The movement against foreclosures on Friday threatened to take the President Nikos Christodoulides’ veto of a law passed by parliament regulating the matter to the European court of justice, arguing that the law is fundamental to Cyprus’ adherence of European Union law regulating loans and mortgages.

The law had been jointly put to parliament by Akel and the Ecologists’ Movement, and stated that exercising a legal remedy, such as challenging the amount of the debt owned by a homeowner or invoking unfair terms in a mortgage agreement would lead to the suspension of the foreclosure process until a final decision was issued by a court.

Christodoulides’ view was that allowing this to happen would lead to mass delays, as borrowers would be able to overload courts and cite bogus claims, risking encouraging a culture of people not repaying loans and thus increasing the cost of taking out loans in the future and seeing restrictions placed on their issuing.

He rejected the law alongside four others, and while parliament accepted the four other rejections, it insisted on the law on unfair terms, with the case now set to be heard by the supreme constitutional court next month.

The activists argue that not passing the law would see Cyprus fall foul of the EU’s unfair terms in consumer contracts directive., about which the European Commission says that “contract terms are unfair and, therefore, not binding on consumers if, contrary to the requirements of good faith”.

In this regard, they state that in many cases, borrowers have been subject to malicious and abusive clauses, which have seen their repayment requirements rocket after taking out a mortgage – something which, they argue, should allow them to challenge the terms in court under the EU directive.

They also argue that in not allowing borrowers recourse against foreclosure decisions, the government would find itself in violation of Article 47 of the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union, which concerns the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial.

The government, however, seems to be of the opposite opinion, with a government source arguing that Christodoulides’ decision to refer the matter to the supreme constitutional court amounts to “an institutional review of constitutionality and not a political confrontation”.

The source added that the law constitutes an “intervention by the legislative power into the core of executive competences”, and one which could weaken the existing legal framework governing foreclosures.

Should the matter reach the European court of justice, it could be years before a hearing is found, with the court typically requiring between 16 and 20 months to hear a case and produce a ruling.