The EAC needs consent before it runs a line or places poles across private land in Cyprus. If you refuse, the District Officer decides, and that decision can be challenged.
The letter from the Electricity Authority of Cyprus says that a line, a pole or a stay is to be placed on your land, describes it, and asks for your consent. It comes under section 31 of the Electricity Law, Cap. 170. The owner has more say in this procedure than the letter suggests, and the decisions that follow a refusal have been annulled when they were taken without the steps the Law requires.
The Law calls those who place lines "the undertakers", and section 2 defines them as the owners of the distribution system and of the transmission system. In every case discussed below that was the EAC.
A line across your land is not an expropriation
The land stays yours. In Mallouros (1974) the Supreme Court held that placing a line above ground and across private property under section 31 is a restriction within Article 23.3 of the Constitution, not a deprivation of ownership, so the Compulsory Acquisition Law, Law 15/1962, does not apply to it. Later judgments, including Ioannides (2004) and Papoui (2010), have followed that view.
When the EAC needs land for itself, a substation for example, it acquires the land, and that is a different procedure with its own objections and its own order. Our note on expropriation letters from a ministry or municipality covers it.
The letter, and the fourteen days
Section 31(1) requires the network owner, before it places any line across land, to serve on the owner and occupier a notice of its intention with a description of the lines. Where the owner and occupier are not known, the notice is posted on the land on a notice board.
The owner and occupier then have fourteen days. If they do not consent within that time, or attach conditions the network owner objects to, the line can go ahead only with the consent of the District Officer. The District Officer may give that consent, unconditionally or on conditions, and only after consulting the competent local authority.
What cannot be done without you
Section 31(2) protects buildings. It does not allow a line to be placed in, through or over a building, or across land covered with buildings, without the consent of the owner and occupier. The District Officer cannot consent in their place.
There is one exception: stays and other supports needed only to hold up an overhead line. The District Officer may allow these on any land or building, after consulting the local authority, if in the District Officer's view the owner and occupier are unreasonably refusing consent, and must then fix the compensation or annual rent the network owner pays.
The protection is for land covered with buildings, not for every plot that has a building on it. In Zakou (2008) the plot had buildings on it, but the underground cable would take a strip of a metre to a metre and a half and the overhead line four to five metres from the boundary, at one edge of the plot, and the court held that the line did not cross land covered with buildings.
What happens after you refuse
The District Officer decides, and the courts check how. In Ioannides the owner proposed a different route across his plot. The EAC visited the site and explained in writing why the route would lengthen the line and sharpen its angles; the District Officer asked the EAC for a reasoned answer to each objection and gave consent with conditions covering future development. The recourse failed.
In Symeou (2001) the EAC passed the owner's objection to the District Officer without examining the alternatives he had proposed, and the consent was a formality. The decision was annulled for lack of due inquiry and reasoning.
The consultation with the local authority is an essential formality. In Lordos United Plastics (2023), on the 132 kV Vasilikos to Ypsonas line, and in Karantoki (2026) in Akaki, the District Officer had not consulted the local authority, and both consents were annulled. In Papoui (2010) the consent had been signed by a District Inspector under a delegation from the District Officer, after consultation, and it stood.
The court will not redraw the route. It checks that your objection was answered and that the steps the Law requires were taken.
Conditions that protect future development
The consents in the reported cases carried conditions for the day the land is developed. In Michaelides (2000) the District Officer's consent provided that if the land later needed to be built on and the lines stood in the way, the EAC would move or alter them at its own cost once the owner produced a building or division permit. In Papoui the condition went further: if moving the lines proved technically impossible, the EAC would pay the owner fair compensation, fixed by the court if they disagreed.
A condition of that kind is worth asking for in the objection, and worth keeping with the title deed.
Moving a line that is already there
Section 31(3) lets the owner or occupier of land carrying a line ask for it to be moved. The District Officer, after consulting the local authority, may then require the network owner by written notice to change the line's position, on terms which, failing agreement, the Council of Ministers decides, and its decision is final.
Section 31(4) adds a cost rule. If compensation was paid for placing the line to the person asking for it to be moved, or to a predecessor in title, that person offers the network owner the cost of moving it. Where the line has stood for more than five years and, in the Council of Ministers' view, its position causes unreasonable inconvenience or delays development, the Council of Ministers may decide who pays and in what proportion.
Trees, and building near the line
The network owner cannot cut trees on your land without the District Officer's approval. Section 31(5) allows it to cut trees and shrubs that obstruct a line or its construction only with that approval.
The rule also runs the other way. Section 32 forbids building under, over or near a duly approved line without the network owner's written consent, and requires enough clearance to prevent damage or accidents. A breach is an offence, and the court may order the building or structure removed. Checking the line before designing a building avoids that.
Challenging the consent in court
The courts treat the EAC's decision and the District Officer's consent as one composite administrative act, which becomes executory when the consent is given (Michaelides; Ioannides). It is challenged by a recourse under Article 146 of the Constitution, within seventy five days of publication or, where it is not published, of when the owner learned of it.
In Michaelides the consent was never notified in writing, and the court counted the seventy five days from a telephone call telling the owner the works would go ahead. Public protests, approaches to the ministries and a complaint to the Ombudsman did not stop the clock, and the recourse was out of time. Residents whose own land the line did not cross had no standing to bring it.
The court does not decide technical questions such as the route or the choice between overhead and underground cable (Ioannides; Zakou; Papoui). It examines whether the District Officer had the material, consulted the local authority and dealt with the objections. Who must be named as respondent has itself been argued in these cases, which is a reason to have the recourse drafted with care. In Mallouros the Supreme Court added that whether a line gives rise to compensation under Article 23.3 of the Constitution is for a civil court.
What this means in practice
Read the letter for the section it cites. A notice under section 31 of Cap. 170 is about a line or pole on land you keep. An acquisition notice is a different procedure.
Answer within fourteen days, in writing. Say whether you consent, and if not, why, and propose a specific alternative position or route, with a plan if you can. Send it to the EAC and to the District Officer.
Point out buildings. A line in, through or over a building, or across land covered with buildings, needs your consent, and the District Officer cannot give it for you.
Ask for conditions. If the line is to go ahead, ask that the consent oblige the network owner to move it at its own cost if it later obstructs permitted development, or to pay compensation if moving it is impossible.
Count from the day you learn of the consent. The seventy five days for a recourse do not wait for a formal letter, and complaints elsewhere do not stop them.
Use section 31(3) for an old line. A line that now stands in the way of building can be moved on the District Officer's notice, and the original consent may already say who pays.
Questions we are asked
The EAC wrote asking for my consent to place poles on my land. Do I have to agree?
No. Section 31(1) of the Electricity Law, Cap. 170, requires notice to the owner and occupier, and gives fourteen days to consent. If you refuse, or attach conditions the network owner does not accept, the line can go ahead only if the District Officer consents in your place, after consulting the local authority.
Is a power line across my field an expropriation?
No. The Supreme Court held in Mallouros (1974) that placing a line across private land under section 31 is a restriction under Article 23.3 of the Constitution, not a deprivation of ownership, so the Compulsory Acquisition Law does not apply. You keep the land. When the EAC needs land for itself, for a substation for example, it acquires it, and that is a separate procedure.
Can the EAC put a line over my house?
Not without your consent. Section 31(2) does not allow a line in, through or over a building, or across land covered with buildings, without the consent of the owner and occupier. The exception is stays and supports for an overhead line, which the District Officer may allow if consent is unreasonably refused, fixing compensation or an annual rent.
Who decides if I refuse: the EAC or the District Officer?
The District Officer, or a District Inspector to whom the District Officer has delegated the power, as in Papoui (2010). The courts treat the EAC's decision and the District Officer's consent as one composite administrative act, which becomes executory when the consent is given.
Will I be paid for the line?
It depends. For stays and supports, section 31(2) has the District Officer fix compensation or an annual rent. In Mallouros the Supreme Court said that whether a line gives rise to compensation under Article 23.3 of the Constitution is a matter for a civil court. Consents in the reported cases also obliged the EAC to move the line at its own cost if it later obstructed permitted development.
The line has been there for years and now blocks my building plans. What can I do?
Ask for it to be moved. Under section 31(3) the District Officer, after consulting the local authority, may require the network owner to move a line at the owner's request, on terms the Council of Ministers settles if there is no agreement. Check also whether the original consent contains a condition about future development.
How long do I have to go to court against the District Officer's consent?
Seventy five days under Article 146.3 of the Constitution, from publication or, where the decision is not published, from when you learned of it. In Michaelides (2000) the time ran from a telephone call telling the owner the works would go ahead; protests and a complaint to the Ombudsman did not stop it, and the recourse was out of time.
Sources
- The Electricity Law, Cap. 170, consolidated text, sections 2, 31 and 32, CyLaw
- The Constitution of the Republic of Cyprus, Articles 23 and 146, CyLaw
- Akinita Nikolaou Karantoki Ltd v. Electricity Authority of Cyprus and another, Case No. 1987/2022, Administrative Court, 10 March 2026
- Lordos United Plastics Public Ltd and another v. Electricity Authority of Cyprus and others, Case No. 604/2018, Administrative Court, 31 March 2023
- Papoui and another v. Electricity Authority of Cyprus and another, Case No. 1852/2008, Supreme Court, 29 September 2010
- Zakou v. Electricity Authority of Cyprus and another, (2008) 4 AAD 953
- Ioannides v. Electricity Authority of Cyprus and another, Case No. 687/2002, Supreme Court, 7 May 2004
- Symeou v. Electricity Authority of Cyprus and another, Case No. 18/2000, Supreme Court, 8 June 2001
- Michaelides and others v. Electricity Authority of Cyprus and another, Case No. 937/96, Supreme Court, 11 May 2000
- Mallouros and another v. Electricity Authority of Cyprus and another, (1974) 3 CLR 220
This article is provided for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Need advice on your own matter?
Briefly describe your situation, the people involved and any deadline.
We reply within one business day. We will ask for documents once we confirm we can act.
Receive legal updates by email
When Cyprus law changes, hear it from us
One short email when something changes that matters: new legislation, a decision worth knowing, a deadline. Written by the partners, no marketing, unsubscribe with one click.
You are on the list. The next update on Cyprus law will reach your inbox.
That did not go through. Please write to office@kleanthousplatis.com and we will add you.
Your address is used for these updates and nothing else. Privacy notice.