Civil services are failing to adequately implement the code of practice on workplace harassment, creating “chaos” in victim protection, violating their rights and fostering a hostile environment, the House human rights committee said on Friday.

“There are four different mechanisms that a victim may need to turn to. This creates confusion, delays and ultimately discourages victims from proceeding,” committee chairwoman and Akel MP Irene Charalambides said.

She stressed that implementation of the code appeared to be particularly weak in cases where the accused were high-ranking government officials.

Charalambides appeared to refer to the sexual harrassment complaints filed against a senior education ministry official in May 2023, who was only removed from his post in September 2025. The civil service was accused of obstructing the sharing of information in the case, drawing widespread criticism over its handling of the complaint.

She said two complaints had been filed in the context of the case, adding that a third woman had refused to file due to fear.

Turning to the education ministry, she questioned whether the then director general, the investigating officer, or others involved had attempted to cover up the matter. She also demanded to know why the disciplinary measures had not been handed to the commissioner for administration, as required by law.

Cases involving a superior as the perpetrator, she said, are particularly stressful for victims, who face intense psychological pressure compounded by complex and contradictory complaint procedures.

“The process itself, even when the investigators are women, is a deterrent,” Charalambides said, calling for simpler procedures and better information for employees.

She added that recently, some ministry employees had decided not to proceed with complaints because of these obstacles.

Education Minister Athena Michaelidou responded that the accused official had been immediately removed from his duties “as soon as the complaint was made,” with a disciplinary investigation launched shortly after.

“Every step was taken based on opinions from the legal service,” Michaelidou said, adding that the service had not instructed the ministry to make the file available to the commissioner for administration – something she said should have happened only after the disciplinary procedure was completed.

However, legal service officer Zoe Kyriakidou strongly contradicted the minister’s claims, stressing that “there was a clear position from the Law Office of the Republic that the ministry was obliged to hand over the data to the ombudsman.”

“(…) A disciplinary process must be completed quickly so as not to violate the constitutional rights of the person against whom a complaint is pending. However, our instructions were clear that the information must be provided,” Kyriakidou emphasised.

Responding to the minister, Charalambides said the law was unambiguous and clearly required the forwarding of the requested data to the commissioner.

Independent MP Alexandra Attalidou revealed that after submitting a parliamentary question about the case in October 2024, she only received a “misleading” response from the education ministry in July 2025.

She added that victims were facing a “hostile environment” and “indirect threats,” which ultimately discouraged them from filing complaints.

“I was told that the disciplinary procedure had been completed and that no disciplinary offence had been established. However, a year later, I was informed that criminal prosecution was underway. Why were the complainants not protected? Why were the files not given to the Commission? Why was the code not followed?” she asked.

Education ministry director general George Pantelis said the ministry’s staff was familiar with the relevant procedures and equality committees.

“The disciplinary procedure was ongoing, which is why the information was not provided at the time,” he said.

Pantelis added that a legal service opinion filed on October 9 made it clear that once the procedure was completed, the file had to be handed over to the commissioner with appropriate personal data safeguards.

“There was no cover-up. The procedures of the disciplinary code were fully followed and the investigation has been completed. Meanwhile, the criminal proceedings are ongoing,” he said.

Pantelis admitted, however, that overlaps in responsibilities between committees and authorities handling harassment complaints were contributing to the confusion and stressed the need for better coordination.

The committee is now drafting recommendations for legislative changes to better protect victims of workplace harassment and facilitate the complaint process.

In September 2025, the Cyprus News Agency (CNA) conducted an investigation which revealed that sexual harassment complaints in the public sector were going unrecorded due to the lack of a unified data collection system.

Head of the department of public administration and personnel, Maria Kleanthous said that although an electronic complaints registration system had been planned, it was never completed due to contractual issues.

As a result, complaints are currently handled by several bodies — including the House human rights committee, the labour department, the ombudsman, or internally within ministries.

Data is systematically collected only for cases leading to disciplinary action and is held exclusively by the public service commission, which does not provide details on the offences.