On 20 November 2024, the Republic of Cyprus submitted an application to the International Protection Administrative Court to join 34 separate appeals pending before the court. The applicants in these cases were nationals of different countries who sought judicial remedies against alleged failures by the Cypriot authorities to register their asylum applications and grant them access to reception conditions, since the applicants claimed that they had been stopped at the Buffer Zone when attempting to enter Republic-controlled territory, subjected to pushbacks, or pushed back to the Buffer Zone once they had already crossed into Republic-controlled territory. The applicants alleged that the treatment they received was contrary to national asylum legislation, the 1951 Geneva Convention, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the Asylum Procedures Directive (APD), the Qualification Directive (QD), the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the Charter) and the Dublin III Regulation. The Republic argued that the appeals concerned the same alleged omissions and were based on identical legal grounds, and that the joinder would benefit the administration of justice, avoiding the multiplicity of procedures and eliminating the risk of contradictory decisions, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of the disputed issues, and contributing to the uniform administration of justice. The applicants emphasized that the legal arguments regarding its obligations to provide access to asylum procedures did not differ depending on whether the applicants left or were expelled from the Buffer Zone or not, and thus all applications could be joined.

The court reviewed the request in light of Cypriot procedural law (Regulation 18 of the Rules of Procedure of the Supreme Constitutional Court of 1962 and D.14 , K.2 of the Rules of Procedure on Civil Procedure) and established case law on joinder of appeals. It acknowledged that the applicants in all cases raised common legal arguments on the Cypriot authorities' failure to register asylum applications, denial of access to reception conditions, unlawful refoulement, and potentially collective expulsions contrary to Article 19 of the Charter and Article 4 Protocol 4 ECHR. However, the court emphasized that the facts in the applications presented substantial divergences which did not allow for their single or uniform assessment and evaluation. Observing the information from the files, the court noted that some applicants never left the buffer zone, others were pushed back after entering, while others' claims focused on incidents of ill-treatment during detention or transfer In addition, the court pointed to significant differences between the applicants' vulnerability profiles such as minority, disability or mental health, different degrees of response from the national or UN authorities, as well as differentiated means of evidence.

The court underlined that the Republic, with its registered objection to the appeals, had not acknowledged the facts in any of the cases, which placed a heavy evidentiary burden on each individual case, requiring separate assessments of factual claims.

Additionally, the court held that even if joinder were limited to preliminary objections (such as inadmissibility or lack of standing), a joint ruling could de facto bind the natural judges of the individual cases, violating the principle of the "natural judge", which establishes the need for legally predetermined judges to independently assess each case. Finally, the court noted the existence of waiver statements signed by some of the applicants, may necessitate an individual assessment of each case to determine whether the waiver was made with awareness, free will, legal guidance, and without coercion—elements that are essentially matters of evidence and may not be assessed uniformly or collectively.

In conclusion, the International Protection Administrative Court held that the essential connection of fact and law required for joinder was not present, since while the cases raised common legal issues, the factual divergences, vulnerability profiles, evidentiary bases, and contested circumstances of entry into Cypriot territory required individualised assessments. The court noted that, within the framework of its discretion, and in the interests of the proper and smooth administration of justice, it was preferable to examine the applications separately, to ensure the individual assessment of each case and to avoid any procedural complication or delay. Accordingly, the court dismissed the request for joinder, ordering that the appeals proceed separately.