Interior Minister Constantinos Ioannou has refused to give ALMA parliament member Michalis Paraskeva information on the government’s handling of applications for two shopping centres in Limassol, one approved and one rejected, saying he did not know why it was being requested, in a written reply.
Ioannou said in his reply that it had not been confirmed that the information fell within the scope of parliamentary scrutiny. “I do not know the purpose for which it is being requested,” he added, saying disclosure would prima facie breach Article 3 of Law 21/1985 and Article 5 of the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
He also cited the personal data linked to the applications, the principle of proportionality and confidentiality.
The applications
In his question, Paraskeva said the cabinet had decided on 16 July 2026 to approve by way of derogation application LEM/837/2023, for an organised shopping centre in Agios Athanasios in the municipality of Amathus, following what was described as a unanimous positive recommendation from the Council for the Study of Derogations (SYMEPA). At the same session, he said, the cabinet rejected application LEM/351/2023, also for an organised shopping centre in the same wider area.
He asked on what specific factual and legal grounds the first application was found to meet the criteria of the relevant regulation without substantially affecting the general strategy of the Limassol local plan, while the second was rejected under Regulation 19(2). He also asked what public interest or other special circumstance was found to apply, what the main planning differences between the two applications were, and the exact extent of the derogation on use, siting, building density, coverage and height.
Referring to the approval of an increase in the permitted building density, Paraskeva asked whether the regulations on offsetting the increase had been applied and the offsetting measure carried out before the planning permit was granted. If not, he asked which exception had been relied on and why it was judged to apply.
He also asked whether SYMEPA’s final recommendation had in fact been unanimous and fully matched the cabinet’s final decision on the approval, its terms and the offsetting measures, and how the negative position that the Cyprus Scientific and Technical Chamber (ETEK) reportedly expressed at a public hearing on 24 October 2025 had been assessed.
The minister’s reasoning
In his reply, Ioannou acknowledged that parliamentary committees have the power to request written or oral information, citing Article 3 of the 1985 law on the submission of information to the House of Representatives and its committees. He said the principles of Article 5 of the GDPR, including purpose limitation, data minimisation, and integrity and confidentiality, must be strictly applied whenever personal data are processed, including when they are disclosed.
Had the information on the two applications been requested in the exercise of parliamentary scrutiny under the 1985 law, he said, he would have been obliged to disclose only what was strictly necessary to inform the relevant parliamentary committee. This was because rights protected by the Constitution and the provisions of the GDPR take precedence over ordinary laws such as the 1985 law, he said.
Ioannou said this position derived from decisions by the Commissioner for Personal Data Protection and by similar national authorities. He quoted a decision by the Greek authority stating that restrictions on individual rights, or adverse acts by public authorities, must be suitable and necessary for their aim, must choose the least burdensome option among equally effective measures, and must not be clearly disproportionate.
