Breaking news

European Court Of Human Rights Rejects Claims Over Cyprus Public Sector Pay Cuts

by THEFUTURE.TEAM

November 17, 2025

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has dismissed five claims submitted by 450 public and related sector employees and retirees from Cyprus. The cases, filed under Constantinou and Others v. Cyprus, challenged the constitutionality of measures enacted during the economic crisis, including pay and pension deductions. The decision is of particular importance in the context of the nation’s public finances.

Details Of The Case

The claimants contested the constitutional validity of Law 168(I)/2012 and Law 112(I)/2011. These laws mandated temporary cuts and extraordinary contributions on salaries and pensions for public sector employees. Prior to reaching the ECtHR, similar appeals had been rejected by Cyprus’s Supreme Court, adding weight to the contested decisions.

Follow THE FUTURE on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X and Telegram

Claims And Legal Arguments

The litigants argued that the measures violated their right to property (as provided by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1) and their right to a fair trial (guaranteed by Article 6). Some claimants further alleged discrimination compared to their counterparts in the private sector.

Court’s Reasoning

The ECtHR found no basis for claims of unequal treatment. The court clarified that public sector employees are inherently distinct from private sector workers because their wages and pensions are directly linked to the state budget. In addressing the issue of a fair trial, the Court concluded that there was no deviation in the legal reasoning of the Supreme Court, the decisions of which were adequately substantiated.

Justification And Public Interest Considerations

While acknowledging that the pay and pension cuts did interfere with the right to property, the ECtHR emphasized several critical points:

The measures were enacted in accordance with national law;
They were upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court;
They addressed a compelling public interest during an era of severe economic crisis;
The deductions were proportionate and implemented on a gradual basis;
They were designed to be temporary; and
A fair balance was maintained between the exigencies of public interest and the rights of the claimants.

Decision And Key Voices

The ruling, delivered by a majority of five judges, was accompanied by dissenting opinions from Judges Georgios Sergidis and Anna Adamska-Gallant. The case was argued on behalf of the General Public Prosecutor by the Senior Advocate of the Republic, Theodora Christodoulidou.

Implications For Cyprus

This decision underscores the judiciary’s deference to legislative measures implemented in times of crisis, illuminating how such measures are scrutinized against constitutional safeguards while balancing public interests. The ECtHR’s stance may influence future legislative actions regarding public sector finance amidst economic challenges.

For further context on the legislative measures in question, refer to pay and pension cut regulations.

The Future Forbes Realty Global Properties

by News Editor

August 24, 2026

Courts Are Still Applying Old Copyright Rules To AI

AI companies train models on enormous amounts of published material, including books, articles and academic research. Whether using that content without authors’ permission violates copyright law remains unresolved.

Much of the debate centres on fair use, which allows copyrighted material to be used without permission in certain circumstances. Courts consider factors such as the purpose of the use, how much material was involved and its impact on the original market.

Follow THE FUTURE on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X and Telegram

Anthropic Case Sets An Important Precedent

A major case involving Anthropic and a group of authors provided one of the clearest rulings so far. Judge William Alsup found that using copyrighted books to train AI models was lawful, comparing the process to people reading and studying literature before creating something new.

Anthropic was nevertheless ordered to pay $1.5 billion in a settlement. The penalty concerned books the company had obtained from illegal online libraries rather than the AI training itself.

For AI companies, that distinction could prove significant because it separates studying copyrighted material from directly copying it.

Competition Could Be The Key Issue

A case involving Thomson Reuters and Ross Intelligence offers a different perspective. A court ruled that Ross could not claim fair use after using Reuters’ copyrighted material to develop a competing AI-powered legal research platform.

The decision suggests courts may be less willing to consider AI training fair use when copyrighted content is used to build a product that directly competes with the original.

For authors, an unresolved question is whether AI-generated content should be considered competition for the works used to train these models.

The Law Has Yet To Catch Up

US copyright law predates generative AI by decades, leaving courts to apply old principles to new technology. Questions also remain over copyright protection for AI-generated works. In Thaler v. Perlmutter, a court ruled that material created entirely by AI cannot receive copyright protection.

Major AI companies remain involved in copyright litigation, and different courts could reach different conclusions. For now, there is no universal rule: the legality of AI training will depend on the circumstances of each case and how courts ultimately interpret copyright and fair use.