The Cyprus Police Association (CPA) on Friday confirmed it had filed a request with the Supreme Court seeking a review of the new police reform, but the court ruled the matter does not fall under its jurisdiction.

“Instead of filing an appeal before the Administrative Court, we chose a procedure which, by its nature, is more time-consuming: to appeal to the Supreme Court for the issuance of preferential writs, as a legal remedy that would bring a more immediate result,” the CPA said.

The association, which is affiliated with the Pasydy union, said it sought a swift resolution and therefore requested the Supreme Court issue writs of mandamus, certiorari and prohibition in response to plans announced by police chief Themistos Arnaoutis at the end of last year.

A mandamus compels a public authority to act where it has failed to do so. A certiorari annuls a decision on the grounds of legal error but does not require new action to be taken. A prohibition order prevents a public authority from proceeding with a specific action.

Such writs allow the court to exercise extraordinary powers to ensure administrative decisions are lawful.

CPA president Angelos Nikolaou told the Cyprus Mail the association had sought the three writs following legal advice.

“The court, however, said the matter does not fall under its jurisdiction,” he said.

After the request was submitted on Thursday, the Supreme Court convened to examine the issue with the association’s legal counsel.

“In accordance with what has been put before the court and taking into account that not all members of Sak and Pasydy are de facto affected and since no relevant judicial precedent has been identified, since this is a matter that has not been judged by a court to date, the court ruled that the requested measures may have to be examined by the Administrative Court, on the basis of Article 146.6 of the constitution,” the Supreme Court said after the meeting.

The CPA said it would decide in the coming days whether to appeal the decision or seek interim measures, with its legal advisers currently studying the ruling.

“We will have a discussion with our members and see how to proceed,” Nikolaou said.

Addressing members, the association reiterated its commitment to “safeguard and defend our rights” and said it would continue to resort to the courts using special legal remedies.

The CPA has repeatedly voiced strong objections to Arnaoutis’ reform plans, describing them as an “unprecedented and one-off action within the Cyprus police”.

Arnaoutis’ proposal to introduce new police working hours was met with strong backlash from unions Isotita and the CPA after it was made public in December 2025.

In January, Isotita filed a request with the Administrative Court seeking the annulment of the amendments.

The unions argue that the reforms alter daily working schedules and significantly reduce officers’ rest days.

Describing the plans as a “violent intensification of work”, Isotita said the amendments amounted to “a dismantling of decades of achievements” and ignored the provisions of the police law, under which terms of service, duty hours and days off are regulated exclusively by the Council of Ministers.

Isotita has also described Arnaoutis’ decision as a “direct, blatant and premeditated attack on the core of the rule of law, on the hierarchy of rules and on the fundamental labour rights of police officers”.

In late January, Isotita and the CPA staged a protest outside parliament while the House legal affairs committee discussed the reform in Arnaoutis’ presence.

“The law on the police has been violated,” said Nikos Loizides, head of Isotita’s police branch, speaking outside the House of Representatives.

Around 100 demonstrators had gathered outside the House of Representatives, holding banners reading “Respect those who protect you” and “No more cuts on the backs of police officers.”

“They changed our pay scales, they cut our rest days. They altered our working conditions in a single day without consultation, arbitrarily. They entered our homes, entered our pockets and took our money without asking us,” Loizides said.

He called for immediate adjustments to the reform, noting that Isotita had already taken legal action under Article 19 of the police law governing working conditions.

Arnaoutis, speaking before the relevant House committee, rejected claims that the reform was a unilateral decision.

“The harmonisation of police working hours with those of the civil service is not a sudden or unilateral initiative. On the contrary, it has long been a request of police officers and their union representatives,” he said.

Arnaoutis highlighted that the decision to reduce police working hours from 40 to 37.5 hours had been approved in the context of broader reorganisation and modernisation efforts by the Council of Ministers in May 2019.

He stressed that the decision was made on the condition that operational requirements would be assessed throughout the implementation and underscored that the decision had been ratified by the House soon after, in December 2019, though had never been fully executed under the previous police leadership.

He asserted that the contested measures were formulated subsequent to an independent expert investigation, which had meticulously evaluated the police’s human resources, operational performance and staff welfare concerns, considering a “rational management of resources”.

“The conclusions were clear: adapting working hours to modern conditions is a necessary prerequisite for a modern, effective and humane police force,” he said.

He reiterated that the amendments aim to modernise the force, improve efficiency and enable the police to respond to current challenges without being constrained by outdated practices.