Cyprus now has a limited mechanism that allows certain cases to reach the Supreme Court after an appeal has already been decided by the Court of Appeal. At first glance, this may look like a “third appeal”. In practice, it is narrower than that.

Article 9(3)(c) of Law 33/1964 does not create a general right to challenge any appellate decision. It creates a controlled jurisdiction, available only with leave, and only for specific legal issues arising from the Court of Appeal’s judgment itself. The case law shows that the Supreme Court approaches this jurisdiction strictly and will not allow it to become a disguised further appeal on the facts or on the correctness of the appellate outcome.

This guide explains the main principles in straightforward terms.

1. What is article 9(3)(c) designed to do?

The provision allows the Supreme Court to decide, in a third and final instance, legal issues arising from a decision of the Court of Appeal, but only if leave is granted first.

The courts have made clear that the jurisdiction exists to address issues of wider legal significance, such as:

• the need to revisit established case law;
• the need to interpret an important statutory provision correctly;
• a major issue of public interest or general public importance; or
• a problem of legal coherence where there are conflicting decisions.

As the Supreme Court put it, the provision is aimed at promoting consistency in the law or resolving issues that matter beyond the individual dispute. In Zutphen (Application No. 2/2023, 30 January 2024), the Supreme Court explained that the jurisdiction concerns legal issues arising from the Court of Appeal’s decision and examined through the specific filters set by the statute.

2. This is not a normal “third appeal”

This is the central point.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly stressed that, when exercising its powers under article 9(3)(c), it is not acting as an appellate court over the Court of Appeal in the ordinary sense. It is not there to ask whether the Court of Appeal was simply right or wrong. It is not there to rehear the appeal. And it is not there to correct every alleged error.

The case law is explicit on this. The Supreme Court has said that this jurisdiction does not concern an appeal against the Court of Appeal’s judgment, “much less a rehearing” of the appeal from the first-instance court. That same approach appears throughout the recent jurisprudence, including Kleovoulou (Application No. 6/2023, 3 June 2024) and Hassan Farhat (Application No. 27/2024, 19 November 2024).

3. Only legal issues qualify, not factual disputes

Another core principle is that the issue must be a pure legal issue.

The courts distinguish carefully between:

• a legal question; and
• a dispute about evidence, factual findings, or how the facts were assessed.

A legal issue exists where the law is to be applied to facts that are not in dispute. By contrast, where the complaint depends on contested facts, credibility, or the evaluation of evidence, the issue is generally not suitable for article 9(3)(c).

The Supreme Court has also made clear that the use of legal language does not change the true nature of the complaint. A party cannot convert a factual grievance into a legal issue simply by dressing it up in legal terminology.

This principle is reflected in the Court’s reliance on older authority regarding what counts as a “legal question”, including Attorney General v. Kyriacou (Legal Question No. 374, 31 May 2018), where the Court explained that a legal issue is a genuinely legal issue and not a mixed question of law and fact.

4. The legal issue must arise from the Court of Appeal’s judgment itself

The legal issue must arise from the Court of Appeal’s actual decision.

A party cannot use article 9(3)(c) to introduce, for the first time, a point that was never properly part of the appeal, or which did not form part of the Court of Appeal’s reasoning.

That does not mean the issue must always have appeared as a formal ground of appeal. The Supreme Court has clarified that a legal issue may still qualify even if it was not framed as a separate appeal ground, provided it truly emerges from the appellate judgment. But it cannot be a fresh point that never engaged the Court of Appeal at all.

5. The issue must also fit one of the statutory gateways

Even if the issue is genuinely legal and arises from the Court of Appeal’s judgment, that is not enough.

It must also fall within one of the limited categories listed in article 9(3)(c). In practical terms, the main gateways are these:

5.1 Need for the correct interpretation of legislation

This applies where the case raises a real question about the meaning of a statutory provision.

But not every complaint about “interpretation” will qualify. The courts have said that:

• the provision must be a substantive legislative provision;
• it must matter to the outcome of the case; and
• the issue must genuinely remain open.

If the legislation is clear, or if the point has already been settled by established case law, the Court is unlikely to find any “need for correct interpretation”.

At the same time, the applicant does not need to prove at the leave stage that the Court of Appeal’s interpretation was wrong. The question is whether the point remains open enough to justify examination by the Supreme Court.

5.2 Departure from established case law

This category is narrower than many litigants assume.

It is not enough to say that the Court of Appeal failed to follow case law properly. If the complaint is simply that the Court of Appeal misapplied settled authority, that usually means the appellate decision may be wrong, but it does not create a legal issue about “departure from established case law” for article 9(3)(c) purposes.

The Supreme Court has explained that this category is engaged where the Court of Appeal applied the existing line of authority, but the applicant argues that the established line itself should now be reconsidered or changed.

That distinction is now well established in the case law, including M. Gavrielides (Application No. 2/2024, 11 November 2024) and Kantouna (Application No. 40/2024, 6 February 2025).

5.3 Major public interest or general public importance

A matter may qualify where it affects a broad class of people or has consequences extending beyond the immediate litigants. For example, a point affecting many mortgage debtors, or a recurring statutory issue in ongoing litigation, may potentially fall within this category.

But a dispute confined to the interpretation of a private document, will generally not qualify merely because the parties consider it important.

5.4 Coherence of the law

The applicant must identify the alleged conflicting authorities and explain precisely how the Court of Appeal’s decision departs from them. General statements about “certainty”, “clarity”, or “consistency” are not enough.

6. The application itself must be drafted with precision

The Supreme Court has repeatedly criticised poorly framed applications.

The application must identify the legal issues clearly and specifically. It must also explain fully why those issues satisfy article 9(3)(c). Under the Supreme Court’s procedural rules, the application must include a separate statement of legal issues, with separate reasoning for each one.

This is not a formality. The Court has stressed that the statement of legal issues becomes the document on which the later hearing is based if leave is granted. So the issue must be framed in a way that can actually be answered as a stand-alone legal question.

The Court has also said that the answer to the question should have broader utility. In other words, the point should be framed so that the Supreme Court’s answer does not resolve only the particular dispute, but also provides guidance for future cases where the same legal issue arises.

7. The Court will not usually rewrite the application for the applicant

A recurring theme in the case law is that it is not the Supreme Court’s role to search for a possible legal issue, reconstruct an argument, or reformulate vague complaints into an acceptable question.

There has been at least one instance where the Court was willing to narrow and reformulate an issue into an acceptable form, but that is the exception, not the rule. The safer view is that applicants must do the work themselves and do it properly.

8. Not every Court of Appeal decision can be challenged this way

The Supreme Court has held that article 9(3)(c) requires a prior civil or criminal appeal in the proper sense. A decision granting leave to file an appeal is not itself the kind of appellate decision that activates this jurisdiction.

Likewise, where the earlier second-instance decision was issued by the Supreme Court itself under transitional arrangements, rather than by the Court of Appeal as constituted under the current framework, article 9(3)(c) may not be engaged.

9. What does this mean in practice?

A successful application under article 9(3)(c) is likely to involve a question that looks something like this:

• it is genuinely legal;
• it emerges from the Court of Appeal’s reasoning;
• it matters to the case; and
• it is linked clearly and specifically to one of the statutory gateways.

10. Final takeaway

Article 9(3)(c) is an important but exceptional jurisdiction. It is not a routine third appeal. It is a mechanism for the resolution of legal issues of significance arising from judgments of the Court of Appeal.

For litigants and advisers alike, the practical lesson is clear: success under article 9(3)(c) depends less on how strongly one disagrees with the Court of Appeal, and more on whether one can isolate a true legal issue that justifies the Supreme Court’s intervention.

11. How we can help

Applications under article 9(3)(c) are highly technical and are approached strictly by the Supreme Court. Our team advises on whether a proposed issue is capable of engaging the Court’s third-level jurisdiction, how the issue should be framed, and the prospects of obtaining or resisting leave.