Legal Technology in Cyprus: Digital Courts, AI Tools and What They Mean for Clients

Legal technology is changing how legal work is done in Cyprus, at a steady rather than dramatic pace. The courts are rolling out a new electronic platform, the EU is building a framework for digital cross-border justice, and artificial intelligence is entering legal practice under rules that are still taking shape. This article explains where each development stands, and what it means for clients and businesses in practice.

The courts: the new iJustice platform

Cyprus has been building electronic court filing for several years. An earlier iJustice system launched on 1 February 2022, and a successor electronic justice project was later discontinued, with its contract terminated in October 2024. A new iJustice platform, developed from March 2025 and funded through the Recovery and Resilience Plan, was reported as operational in July 2026.

The platform allows judges, lawyers and the public to file applications and exchange court documents electronically, and to work from digital case files in place of paper ones. It supports the newly established Commercial Court and Admiralty Court. The Supreme Court Registrar reported about 102,000 electronically registered cases, 1.3 million electronic filings, 3.5 million uploaded documents and 9,000 registered users, which indicates substantial early use.

The project is being delivered in phases. Later phases are intended to add the Supreme Constitutional Court, the third-instance jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, the International Protection Administrative Court and all criminal courts, with completion expected from 2027. Further features, including remote hearings, digital recording and transcription of proceedings, and electronic display of evidence, are planned. The platform currently works primarily as a document management system, and cases begun on paper before its introduction continue to be updated manually while the transition completes.

For clients, the benefits are practical. Filing no longer depends on registry opening hours, and case documents are held in one place. The usual rules continue to apply: a document is treated as filed once e-filing is completed and the fees are paid, and filings made late in the day are treated as made the next day. Timing of hearings and judgments remains a matter for the court, so clients should continue to plan around it. It is sensible to organise evidence early, in a form that can be uploaded and indexed.

EU digitalisation of cross-border justice

Regulation (EU) 2023/2844 entered into force on 16 January 2024 and has applied since 1 May 2025. It makes electronic communication the default between national authorities in cross-border civil, commercial and criminal matters, through a decentralised IT system. In civil and commercial cases it also provides for a European electronic access point, hosted on the European e-Justice Portal, through which individuals and businesses can file claims, exchange case information and be served documents. Some elements depend on implementing acts and are being introduced in stages.

The Regulation also encourages videoconferencing in cross-border hearings, and provides that a hearing should not be refused merely because national rules on distance technology are lacking. In criminal matters it requires informed and voluntary consent, given with access to legal advice. Directive (EU) 2023/2843 adjusts existing criminal-law instruments to match.

For businesses with cross-border disputes, this should shorten communication and service between authorities and make the remote participation of witnesses easier as the courts' systems develop. It does not change the substantive law on recognition or enforcement, which we discuss in our articles on enforcing foreign judgments in Cyprus and on interim relief in aid of foreign proceedings.

Generative AI in legal work

Many lawyers now use AI in drafting, summarising documents, contract review and research. It is most useful for first-pass review of large volumes of material and for producing initial drafts. Adoption varies between larger firms and in-house teams, which are further ahead, and smaller practices, which are earlier in the process. Cyprus has no dedicated AI rules for lawyers. The Bar Association, together with the Deputy Ministry of Research, Innovation and Digital Policy, has so far focused on seminars and training, and existing professional duties set the limits.

The clearest judicial guidance comes from England. In Ayinde v London Borough of Haringey; Al-Haroun v Qatar National Bank [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin), decided on 6 June 2025, the Divisional Court dealt with lawyers who cited authorities that did not exist: five in one case and 18 of 45 in the other. The court held that lawyers using AI for legal research must check its output against authoritative sources, that the responsibility cannot be passed to a lay client, and that freely available generative AI tools are not capable of conducting reliable legal research. It considered contempt of court, imposed wasted costs and referred the lawyers to their regulators.

That judgment is not binding in Cyprus, but Cypriot courts routinely treat English authority as persuasive, and the principle that a lawyer is answerable for the accuracy of what is put before the court is well established. Tools also vary in how well they handle local law. As of mid-2025, there was no official open access to Cypriot judgments for automated analysis, so output on Cyprus law needs particular care.

Confidentiality is the second consideration. An advocate's duty of confidentiality, and the obligations under the GDPR and Law 125(I)/2018, apply whatever tool is used. Entering a client's contract or witness statement into a public AI service may disclose confidential and personal data to a third party, and may involve a transfer outside the EU. The questions to ask of any tool are where it stores data, whether inputs are used to train the model, and who has access to them.

The EU AI Act and what it requires

The EU AI Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689), as amended by the Digital Omnibus on AI (Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, in force since 27 July 2026), supplies the legal framework. Its main dates for the legal sector are as follows.

• AI literacy (Article 4) has applied since 2 February 2025. The Omnibus adjusted it, so that providers and deployers must support staff's AI literacy rather than guarantee a particular level. A firm or in-house team using AI should be able to show suitable training.

• Transparency obligations (Article 50) apply from 2 August 2026, with a later date of 2 December 2026 for certain marking obligations on systems already on the market.

• High-risk obligations under Annex III now apply from 2 December 2027, deferred from 2 August 2026. Annex III covers AI systems intended to be used by or for a judicial authority to research and interpret facts and law, and similar use in alternative dispute resolution. Those obligations fall mainly on the providers of such systems and on the authorities using them. A firm using a general-purpose assistant for drafting is generally a deployer of a tool that is not itself high-risk, although the answer depends on the use and should be checked case by case.

Our earlier article on the EU AI Act and GDPR in Cyprus sets out the full structure of the Act and the enforcement position.

What clients should expect and ask

Clients are entitled to ask how their lawyers use technology: whether AI tools are used on the matter, what data is entered, whether the provider can retain or train on it, and who checks the output. A firm that can answer clearly is likely to be managing the risk well.

Businesses should also look at their own position. Companies using AI to screen candidates, assess creditworthiness or analyse customers face the high-risk regime from December 2027, and data protection law applies now. In-house teams using AI to review contracts should treat the output as a draft requiring qualified review, and should keep a record of that review.

Conclusion

Legal technology in Cyprus is developing on several fronts at once. The courts are moving to a digital platform in phases, EU rules are making cross-border procedure more electronic, and AI tools are becoming part of everyday practice. The benefits are most immediate where the technology supports the work of lawyers and the courts' administration, and clients should expect them to build gradually. Throughout, responsibility for accuracy and for the protection of client information remains with the lawyer and, where tools are used in a business, with the organisation using them.

This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Specific legal advice should be sought before taking any action in reliance on the contents of this article.