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 2026

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

Long-running, high-value and complex enquiries are a significant reason for HM Revenue and Customs’s increased TP yield, experts suggest
Landmark legal updates in India have led companies to prioritise specialised tax advisers over accountants, ITR has found
Brazil’s shift to a nationwide consumption tax is more than conceptual; it fundamentally transforms municipal revenue, enforcement, and administrative disputes
While some advisers praised the ruling’s definition of a ‘voucher’ for VAT purposes, a UK partner said the case left unanswered questions
While pillar two has been enacted on paper in Brazil, companies are encountering a range of practical compliance issues, ITR has heard
Moore, founding partner of the Chicago tax boutique which bears her name, shares her career wisdom for ITR’s new Women in Tax interview series
But partners at the firm admit that jumping ship to the US would not be as easy as some believe
Governments are rewriting tax policy for the AI era, deploying digital taxes, tailored incentives and algorithmic enforcement that redefine where value is created
Wingrove will succeed Bill Thomas, who has served in the role since 2017; in other news, Andersen unveiled a sharp increase in revenues for 2025
Partners are divided on Italy vs PDM D’s analytical depth, evidentiary standards, and what the judgment signals for future intra-group financing cases
Gift this article