Justice has recently been at the center of interest, due to the involvement of names of judges in cases under consideration. But how correct is the criticism received by the judges? Has corruption entered the field of Justice? What is the influence of Social Media on shaping public opinion?
The President of the Supreme Constitutional Court, Mr. Antonis R. Liatsos, did not mince his words about what is written in the Social Media. In his interview with "F", he emphasizes that he is bothered by the horizontal attribution of responsibilities and especially by verbal cannibalism. He answers if there are issues of corruption of judges and sent the warning of severe punishments for anyone who is proven with testimonies. Mr. Liatsos emphasizes that the biggest wound of Justice is delays, while acknowledging that the pathologies of 10 years in terms of its effective operation have affected the trust of citizens.
References to judges and their involvement in serious acts have been increasing recently. In the conclusion of the Anti-Corruption Authority, as in the case of Santi, judges are mentioned. How do you comment on these phenomena?
– Justice is once again at the center of the interest of our fellow citizens. Justifiably, due to recent events, the position it holds in the democratic regime and the responsibility it bears to control the work and decisions of other state functions. In particular, the Supreme Constitutional Court, by constitutional imperative, shoulders the burden of the proper functioning of the State, absorbing all crises arising from conflicts between any organs or authorities of the Republic.
First of all, it should be noted that we are not dealing with a multitude of petitions, but with two completely dissimilar cases, for which proceedings of different nature and extensions are underway. Therefore, under the circumstances, any reference, even more so of the President of the Supreme Constitutional Court, should be simple, with respect to the pending procedures and of course to the presumption of innocence.
I assure you, however, that in my 35 years of service as a Judge, I have never become aware of corruption in the judiciary. In addition, as I have repeatedly had the opportunity to emphasize, everyone is equal before the Law and no one is immune. For anyone who is proven, before a competent court and in accordance with the law, guilty, to suffer the consequences. Severe punishments. Especially in cases where the credibility of the state's institutions is at stake.
Where is all this nuisance from Social Media attributed to Justice and disdain for institutions and what bothers the most?
– Social Media is a phenomenon of our time that needs special study and discussion. They now shape public opinion and, by extension, it is easy to understand that they are the main forum for expressing opinions and criticism.
However, the opinion and the final judgment presuppose knowledge of the facts and all the components that cover the subject of any discussion. I am sorry to observe that for various reasons, which I do not need to elaborate, with the use of stereotypical phrases, extreme, aphoristic, discourse and excessive simplification, without any knowledge or in the best case, with a limited perception of the whole network of critical elements, the view turns into toxicity and cannibalism and leads to dangerous paths of depreciation of the functions of the state.
People's courts are being set up, decent people are being stigmatised and, by extension, the State Institutions they represent are being demolished.
I am bothered by the horizontal attribution of responsibilities and, by extension, the deconstruction of honest and conscientious persons, wherever they serve. Even more, character assassination, which is a direct violation of their individual rights. Rights that are at the core of our Constitutional culture.
I call on our fellow citizens to always keep in mind that individual rights concern all of us. And none of us knows for whom the bell of populism and verbal cannibalism will ring next time.
I recognize, in order to avoid misunderstandings, our own responsibility and that decades of pathologies in terms of the smooth and effective functioning of Justice – a complex, multifactorial issue – have justifiably affected the trust of our fellow citizens in the institution of Justice.
However, it is good to appreciate what we have and try to improve it with consensus and sobriety, identifying weaknesses and taking, in time, measures to correct them. Good-faith, even harsh, criticism contributes to this, as perfectly legitimate.
What corrective actions need to be taken so that public trust in the institutions returns and Justice remains at the highest level?
– The Rule of Law is expressed through Justice. The shaking of its credibility erodes its institutional role as guardian of citizens' rights, but also of the smooth functioning of the State.
With the issue of questioning real, first we, the Judges themselves, as direct bodies of the State, must identify the reasons and, without fear and prejudice, recognize our own responsibilities, looking for ways to improve. In recent years, much has been done to strengthen the effective functioning of the judicial system.
I mention, briefly, the reform breakthroughs, which aimed at solving the problem of delays, the specialization and mutual control of the Judges. New Regulations were adopted to assist the procedures and the Judicial Service was fully harmonized with all the recommendations of GRECO. The above has enhanced transparency, ensured a fair trial to the highest degree and is already producing results in terms of reducing delays in the adjudication of cases.
There is further room for improvement. Either in terms of targeted amendments to Procedural Regulations, or more efficient use of judicial time, or more effective supervision, training and guidance of first-instance Judges.
In addition, it should be ensured, with constant control, that the very behaviour of the Judges corresponds to the highest levels and that their speech is distinguished by ethics and decency. Because the Judge does not simply apply the Law, he forms values and determines a measure of behaviour. Elements that reflect the image of Justice and translate into indicators of public trust.
– The Rule of Law is expressed through Justice. The shaking of its credibility erodes its institutional role as guardian of citizens' rights, but also of the smooth functioning of the State.
With the issue of questioning real, first we, the Judges themselves, as direct bodies of the State, must identify the reasons and, without fear and prejudice, recognize our own responsibilities, looking for ways to improve. In recent years, much has been done to strengthen the effective functioning of the judicial system.
I mention, briefly, the reform breakthroughs, which aimed at solving the problem of delays, the specialization and mutual control of the Judges. New Regulations were adopted to assist the procedures and the Judicial Service was fully harmonized with all the recommendations of GRECO. The above has enhanced transparency, ensured a fair trial to the highest degree and is already producing results in terms of reducing delays in the adjudication of cases.
There is further room for improvement. Either in terms of targeted amendments to Procedural Regulations, or more efficient use of judicial time, or more effective supervision, training and guidance of first-instance Judges.
In addition, it should be ensured, with constant control, that the very behaviour of the Judges corresponds to the highest levels and that their speech is distinguished by ethics and decency. Because the Judge does not simply apply the Law, he forms values and determines a measure of behaviour. Elements that reflect the image of Justice and translate into indicators of public trust.
There is an opinion in the legal world that with the reform of the Judiciary, a large number of judges were hired in a short period of time, with the result that the level is not as expected. How do you comment on this?
– It is a fact that the reform of the Judiciary has had the inevitable result not only of the recruitment of many new Judges in a short period of time, but also of the rapid advancement of a large number of serving Judges. An element that did not help in their necessary maturation in the judicial seat. However, this was inevitable, given the establishment of appellate jurisdiction and the significant number of Judges appointed as Judges of Appeal.
As President of the then unified Supreme Court, during the period of the reforms, I had the opportunity to point out the dangers that really lurked from this event. The rapid advancement of the Judges required a special effort on their part to meet the duties of their position. It also entails a responsibility for their continuous guidance and strict supervision by the Supreme Judicial Bodies.
I agree with the position that more effort should be made by everyone in order to reduce the disadvantages of many recruitments and rapid advancement. Other ways should also be considered, as was the case in other countries that faced the same problem, in order to give the opportunity to operate the justice system, without additional, rapid, developments. The guiding principle and main issue should be the public interest of Justice and our country.
– It is a fact that the reform of the Judiciary has had the inevitable result not only of the recruitment of many new Judges in a short period of time, but also of the rapid advancement of a large number of serving Judges. An element that did not help in their necessary maturation in the judicial seat. However, this was inevitable, given the establishment of appellate jurisdiction and the significant number of Judges appointed as Judges of Appeal.
As President of the then unified Supreme Court, during the period of the reforms, I had the opportunity to point out the dangers that really lurked from this event. The rapid advancement of the Judges required a special effort on their part to meet the duties of their position. It also entails a responsibility for their continuous guidance and strict supervision by the Supreme Judicial Bodies.
I agree with the position that more effort should be made by everyone in order to reduce the disadvantages of many recruitments and rapid advancement. Other ways should also be considered, as was the case in other countries that faced the same problem, in order to give the opportunity to operate the justice system, without additional, rapid, developments. The guiding principle and main issue should be the public interest of Justice and our country.
Delays are the biggest wound of Justice. Could the situation improve if decisions were issued more quickly and decisions were not overturned so frequently?
– Delays in the trial of cases are the biggest wound in the body of justice. It is in this area that most of the judgments of the ECtHR, condemning our country, are directed. Part of the responsibility also lies with the Judges. There is room for improvement in terms of an important factor related to the effective management of cases and the maximum use of judicial time.
In addition, in terms of strict compliance with the Regulations and the prevention of unjustified delays and abuse of the procedure, safeguarding the rights of the parties to a fair trial throughout the process. In this direction, as this is our institutional responsibility, we supervise and guide our younger colleagues and the Courts of first and second instance in general.
To clarify, the problem is not found in the timely issuance of decisions, which is the final stage of the process, but in the entire previous course of the trial of the case and this is where we must turn our attention, to the effort to identify the factors that affect the delay. After all, as provided by the relevant Regulation, the issuance of decisions, as a rule, takes place within a specific time. At the latest within six months of the reservation of a final decision or two months in relation to interim decisions.
However, the State also bears a large share of responsibility, over time. There are huge shortcomings, logistical, infrastructure and human resources, supporting the work of the Judges. This is easily documented through the regular reports of all European Institutions, the most recent being the 2026 Rule of Law Report of the European Commission.
In these reports, special emphasis is placed on the fact that our country ranks last in the percentage of financial benefits to the judiciary and it is underlined that the adequacy of human resources and the existence of appropriate administrative and technical structures are a basic condition for the effective operation of the courts.
As for your question regarding the overturning of first-instance decisions – noting that there is no overturning of decisions to a greater extent than in other countries – this is a global phenomenon. After all, this is also the reason for the existence of secondary and, in some cases, tertiary jurisdiction. That is, to intervene, where an error is found.
My answer would not be complete if I did not refer to a factor that I consider decisive in terms of the issue of consolidating citizens' trust in the justice system. Their responsible information on the procedures, the way the courts operate and the explanation in simple language of court decisions, especially those that for obvious reasons are of interest and concern to Society.
In this regard, the Supreme Constitutional Court has and makes the most of its own Social Media. Not only judgments delivered but also, in special cases, documents registered are published immediately for direct public access.
Furthermore, details are posted as to the time of the definition of the cases before him and a summary of the substance of his decisions is issued, at regular intervals, in a simple, understandable language for the citizen. In addition, speeches are made to students and pupils about the work of the court and its jurisdiction, but also the general public is informed through publications, such as today's conversation.
Courts Administration is necessary
Where is the issue with the Administration of the Courts, so that the judges do not act as directors?
– It is a key breakthrough. The creation of an Administration of the Courts will contribute to the decongestion of the work of the Judges and their focus on their judicial duties alone. It is for this reason, but also for reasons of specialized assistance, that it was deemed necessary to set up this separate structure.
The whole effort is underway and within this framework the views and concerns of the judicial officers should be taken into account, whose work and duties will be different. An important aspect is also the establishment of the necessary legislative and regulatory framework, as well as the necessary contribution of the State to support the project.
In light of the above, one can easily see that various factors are influencing and the whole process of completing the project is complex and time-consuming. I hope that all parties involved, realizing the value of creating an Administration of the Courts, will act at a faster pace.
– It is a key breakthrough. The creation of an Administration of the Courts will contribute to the decongestion of the work of the Judges and their focus on their judicial duties alone. It is for this reason, but also for reasons of specialized assistance, that it was deemed necessary to set up this separate structure.
The whole effort is underway and within this framework the views and concerns of the judicial officers should be taken into account, whose work and duties will be different. An important aspect is also the establishment of the necessary legislative and regulatory framework, as well as the necessary contribution of the State to support the project.
In light of the above, one can easily see that various factors are influencing and the whole process of completing the project is complex and time-consuming. I hope that all parties involved, realizing the value of creating an Administration of the Courts, will act at a faster pace.
Higher standards of behaviour. Have the procedures for the disciplinary of judges changed after the judicial reform?
– The Procedural Regulation on the Exercise of Disciplinary Power was adopted in order for the Republic of Cyprus to comply with what was ruled by the ECtHR in the Kammenos judgment of 2018. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, deeming as satisfactory the actions of our State to comply with the above decision, terminated any further examination on the matter.
Therefore, the disciplinary Regulation, fully harmonized with European standards and with the institutional guarantees of fair disciplinary proceedings, based on Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Articles 12 and 30 of the Constitution of the Republic of Cyprus, constitutes a safe framework for disciplinary control of Judges. Incidentally, the judgment of the Supreme Constitutional Judicial Council in its very recent decision in Objection No. 1/26, dated 30/7/2026.
It is important to note that the procedural and substantive rights of the disciplinary Judges are fully safeguarded. Not only at all stages of the proceedings, but also after the decision has been issued, where the Judge in question has the right to challenge it before, as appropriate, either the Supreme Constitutional Council of the Judiciary or the Supreme Council of the Judiciary.
The legal world also plays an important role in consolidating public trust in Justice, but also in supporting it, as a key pillar of Democracy. Especially in the context of criticism of the decisions issued by the courts. It is expected to avoid sloganeering and derogatory expressions.
Scientific documentation is imperative, with decent speech and with reference to both the facts and the legal aspect of the issue of interest. Good-faith criticism, no matter how harsh it may be, is particularly helpful to the work of the court and contributes greatly to informing the public about the correct dimensions of decisions of particular interest.
