I would like to congratulate the contributors of this remarkable project. Initially, the editors, for the conception of the idea, and for the demanding work of coordinating the authors, proofreading, editing and checking the texts. Each author separately, for the time dedicated at the expense of other obligations, for their artistry and perseverance. And Nomiki Bibliothiki, for the valuable contribution to legal science and their support to the Cypriot legal community.
I will say little about the book. We have reached the 2nd year since the new Civil Procedure Rules came into force, and I would like to share some thoughts regarding their application.
When the expert group led by Lord Dyson embarked on the project of producing a new set of Civil Procedure Rules for Cyprus, the Rules Committee had various discussions and meetings discussing policy issues. The main concern was to produce a set of rules that would actually work. Of the many points made by the expert group at the outset, I will stress two: the importance of adapting the rules to meet the challenges of local particularities; and the vanity in believing that these or any rules would work a miracle on their own.
Local particularities give rise to many serious challenges. Many of us Cypriot advocates have experienced problems in the justice system that are the result of parochial mindsets and attitudes. I will give a few examples of such problems, to illustrate the discomfort they cause and the futility they serve.
We became accustomed to putting any substantial effort to settle on the date of the hearing, usually at the courtyard. The dogmatic perception that prevailed, was that a case should reach a stage of “maturity” before settlement was possible. Meanwhile cooperation between opposing counsel was rare. In fact, it was often perceived as a sign of weakness. To make things worse, sometimes counsel pettiness was endorsed by courts with approval, or even reward.
The idea of affording time and resources to judges for preparation was almost dystopian. Lack of preparation came to be conceived as the norm. This completely ruled out the possibility of obtaining appropriate directions at an early stage, or scheduling a case. In most cases, the judge would briefly prepare in the morning before commencement of the hearing.
Hearing dates and other directions of the Court came to be treated as indicative, by both lawyers and judges. When hearing daters were reached, adjournment was the rule and trial the exception. Some judges even encouraged or coerced parties to ask for adjournments, in exchange of relief from inconvenience and uncertainty.
Eventually, hearings commenced without scheduling. After the first day, of which a significant part was often wasted in resolving trivial issues, that could and should have been addressed long time before, the trial continued on scattered, remote dates. It was not uncommon for several months to elapse between trial commencement and final submissions.
These are some instances showing how mindsets and attitudes have built up, resulting in the serious delays and other problems in our civil justice system. These were not caused by the outdated CPR. But the old CPR and the way it came to be applied gave ample room for such attitudes which, in turn, led to a gradual deterioration of civil justice.
The continuation of these mindsets will neutralize any prospect of success of the new rules, and the civil justice reform in general. Unfortunately, there are indications of such continuation, and immediate action in required. I can say from my practice that directions hearings, case management conferences and hearings, are still adjourned for trivial reasons. Meaningless appearances and filings continue to take place, deadlines are not met, bureaucracy afflicts lawyers and litigants, and tons of paper are needlessly destroyed. These issues must be addressed at present. If the same mindsets and attitudes become embedded in the application of the new CPR, it will be too late for improvement.
I mentioned earlier that the introduction of the new rules alone, will not work a miracle. For the effective application of the new rules and the improvement of the civil justice system, appropriate infrastructure, utilization of modern technology, investment in human resources and, perhaps above all, efficient court administration and organisation, are essential.
An illustrative example of the problems caused by the lack of efficient court administration is that it is extremely difficult to schedule hearings under the current system. Cases are set for hearing by judges; not court registries. But a case set for hearing by one judge, is shortly thereafter assigned to a different judge. Parties are not informed in time. It is often the case that the parties, and sometimes even the judge, are informed about the assignment just a few days before the hearing date. Meanwhile, each judge maintains his own diary, which is unlikely to be free on the date allocated for trial by the previous judge. As a result, most cases are still adjourned. The diligent advocate, who has prepared for the hearing, sees his preparation go wasted. The less diligent advocate is afforded with an easy way out of exposure for lack of preparation, by securing an adjournment.
Today, judges are assigned with new cases, under the new CPR, as well as older or backlog cases. This significantly compromises their ability to schedule new cases. Notably, the current provisions requiring management of backlog cases has probably increased the waste of costs, as well as the inconvenience to lawyers and litigants. Witness statements must be exchanged and bundles of documents submitted, while hearing dates remain uncertain. Most hearing are adjourned, without counsel and parties being informed in advance. This must change. Courts should not be setting hearing dates unless they know they can be met. Cases should be set for case management and given hearing dates when it is realistic to hold a trial, on consecutive days, with little room for adjournment. Otherwise, the resources required for dealing with backlog cases will increase for no good reason, also depriving resources from new cases.
There is difficulty in solving simple, daily, practical problems, in the operation of the Courts, such as in using communication technologies and software. Many such problems revolve around bureaucracy. They are multiplying and becoming chronic, while basic administration models could easily carve them out.
For example, there is no direct communication between courts and registries. Hence, the court registry is not automatically informed when a court order is issued. A party that has obtained a court order which requires some action to be taken by the registry, must place a request for the order to be typed, printed and sealed, before it can deliver the same to the office next door, so that the registry can perform what is mentioned in the order. This is a clear waste of time and expense.
Another example is that documents in word format cannot be uploaded to the court filing system (i-justice). Time is therefore wasted in re-typing parts of documents, often by the judges themselves, when they could have very easily been copy-pasted into judgments and orders. Outdated upload-volume restrictions also create unnecessary complication. They force litigants to upload documents in multiple files, making them difficult to access and reference.
These and many other problems are the result of lack of efficient court administration and organization. They can be easily overcome, to emancipate lawyers and judges, so that they can focus on the effective resolution of cases. The Court Service, which is to be introduced in the near future, will hopefully offer quick and efficient solutions to these problems.
There are also factors that make it difficult to apply procedure uniformly. One of them emanates from the fact that Cypriot advocates and judges do not complete vocational training. Most colleagues come from universities that do not include courses on procedure and skills in their compulsory syllabi. Many universities, at least at undergraduate level, do not teach drafting, advocacy, witness examination techniques, organization and presentation of testimony.
The advocacy training course of the Cyprus Bar Association covers some of these topics, but very superficially. Few colleagues develop these skills by self-education. But most resort to practical advocacy, copying and improvisation, resulting in the suis generis and ad hoc application of rules, often ignoring long-established precedent and fundamental principles of procedural law. The result of these and other factors is the lack of uniform application of the rules.
Another such factor is the distance between lawyers and judges. Rarely do the two groups participate in joint training activities. Some have the outdated perception that such participation is not appropriate for their distinct functions. I should note with optimism, however, that in 2024 we had had the first joint training day for lawyers and judges, in relation to the rules, which was successful. I hope many more will follow.
You will notice that I said very little about the rules. This is not because I see no problems in them. To the contrary, I believe that there is a lot of room for improvement, and that this should be an ongoing process. Be that as it may, I believe that the current rules offer a steadfast instrument for significant improvement in the civil justice system. But it is an instrument that cannot properly perform a complex composition on its own. Such performance presupposes the appropriate allocation of resources, adequate and continuous training, efficient court management and improved mindset and attitude.
I was given the opportunity to review and give some thoughts on previous drafts of the book. An enormous effort was put to produce a complete and easy-to-use handbook on the new Civil Procedure Rules. As anyone involved in research understands, commentary is not carved in stone. Nevertheless, the objective was achieved, and the publication of the book provides us with a reference point for discussion. The publication of this new book is a very important initiative, which allows us to be optimistic.I have no doubt that its circulation will help to implement the rules more effectively, which is the overriding objective in this effort. I wish that you soon run out of copies of the current edition, and for its success to trigger further study, research and writing.
The Standing Rules Committee, chaired by the honourable Judge Yiasemis, has the task of identifying problems in the implementation of the rules and proposing solutions. I must say that the cooperation within this committee is at a very high level. We may have different opinions at times, but we always discuss with respect to each other, strive for scientific positions, draw intelligence from different vocations and experiences, and share a common purpose, which is to improve the civil justice system. There is always room for betterment. However, as I mentioned earlier, the existing rules may not be perfect, but any problems directly associated with these rules are, in my opinion, only a small cause of the contemporaneous challenges in the civil justice system.
As to what can be done, we should keep reminding ourselves that the new rules were based on the following principles: a substantial effort is made to settle a case at an early stage; the case is scheduled immediately after closure of pleadings and any preliminary issues; realistic trial dates are given early on, which must be complied with save in extraordinary circumstances; counsel are expected to cooperate with each other for the smooth conduct of the proceedings; and the judge has increased powers and responsibility to adapt the procedure to the needs of any specific case. My view is that the key to the successful application of the new rules is to adhere to these principles with reverence.
To that end, individual effort is required from responsible players, including advocates, judgers, registrars and other professionals. Each should take the time to read and understand the importance of the new rules, and insist on their correct application. The motivation is to restore the prestige of our professions, which has been crumpled for decades.
Collective efforts are also needed. Civil justice is a complicated, polyphonic composition. Laws and regulations must remain in constant dialogue with society; to listen and respond to evolving problems; and to pre-empt new challenges. Bar associations and legal and judicial schools must provide continuous training, information and support to lawyers and judges.
Finally, as may be obvious from what I said earlier, I consider the modernisation of court administration to be the most decisive factor in improving civil justice. The Court Service should be constructed so that it can deal effectively with everyday problems of practice, allocate resources appropriately, emancipate judges from administrative and organizational duties, and utilize modern technology. It is the string section of the orchestra.
