Filenews 9 December 2025 - by Vassos Vassiliou
Five bus companies are claiming more than €59 million from taxpayers. which they consider to be owed by the state for the period 2010-2020, while the Department of Road Transport (TOM) overcharges those drivers who delay renewing the registration of their vehicle.
At the same time, the TOM audits are suffering, while in the sum of receipts only in one year between two systems used, a difference of €314,000 was observed.
The above situation, which is reminiscent of the saying "where I find you and wherever you find me", is recorded in the Report of the Audit Office with the Ministry of Transport and in particular the administration and the Department of Road Transport as audited bodies.
As indicated by the Auditor General, Mr. Andreas Papaconstantinou, five Contractors have filed lawsuits against the state, claiming additional amounts of more than €59 million, in addition to those they have already received, for financial disputes of the period 2010-2020. These differences arose due to disagreements regarding the method of calculation and the amount of the government contribution. The trial of the cases was still at an early stage on the date of completion of the audit of the Audit Office. As indicated, despite the fact that a significant period of time has elapsed since the expiration of the contracts of the decade 2010-2020, the TOM is still not in a position to quantify any total debt owed to the Contractors.
However, the Department, commenting on the findings of the Report, indicates that "in the event that any overpayments (to bus drivers) are demonstrated, the possibility of filing a lawsuit for the collection of debts will be studied together with the Legal Service".
Regarding the differences in the calculation of the revenues of the Department of Road Transport, the following are also recorded in the Report:
"At the end of the year, there are differences between the two systems in the annual total of receipts, calling into question the correctness of the receipts presented in the financial statements of the Republic of Cyprus. A comparison of the revenues presented in the two systems on 31.12.2023 resulted in a net difference totalling €314,925, with the total amount in revenue items in FIMAS being greater than the total revenue in TOMIS."
A typical case is the revenue from the issuance of marketing authorizations with the FIMAS system recording revenues of €74.8 million. and the TOMIS system to show revenues of €76 million.
Regarding the distribution of the total value of the Contracts, the distribution of state funds (contracts), by province, has recently been as follows:
Nicosia 34%, Limassol 23%, Larnaca 15%, Famagusta and Paphos 11% each, while long-distance routes covered 6%. Regarding the amounts of the above contracts signed with the various companies for the period 2020-2032 (as the case may be), the Nicosia contract concerns €175,643,155 million, the Larnaca contract €78,956,500, the Famagusta contract €59,675,040, the Limassol contract €123,066,983 and the Paphos contract €55,000,000.
The Auditor General also records the following observations:
-The Contracting Authority (TOM) does not evaluate the quality of the services provided and does not impose financial penalties, with the risk of loss of revenue (to bus companies)
-Non-imposition of penalties/payment errors
-There were delays or omissions in the imposition of contractual penalties for non-timely submission of data by the Contractors.
-The sample check showed errors in indicators and compensation calculations, leading to overpayments. Errors are not material as a percentage of the total amount of contracts, but indicate an inability to calculate debts accurately.
-In the management of the contracts, there was no adequate separation of roles, with the same person calculating and controlling the payments.
-In the case of a contract concerning Tylliria, the absence of provision for sanctions allowed significant delays in the submission of documents.
–Weaknesses in the internal control system
-The collection procedures in the District Offices of the TOM have gaps and non-compliance with the instructions of the General Accounting Office, increasing the risk for the completeness and legality of the collections.
-Incorrect calculation of charges
-The TOMIS Computer System (TOMIS) incorrectly calculates the charge for late payment of road tax, leading to over-indebtedness of citizens.
-Unsuccessful reconciliation of revenues.
The Ministry of Transport and the TOM imposed belatedly or did not impose at all the penalties provided by the contracts for the late submission of data by the Contractors, as provided for in the contracts, resulting in the loss of revenue and, possibly, the creation of the impression of a biased attitude in favour of or against certain Contractors.
During the administration of the contracts, the same person carried out the calculations of the payments, while at the same time he participated in the committee which carried out checks on these calculations and made recommendations to the management regarding the payments to the Contractors of the contracts. This resulted in an increased risk of undetected errors or omissions.
-The audit revealed weaknesses in the implementation of procedures and the operation of internal controls in relation to the conduct of collections in the District Offices (OP) of the TOM, as several of the relevant instructions of the General Accounting Office are not complied with or are complied with in fragments. Collectively, the weaknesses identified in the Report constitute gaps in the internal control system that raise doubts as to the completeness, correctness and legality of the TOM receipts incorporated in the financial statements of the Republic.
-It was found that the calculation of the charge by the TOMIS Computerized System (TOMIS) for late payment of road taxes is incorrect, resulting in over-indebtedness to vehicle owners. In particular, in all cases of late payment, the surcharge is calculated as a percentage of the annual fee, even in cases of renewal of the registration certificate for a shorter period (e.g. three or six months).
