The issue of the enclosed area of Famagusta, as well as the protection of the property rights of displaced persons, continue to require special attention at the European Union level, notes Spanish Member of the European Parliament Elena Nevado del Campo in an interview with CNA.
The coordinator of the European People’s Party (EPP) parliamentary group on the European Parliament’s Committee on Petitions (PETI) of the European Parliament, noted that the Varosia case has been under review by the Committee on Petitions for years and was reexamined in February 2026, with the main issues being the rights of the displaced residents, the protection of their property, and the risk that developments on the ground could hinder a future settlement.
ΣΧΕΤΙΚΑ ΑΡΘΡΑ
At the same time, Ms. Nevado del Campo explains how the PETI Committee addresses the concerns of European citizens, highlighting both the parliamentary oversight tools at its disposal and its limitations. She also emphasizes that the response of national authorities to the Committee’s requests is not always consistent, while PETI’s key priorities remain the proper implementation of European law, environmental protection, fundamental rights, democracy, and the rule of law.
Referring to the follow-up process after a complaint is deemed admissible and examined by PETI, Ms. Nevado del Campo explained that the Commission is responsible for ensuring the monitoring of the implementation of EU law. As she noted, the Commission’s services participate in meetings where petitions are discussed and are regularly called upon to investigate issues raised by petitioners regarding the possible incorrect application of EU lawat the national or regional level.
This assessment, combined with the information submitted by petitioners and the responses received from Member States and other bodies, constitutes, as he noted, the basis for further examination of the case by the Petitions Committee.
She stated that, following the examination of a petition, PETI may issue recommendations, decide to keep the petition open and continue its investigation, or conclude that the matter has been sufficiently examined. She added that it may also refer the petition to another parliamentary committee for information, an opinion, or further action. When a petition concerns a specific situation in a Member State, PETI may, as explained, address specific questions to the Member State in question, usually through its Permanent Representation, which forwards the request to the relevant national, regional, or local authority.
At the same time, he emphasized that in specific cases, the PETI Committee may organize a hearing or workshop, conduct a fact-finding visit, and adopt a mission report containing observations and recommendations, draft a report or a short motion for a resolution, or submit oral questions to the Commission or the Council. He clarified that fact-finding visits may be organized when the Committee on Petitions is examining petitions, attempting to ascertain the facts, or seeking solutions. These tools are used, as he noted, to gather additional evidence, to highlight the concerns that have been raised, and to subject the response of the competent authorities to parliamentary scrutiny.
She further emphasized that, when a complaint reveals an incorrect transposition or application of EU law, this may lead the Commission to take action against the Member State in question. She clarified, however, that what the PETI Committee cannot do on its own is to overturn a national decision or impose sanctions.
She added that follow-up on the case is also ensured through transparency and communication with the complainant. As she explained, summaries of complaints and related documents are published on the complaints portal, while complainants are informed in writing of the Petitions Committee’s decisions and the reasons on which they are based. As a rule, she added, a petition remains open as long as PETI is awaiting information it deems necessary for its examination.
Referring to the response of national authorities when PETI or the Commission requests information or clarifications, particularly regarding complaints concerning the incorrect or delayed application of EU law by Member States, Ms. Nevado del Campo stated that “the level of response is not uniform.” As she explained, PETI’s guidelines stipulate that, when a complaint concerns a specific situation in a Member State, the Commission should forward the complaint, along with specific questions, to the Member State concerned. He emphasized that PETI requests a response from the Member State, and if it does not receive one within three months, the Secretariat sends a reminder to the competent authority.
He added that the Secretariat, in turn, informs the coordinators of any responses that remain pending. In cases where a Member State persistently refuses to provide information, PETI may, as he noted, refer the request to the Commission. She clarified, however, that these procedures do not grant the Committee on Petitions the authority to compel a national authority to respond or to implement a specific solution.
Ms. Nevado del Campo also emphasized that the European Parliament systematically calls on national authorities to provide timely and detailed responses and on Member States to cooperate more actively. This is of the utmost importance, he stressed, as a protracted review process can diminish the usefulness of the final response, particularly when the facts are time-sensitive or evolving rapidly.
He noted, however, that a distinction must be made between PETI’s political and parliamentary requests and the Commission’s official law enforcement powers.
Citizen petitions determine PETI’s priorities
Referring to PETI’s key priorities for the remainder of the current parliamentary term, Ms. Nevado del Campo stated that the Committee’s activities are based on the issues raised by petitioners. Consequently, she explained, “its agenda is shaped by the concerns that EU citizens and residents raise directly before the European Parliament.” Petitions, she noted, provide valuable information on how EU law and policies work in practice.
She emphasized that “one of the main priorities will continue to be the implementation and enforcement of EU law.” As she noted, many reports concern complaints about the incorrect transposition, delayed implementation, or inadequate application of EU legislation by member states. Therefore, as he emphasized, PETI will continue to request preliminary investigations from the Commission, seek responses from national authorities, and examine whether the Commission is effectively utilizing the powers at its disposal to enforce EU law.
He added that issues concerning free movement, residence rights, the recognition of professional qualifications, consumer protection, transportation, working conditions, and the position of small and medium-sized enterprises are expected to remain high on the agenda, as they are today. Environmental protection and public health will also remain, as he pointed out, key areas of activity.
He emphasized that fundamental rights, democracy, and the rule of law remain an ongoing priority, with particular emphasis on children’s rights, discrimination, corruption, justice, and freedom of movement.
Famagusta, property rights, and the environment in Cyprus
Explaining how PETI assesses cases concerning Cyprus and the issues that require greater attention at the EU level, Ms. Nevado del Campo stated that relevant petitions are evaluated based on the same criteria and the same procedure applied to petitions concerning other Member States. She recalled, however, that as she had previously mentioned, the PETI Committee cannot rule on individual property claims nor can it substitute for national courts or other competent mechanisms.
He noted that the petitions concerning Cyprus have focused primarily on the ongoing consequences of the island’s division. The most significant case, he stressed, continues to concern Famagusta and the enclosed area of Varosia. Within the framework of the PETI Committee, he explained, this particular petition has been monitored for many years through discussions in the Committee and a fact-finding mission, and it was reexamined in February 2026. Its particular significance, as she emphasized, lies “in the concerns regarding the rights of displaced residents, the protection of their property, and the risk that legislative changes and developments on the ground could make a future settlement more difficult.”
She noted that closely linked to this issue are the complaints concerning the property rights of people who were displaced following the Turkish invasion of 1974. As she noted, the petitioners have raised issues such as the loss of access to their homes and land, the deprivation of the use of their property, and the resulting loss of income, with direct legal and economic consequences.
He clarified that, although PETI cannot itself rule on property status or award compensation, “it can keep the issue under parliamentary scrutiny, request information from the European Commission, and ensure that these specific concerns continue to be raised at the European level”. At the same time, he recalled that, as he had previously explained, the PETI Committee can, when deemed necessary, request consultations and responses from member states.
In conclusion, he added that other relevant reports concern environmental protection, regional development, and the rights of people with disabilities. In some cases, he noted, the pressures associated with mass tourism have also been highlighted, particularly in relation to the protection of biodiversity and the impact on local communities.
Source: CNA
