In a landmark ruling on Wednesday, the Supreme Constitutional Court has struck down the country’s 2024 copyright management law in its entirety, declaring it unconstitutional.

The unanimous judgement found that the legislation, passed last July by the House, violated three key articles of the constitution, articles 23, 26 and 179.1, which protect property rights, freedom of contract and the supremacy of the constitution, respectively.

The now-annulled law was aimed at overhauling the collective management of copyright and related rights. It included provisions for the collection of royalties by collective management organisations and for state oversight by the Intellectual property authority.

However, President Nikos Christodoulides had referred the law back to Parliament shortly after its passage, raising concerns that it breached both the EU charter of fundamental rights and the principle of separation of powers. The Supreme Constitutional Court has now confirmed those concerns.

The ruling has already been officially submitted to both the president and the House, in accordance with article 140.2 of the constitution.

The court’s decision went beyond procedural issues. In a detailed explanation, it reaffirmed the nature of intellectual property rights as fundamentally personal and absolute.

“These rights refer to intangible assets born out of creative or intellectual effort,” the judgement states. This includes a wide array of works, from music and films to databases and unpublished manuscripts.

According to the court, the right of the creator is both erga omnes (applicable against all) and exclusive. No one may use or profit from the work without the creator’s explicit consent, unless otherwise provided by law or contract.

If the creator’s rights are infringed, they are entitled not only to damages but also to seek a court order to stop unauthorised use, under article 13 of the 1976 law. The ruling also stressed that the right is broad in scope, covering both economic and personal control over a work, with few exceptions.

Alongside primary copyright, the court examined so-called ‘related rights’, which apply not to the original work itself but to performances and other creative contributions, such as an actor’s delivery or a producer’s financial investment. These rights, while protected, are not as far-reaching as copyright. They are clearly defined and limited by law.