Cyprus: Amendments to the Immovable Property Law

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Garden, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Cyprus: Amendments to the Immovable Property Law

kokoni.jpg

Zoe Kokoni

Article 51A of the Immovable Property Legislation (Tenure, Registration and Valuation) (Amendment) Law, 1960 (N. A3/1960) has been amended to include Section 3, according to which the director of Department of Land and Surveys, upon the request of a credit institution, shall provide immediately any information related to immovable property, registered under the name of a physical or legal person. However, the credit institution must first acquire a license from the Department of Land and Survey to be able to request information from the Land Registry. The credit institution must state in its application the reason(s) under which they have the right to receive this information and that renders them an interested party. At the same time it must inform in writing the relevant person, for whom the information is requested, stating also the reasons.

Upon receipt of the application, the director must provide the information to the credit institution without the obligation of completing any prior examination of the reasons submitted. Later on, upon regular sample controls, the director can request supporting evidence from the credit institution in relation to the reasons of that request and of rendering them an interested party and a copy of the letter sent to the person by the credit institution regarding that request. The credit institution is obliged to provide the evidence to the director within one month from the date of the director's request.

The relevant person, for whom the information was requested, has the right to file a written application to the director requesting the examination of the validity of the reasons provided by the credit institution. In such a case, the director must inform the person in writing of his findings and his decision as to whether the credit institution had a valid reason and was eligible to receive them.

In case where the credit institution fails to provide the director with supporting evidence within the specified deadline, the director may seize their license to receive such information for up to two years and/or impose an administrative penalty not exceeding €250,000 ($341,000). The same repercussions will arise in the case where it is found that the reasons provided by the credit institution for requesting the information were not valid.

Zoe Kokoni (zoe.kokoni@eurofast.eu)

Eurofast Taxand, Cyprus

Tel: +357 22 699 222

Website: www.eurofast.eu

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

A lack of commitment from major jurisdictions and the associated compliance burden are obstacles facing the OECD initiative
Richard Gregg is no longer fit and proper to be a tax agent, said the TPB; in other news, MHA completed its acquisition of Baker Tilly South-East Europe
Recent Indian case law emphasises the importance of economic substance over mere legal form in evaluating tax implications, say authors from Khaitan & Co
PepsiCo was represented by PwC, while the ATO was advised by MinterEllison, an Australian-headquartered law firm
Three tax experts dissect the impact of a 30% tariff that has shaken up trade relations between South Africa and the US
Awards
ITR is delighted to reveal all the shortlisted nominees for the 2025 Americas Tax Awards
As we move into an era of ‘substance over form’, determining the fundamental nature of a particular instrument is key when evaluating the tax implications of selling hybrid securities
It stands in stark contrast to a mere 1% increase in firmwide revenue since last year
It follows a court case concerning a Freedom of Information request lodged by the founder of a software company
After years of deafening silence, the UK tax authority is taking overdue action against corporates that fail to prevent the facilitation of tax evasion
Gift this article