The Cyprus Association of Condominium Managers (SYDIKOIK) has issued an urgent plea to the Parliamentary Committee on Interior Affairs to bring forward and pass legislation governing the management of jointly owned buildings.
Despite being informed that a follow-up meeting would take place in Parliament in January to advance the matter, no such meeting has occurred – and no explanation has been given for the delay.
Speaking at a press conference on Friday, SYDIKOIK spokesperson Vassilis Artemiou stressed that the association’s primary goal is to improve the quality of life for residents living in jointly owned buildings. A key issue, he explained, is the need to modernise outdated legislation, which currently causes numerous problems.
He noted that the association has already made extensive efforts, including meetings at Parliament, and recently sent a letter to all members and the chairperson of the Parliamentary Committee on Interior Affairs. “It is deeply disappointing,” he said, “that we have yet to receive a single response from anyone.”
Mounting pressure for jointly owned buildings reform
Artemiou explained that this press conference was necessary to increase public pressure for legislative reform. “This is a pressing issue,” he stated, “that affects thousands of people living in shared buildings. We need modern, effective legislation to solve the serious problems they face.”
SYDIKOIK President Christos Kyzis highlighted that the lack of a comprehensive and modern legal framework has become a long-standing issue. “Procrastination and indifference have left property managers and owners without the tools they need to operate with transparency, safety, and fairness,” he said.
“The absence of clear regulations creates chaos—and it’s the citizens who pay the price every day. As an association, we’ve done everything within our means.”
A public appeal to parliament
Kyzis went on to issue a public call to the President and members of the Parliamentary Committee on Interior Affairs to immediately set a date for discussing the proposed legislation. He urged Parliament to explain the reasons behind this “unacceptable delay” and called on political parties to take a clear stance on whether or not they support regulating such a serious social matter.
He also suggested that, if the state or local authorities are unwilling or unable to take responsibility, it may be time to revisit the 2019 legislative proposal to establish an independent council for jointly owned buildings. This autonomous body, he said, would be capable of overseeing, enforcing, and offering fair resolutions – free from political influence and delays.
“Silence and inaction are no longer acceptable,” Kyzis declared. “We are ready to engage in dialogue, ready to present evidence, but we are not prepared to continue living in a country where buildings grow taller while responsibility shrinks. Society cannot wait any longer – we are here to represent it.”
A jointly owned buildings bill left in limbo
Asked when the bill was last discussed in Parliament, SYDIKOIK Secretary Anna Papa confirmed that the final discussion took place in November 2024. “We were told there would be a follow-up meeting in January 2025 to move the bill closer to a vote. Unfortunately, that meeting never happened—despite our repeated efforts via letters and enquiries to find out why,” she said.
Papa explained that the proposed bill addresses many gaps and clarifies numerous legal ambiguities. One key issue it seeks to resolve is the widespread problem of unpaid communal fees. “This is the legislation we are asking to see passed – finally – so we can move forward,” she added.
Impact of local government reform
Asked whether the recent local government reform and the transfer of responsibilities to the new District Self-Governance Organisations (EOAs) affects this issue, Papa confirmed it does.
She recounted that during the November meeting in Parliament, officials indicated that further discussion would follow in January after final comments, primarily from the Land Registry, were made. “This never happened,” she reiterated. “We still don’t know the reasons for the delay or who is responsible.”
Overwhelmed authorities and an alternative proposal
Artemiou added that under current legislation, the Land Registry is responsible for managing jointly owned building committees, a responsibility it has consistently refused for years. The new bill would transfer that duty to the EOAs.
However, he expressed concern that EOAs are already burdened with numerous responsibilities and may be unwilling, or unable, to take on the management of some 30,000 – 40,000 jointly owned buildings. “There is already a 2019 bill that proposes the creation of an independent council solely responsible for oversight, record-keeping, and conflict resolution,” he explained.
He argued that if the EOAs are reluctant to take on this challenge, then reviving the 2019 proposal might be the most viable solution. “This independent body,” he added, “should potentially include state participation and have the authority to issue decisions and enforce measures – though that’s something that must be debated in Parliament.”
(Translated from the Greek article in Stockwatch)
Nigel
I would suggest in general non payers who deliberately live in the property are few. A lot have left, dumped the keys back with banks because of with the Swiss Franc issue or for personal reasons and returned home, overseas or back to local families.
A significant number of units are mortgaged with the mortgage registered as a first charge against the title deed. So in truth, given the mortgage, plus unpaid interest, costs and charges, there is no way a community could enforce any court decision and likley there will be no positive equity in the property, if there was at best would best minimum and court fee award don’t match lawyers fees as a lot of unregulated work is done not covered by the bar standard fees,
Banks are in no rush especially on primary residence (and the volume to write down is not small) so with a primary legal registered charge, what under any changes to the law could a community do? If eventually sent to auction, communities will get nothing, if sold by agreement, the banks will simply say to a community, cancel your claim to fees and at least once its sold you start to get monthly fees from a new owner. Thoughts?
David
Firstly, in June 2018 the Cyprus Bar Association was forced to abandon its Minimum Fee Regulations following a successful complaint to the European Commission.
the law I’m talking about in the article is the law that’s been heralded as replacing the The Immovable Property (Tenure, Registration and Valuation) (Amendment) Law of 1993. One of the amendments (allegedly) will make it easier for Management Committees to collect money from owners who refuse to pay their communal fees.
I don’t know what the law will do to improve the situation, maybe Management Committees can get court orders enabling bailiffs to seize assets of non-paying owners?
All very intriguing, but unfortunately the lengthy article fails to mention exactly what all the ‘pressing problems’ and the ‘serious social issues’ are for multi-tenanted/multi-owned residences!! Nigel, are you able to enlighten us please?
The pressing problems are the difficulties in getting those who fail to pay their contribution to communal fees to pay. These debtors can be taken to court, but it’s more likely that a charge will be placed against their property, which will only be paid when the property is sold.
This has a knock on effect as others in the jointly owned building have to make up the shortfall. These owners will refuse to pay the debt and, as a consequence, often refuse to pay their communal fees as well – “Why should I pay when someone else is not paying?”. Such a move will have a domino effect until no-one pays, the management committee resigns and the jointly-owned building falls into disrepair.
Ah! The perennial ‘can’t pay, won’t pay’ problem created by some awkward tight-wad residents!! Why on earth didn’t SYDIKOIK say so?!!
I was once secretary of the owners’ committee of three adjacent blocks in Cyprus totalling some 50 apartments where non-payment of community charges was a constant problem. Using such tactics as charges against the property unless and until community charge debts had been cleared, we managed to get it up to over 80% compliance. The largest group of non-compliant owners were absentees living in London. Typical excuses included: it’s on the market so I’ll soon be gone, I live on the ground floor so why should I be charged for lift maintenance, power and lighting? I can’t swim so why should I be charged for pool maintenance? I don’t drive so why should I contribute to car park maintenance and lighting? I’ve only got a 1-bed so why should I be charged the same as a 3-bed? Of course, such excuses are twaddle.
We even resorted to turning up unannounced at absentee owners’ front doors in North London to ‘remind’ them of their outstanding debts. Their shocked faces and spluttering excuses were just classic! Still, it cut the number of ‘out of sight, out of mind, forgetfuls’ by half.
Certainly, tighter statutory duties are needed to rein in the ‘what can I get away with?’ non-payers.