Dear Ms X,

You recently submitted, on behalf of Cyprus Quarries Association, a complaint to the European Ombudsman against the European Commission concerning the above issue.

In your complaint of 17 December 2025 to the Commission, you expressed your dissatisfaction with the Commission’s letter of 14 August 2025, and complained about its alleged failure to act on persistent breaches of EU law that would arise from unregulated quarrying activities in the northern part of Cyprus, in which the Government of the Republic of Cyprus does not exercise effective control.

First, you argued that, if it cannot be verified, as acknowledged by the Commission in its letter of 14 August 2025, that aggregates meet the alternative conditions[1] set out in Article 4(1) of Regulation 866/2004[2] (‘the Green Line Regulation’) and under which they can be introduced from the northern part of Cyprus to areas under the effective control of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus, then the legal conclusion to be drawn is that those conditions are not met and, consequently, aggregates cannot be introduced into government-controlled areas. By failing to draw the necessary legal conclusions, you consider that the Commission has infringed the terms of the Green Line Regulation. Moreover, as acknowledged by the Commission in its letter of 14 August 2025, as the Government of the Republic of Cyprus has no access or control over the northern part of the island and, thus, cannot verify, monitor or enforce the compliance of goods, crossing the Green Line[3] into government-controlled areas, with environmental, safety or property standards, the Government of the Republic of Cyprus is failing to comply with Article 4(2)[4] of Regulation 1480/2004[5].

Second, you argued that, by failing to ensure that entities or individuals, located in areas under the effective control of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus and receiving aggregates produced in the northern part of Cyprus, are duly prosecuted, the Government of the Republic of Cyprus has breached Directive 2008/99[6]. You further argued that the Commission has refrained from taking any action to address the resulting breaches of EU environmental law.

Third, you claimed that, while the Commission has repeatedly acknowledged that quarrying activities in the northern part of Cyprus do not comply with EU legislation and cause serious environmental harm, it has failed, pursuant to the precautionary principle (Article 191 TFEU), to act preventatively and to rectify at its source the environmental damage caused by the said activities.

Finally, you further claimed that, despite the fact that Article 11 TFEU imposes on the Commission the obligation to integrate environmental protection requirements into the definition and implementation of the Union’s policies and activities, it has neglected to take into account the protection of biodiversity and natural heritage in the northern part of Cyprus when defining and implementing its policies and activities regarding the Green Line.

In your complaint to the Ombudsman, you are dissatisfied with the Commission’s letter of 28 January 2026, which, in your opinion, does not address the substantive legal arguments of your complaint of 17 December 2025, but refers instead to its position expressed in its letters of 10 April 2025 and 14 August 2025. You also complain about the Commission’s alleged failure to act on persistent breaches of the Green Line Regulation and EU environmental law arising from illegal quarrying activities in the northern part of Cyprus. You reiterate the four grounds of your complaint to the Commission described above. You also add a fifth ground according to which, when it comes to aggregates crossing the Green Line into areas under the effective control of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus, it cannot be considered, pursuant to Article 29 TFEU[7], that they comply with the relevant import formalities set out in Article 4(1) of the Green Line Regulation and in Article 4(2) of Regulation 1480/2004. In your view such a situation undermines the EU single market and results in an unfair competitive advantage for operators in the northern part of Cyprus.

After careful analysis of all the information you provided with your complaint, I have decided to close the inquiry with the following conclusion:

There was no maladministration by the European Commission.

The Commission enjoys wide discretion in deciding whether and when to commence an infringement procedure.[8] Its policy on infringements of EU law is set out in its Communication EU law: Better results through better application.[9] The role of the Ombudsman in such cases is to verify whether there has been any manifest error of assessment and whether the Commission has provided clear and reasonable explanations for its position.

Based on the information provided in your complaint to the Ombudsman, there is no indication of a manifest error of assessment by the Commission regarding your complaint. The Commission provided, in its replies of 10 April and 14 August 2025 to the letters sent by Aggregates Europe, of which Cyprus Quarries Association is a member, as well as in its replies of 24 October 2024 and 22 May 2026 to parliamentary questions, reasonable explanations for its decision not to take any further action into the matter. This is so for the following reasons.

Regarding the alleged breach of the Green Line Regulation and Regulation 1480/2004 (first ground of your complaint to the Ombudsman)

a) The alleged breach of the Green Line Regulation

Contrary to what you suggest in your complaint to the Ombudsman, the Commission did not state, in its letter of 14 August 2025, that the compliance of aggregates, arriving to the Green Line from the areas not under the effective control of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus, with the alternative conditions set out in Article 4(1) of the Green Line Regulation can never be verified. In its letter of 14 August 2025, the Commission merely explained that the Government of the Republic of Cyprus has no access or control over the northern part of Cyprus.

Moreover, as also explained below, there is nothing to suggest that the Green Line Regulation has created a system where compliance of aggregates, arriving to the Green Line from the areas not under the effective control of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus, with the alternative conditions set out in Article 4(1) of the Green Line Regulation can never be verified. In fact, both the Green Line Regulation (Article 4) and Regulation 1480/2004 (Article 2) contain special rules that provide for a special regime for the treatment of goods arriving from the areas not under the effective control of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus to the areas in which the Government exercises effective control.

b) The alleged breach of Regulation 1480/2004

Pursuant to Article 4(2) of Regulation 1480/2004, the authorities of the Republic of Cyprus shall ensure that goods, including aggregates, crossing the Green Line into government-controlled areas comply with the EU rules on health, safety, environmental and consumer protection and on the prohibition on the bringing in of counterfeit and pirated goods.

Although the Commission acknowledged in its letter of 14 August 2025 that the Government of the Republic of Cyprus has no access to or control over the northern part of the Cyprus and, thus, cannot verify, monitor, or enforce compliance with EU environmental, safety, or property standards, this does not imply, as you seem to suggest in your complaint to the Ombudsman, that the Government of the Republic of Cyprus is failing to comply with Article 4(2) of Regulation 1480/2004.

The Government of the Republic of Cyprus would have breached Article 4(2) of Regulation 1480/2004 if it had allowed that aggregates, which do not comply with the EU standards referred above, cross the Green Line into government-controlled areas. However, as mentioned by the Commission in its letter of 14 August 2025 and as acknowledged by Aggregates Europe in its letter of 23 July 2025, there is no current cross-line trade in aggregates. Moreover, you have not provided evidence showing that such kind of aggregates have crossed or continue crossing the Green Line into government-controlled areas.

In view of the above, nothing suggests that the Government of the Republic of Cyprus has failed to comply with Article 4(2) of Regulation 1480/2004 and that the Commission should have acted against the Government of the Republic of Cyprus.

Regarding the alleged breach of Directive 2008/99 (second ground of your complaint to the Ombudsman)

In your complaint to the Ombudsman, you contend that, by permitting the circulation of aggregates derived from quarrying activities in the northern part of Cyprus, the Government of the Republic of Cyprus is facilitating conduct causing substantial environmental damage. However, as mentioned above, there is currently no trade in aggregates between the northern part of Cyprus and the areas under the effective control of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus. Moreover, as mentioned above, you have not provided evidence showing that aggregates have crossed or continue crossing the Green Line into government-controlled areas. In the absence of trade in aggregates between the northern part of Cyprus and the areas under the effective control of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus, the Government of the Republic of Cyprus cannot therefore be expected, pursuant to Directive 2008/99, to act against alleged criminal offences incompatible with the protection of the environment and to prosecute.

Regarding the alleged breach of the precautionary principle and Article 11 TFEU (third and fourth grounds of your complaint to the Ombudsman)

As explained by the Commission in its letter of 10 April 2025, EU legislation, including EU environmental law, is suspended in those areas of Cyprus in which the Government of the Republic of Cyprus does not exercise effective control.[10]

Although the Commission is aware of the impact on the environment of the quarrying activities in the Pentadaktylos mountains[11] and regularly engages with the Turkish Cypriot community to stress the importance of applying appropriate conservation measures and protect this environmentally sensitive area, as well as facilitating the alignment of legal frameworks with the EU environmental standards[12], the Commission is not in a position, as explained in its reply to the parliamentary question E-001687/2024, to take the appropriate initiatives and ensure the application of the Treaties and EU legislation in the northern part of Cyprus, including EU environmental legislation.[13]

As the EU acquis is suspended in the northern part of Cyprus, the Commission cannot be expected to act, pursuant to the precautionary principle established by Article 191 TFEU and/or Article 11 TFEU, against the environmental damage caused by the quarrying activities in that part of Cyprus, as you argue.

Regarding the alleged breach of Article 29 TFEU (fifth ground of your complaint to the Ombudsman)

In your complaint to the Ombudsman, you seem to suggest that the conditions laid down by Article 4(1) of the Green Line Regulation and Article 4(2) of Regulation 1480/2004 are import formalities within the meaning of Article 29 TFEU, which sets out the conditions under which goods coming from a third country can be considered to be in free circulation in a Member State.

Please note that the Green Line is not an external border of the EU.[14] As a result, the northern part of Cyprus cannot be considered a third country and goods complying with the conditions laid down by Article 4(1) of the Green Line Regulation and Article 4(2) of Regulation 1480/2004 are not subject to customs duties or charges having equivalent effect[15] and are therefore not considered third-country imports for custom purposes within the meaning of Article 29 TFEU.

Please also note that the conditions laid down by Article 4(1) of the Green Line Regulation and Article 4(2) of Regulation 1480/2004 do not seem to be import formalities within the meaning of Article 29 TFEU. If they were considered import formalities, it would imply that a good wholly obtained in a third country, or having undergone its last, substantial, economically justified processing or working in a third country, in transit through the northern part of Cyprus and complying with the EU acquis concerning its placement on the EU single market could cross the Green Line into areas under the effective control of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus and enter into free circulation within the EU single market. However, this is precisely prohibited under the Green Line Regulation. Only goods wholly obtained in the areas not under effective control of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus, or having undergone their last, substantial, economically justified processing or working in those areas, and complying with the EU acquis concerning their placement on the EU single market can cross the Green Line into areas under the effective control of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus.

It is thus difficult to see why Article 29 TFEU would apply to the facts of your case.

I appreciate this may not be your desired outcome, but I hope you find these explanations helpful.

Yours sincerely,

Teresa Anjinho
European Ombudsman

Strasbourg, 06/08/2026

 

[1] Article 4(1) sets out that goods may be introduced in the areas under the effective control of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus, on the condition that they are wholly obtained in the areas not under effective control of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus or have undergone their last, substantial, economically justified processing or working in an undertaking equipped for that purpose in the areas not under the effective control of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus.

[2] Regulation 866/2004 on a regime under Article 2 of Protocol 10 to the Act of Accession: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1481620173103&uri=CELEX:02004R0866-20150831

[3] Since 1974, following the Turkish military intervention in Cyprus, the ceasefire line (also referred to as ‘the Green Line’) has separated the two parts of the island and thus the Greek Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriots.

[4] Under Article 4(2) of Regulation 1480/2004, the authorities of the Republic of Cyprus shall ensure that goods crossing the Green Line comply with the EU rules on health, safety, environmental and consumer protection and on the prohibition on the bringing in of counterfeit and pirated goods.

[5] Regulation 1480/2004 laying down specific rules concerning goods arriving from the areas not under the effective control of the Government of Cyprus in the areas in which the Government exercises effective control: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2004/1480/oj/eng

[6] Directive 2008/99 on the protection of the environment through criminal law: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2008/99/oj/eng

[7] According to Article 29 TFEU, “products coming from a third country shall be considered to be in free circulation in a Member State if the import formalities have been complied with and any customs duties or charges having equivalent effect which are payable have been levied in that Member State, and if they have not benefited from a total or partial drawback of such duties or charges”.

[8] Judgment of the Court of 14 February 1989, Starfruit v Commission, case 247/87, available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:61987CJ0247 .

[9] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52017XC0119(01)&from=EN

[10] See Article 10 of Protocol 10 on Cyprus to the 2003 Act of Accession: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:12003T/PRO/10

[11] See for instance the Commission’s reply to the parliamentary question E-001687/2024: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-10-2024-001687-ASW_EN.html

[12] See for instance the Commission’s reply to the parliamentary question E-001399/2026:

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-10-2026-001399-ASW_EN.html

[13] See for instance the Commission’s reply to the parliamentary question E-001687/2024: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-10-2024-001687-ASW_EN.html

[14] See recital 4 of the Green Line Regulation.

[15] See Article 4(2) of the Green Line Regulation.