on Cyprus dated 16.05.2006, ECRI also stresses the need for resources to be made available to the Ombudsman to enable her to respond to her tasks. During 2008 the mandate of the equality authority (one of the two bodies comprising the equality body) was extended by a new gender discrimination law. This has resulted in a shift in emphasis in favour of gender discrimination, manifested by the fact that in the years that followed this development, the percentage of gender discrimination cases submitted to and dealt with by the Equality Authority exceeds  50%. This extension of mandate was not accompanied by an increase in the members of staff and the report describes itself as “understaffed”. Under the new state of affairs, it is inevitable that the other grounds of discrimination will be given less attention than before.

The Fourth ECRI report on Cyprus published 31.05.2011  marks inter alia the following as ‘areas for concern’: The anti-racist and anti-discrimination legislative provisions are rarely applied; there is no record on court decisions regarding discrimination; the Equality Body/Ombudsman lacks sufficient human and financial resources, does not enjoy the freedom to appoint its own staff and is not well known to vulnerable groups.