Cyprus

The Cyprus Cabinet has approved a draft bill allowing law enforcement and intelligence services to intercept telephone communications under specified circumstances, with the aim of strengthening criminal investigations and tackle organised crime. Now awaiting parliamentary approval, the proposal has raised significant questions regarding the balance between national security and individual privacy, as well as its implications for constitutional and EU law. Why a New Law? Phone tapping and electronic surveillance in Cyprus are currently governed by the Protection of the Privacy of Private Communication (Interception of Conversations and Access to Recorded Content of Private Communication) Law (N. 92(I)/1996), as amended in 2020. While this framework was intended to provide safeguards and clear procedures, in practice it has proven insufficient as it has faced practical challenges, including technical limitations, ambiguous legal definitions, and procedural gaps, complicating lawful interceptions and exposing authorities to potential legal challenges. The Cabinet-approved draft law of 13 February 2026 seeks to address these issues by introducing clearer rules, stronger judicial oversight, and stricter obligations for telecom providers. It also broadens the constitutionally defined list of serious offences permitting communications interception and allows the Attorney General, in exceptional cases, to authorise such interception without judicial approval on national security grounds. These proposed changes raise important questions regarding their compatibility with the constitutional safeguards governing the secrecy of communications in Cyprus. Constitutional Considerations The Cyprus Constitution guarantees the secrecy of communications under Article 17, allowing interference only in narrowly defined circumstances, such as with a court order at the request of the Attorney General of Cyprus for national security or specific serious offenses like murder, trafficking, drug offenses, or corruption. Article 17(2) specifies that interception requires judicial authorisation and must be necessary for the security of the Republic or the prevention, investigation or prosecution of the serious criminal offences set out in the constitution. If the proposed bill seeks to expand or clarify the list of crimes subject to interception, such as terrorism, espionage, organised cybercrime, or other forms of organised crime, it may necessitate either constitutional clarification or amendment to ensure legality. The Supreme Court case Police v. Georghiades (1983) also underscores the constitutional limits on interception, holding that evidence obtained via secret recordings without proper authorization violates Articles 15 (right to private life) and 17 (right to confidentiality of correspondence) of the Constitution and is inadmissible in court. From a Cypriot criminal law perspective, the practical implications of the new bill lie primarily in the admissibility and evidential integrity of intercepted communications. Under established principles of Cyprus criminal procedure, unlawfully obtained evidence and particularly evidence obtained in breach of constitutional rights faces a serious risk of exclusion. The current uncertainty surrounding interception procedures has repeatedly exposed prosecutions to defence challenges, not on the merits of the case but on procedural and constitutional grounds. A clearer statutory framework, if tightly aligned with Article 17 of the Constitution, could enhance legal certainty by defining precise thresholds for authorization, standardising warrant content, and clarifying the role of investigators, prosecutors, and service providers in the interception chain. In this sense, the bill is as much a criminal procedure reform as it is a security measure. At the same time, the bill’s implementation will require careful calibration within the broader architecture of Cypriot criminal justice, particularly regarding prosecutorial discretion and judicial control. Interception orders are likely to become a focal point of pre-trial litigation, with defence counsel scrutinising necessity, proportionality, and scope at every stage. Cypriot Courts will therefore play a pivotal role not merely as authorising bodies, but as constitutional gatekeepers tasked with preventing routine or speculative surveillance. If interception powers expand beyond traditionally enumerated serious offences, courts may be called upon to develop stricter jurisprudential standards for justification, duration, and renewal of warrants. Ultimately, the success of the bill in Cyprus criminal law will depend less on its breadth and more on how rigorously judges enforce its safeguards in everyday criminal proceedings. The new amendment to the bill introduces two major changes: it broadens the list of serious offences for which the Attorney General can request the lifting of telecommunications secrecy, and it allows phone tapping without judicial approval in exceptional cases. Under this provision, the Attorney General could directly authorise intelligence or police agencies to monitor communications for state security reasons. This change would be enshrined in a proposed constitutional amendment, specifying that such interference is permissible with the Attorney General’s written approval when necessary to protect the Republic’s security and sovereignty. European Law Implications Any interception of communications must comply with European standards, notably Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which requires that interference with private communications be lawful, necessary, and proportionate in a democratic society. Such interference may be justified, for example, on grounds of national security, public safety, economic well-being, or the prevention of crime. Article 2(2)(d) of the GDPR excludes personal data processing by competent authorities for the prevention, investigation, and prosecution of criminal offences. Such processing falls under Directive (EU) 2016/680, which establishes principles of lawfulness, necessity, proportionality, data minimisation, and data subject rights, as transposed in Cyprus through Law 44(I)/2019. Landmark CJEU cases emphasise strict limits on personal data processing. In Valsts ieņēmumu dienests (C-175/20), the Court confirmed that the GDPR applied, as tax authorities are not competent authorities under Directive 2016/680. Data collection is allowed only to the extent that it is strictly necessary for a specific purpose, and any further use requires a clear legal basis under the GDPR. In VS v Inspektor (C-180/21), the Court held data collected for criminal investigations cannot be repurposed for other objectives without legal authorisation, and such processing must be necessary and proportionate under Directive 2016/680. Cyprus has transposed the ePrivacy Directive (Directive 2002/58/EC) through the Regulation of Electronic Communications and Postal Services Law of 2004 (Law 112(I)/2004). Under Article 99 of the Cypriot law, communications and related traffic data may not be intercepted without the consent of the users, except in cases provided by law and authorised by the Court. In line with Article 15(1) of the ePrivacy Directive, such restrictions are permitted where necessary, appropriate, and proportionate to safeguard national security, defence, public security, or to prevent, investigate, detect, and prosecute criminal offences or unauthorised use of electronic communications. Member States may also adopt data retention measures for a limited period where such measures are justified on these grounds. All such measures must comply with the general principles of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the European Convention on Human Rights. The new bill should aim to implement these obligations by establishing clear procedural safeguards and restricting the scope and duration of interceptions. Balancing Security and Privacy While the draft bill seeks to address operational gaps in the existing framework, privacy protection, safeguarding of fundamental rights and constitutional conformity remain of pivotal importance. Key safeguards should include mandatory judicial authorisation, clearly defined limits on the scope, purpose, and duration of interceptions, strict rules governing access to, storage, and destruction of data, as well as obligations for telecom providers to ensure technical compliance and traceability. Nevertheless, privacy advocates caution that broadening interception powers, even with judicial oversight, risks eroding fundamental rights. European law requires any restriction on privacy to be necessary, proportionate, and transparent. The proposed bill highlights the ongoing tension between national security and the right to privacy, particularly where judicial oversight may be bypassed in exceptional circumstances. Two companion bills are being prepared to support the implementation of the new framework, incorporating safeguards to mitigate potential limitations on judicial oversight, with all three expected to be considered together once the legislative package is finalised. Ultimately, whether the new framework can achieve operational effectiveness without compromising fundamental rights will depend on the precise scope of crimes covered, the robustness of judicial oversight and the strict implementation of safeguards in practice. The proposed legislation represents a significant development in Cyprus surveillance law. While the bill aims to modernise interception procedures and address operational challenges, it also raises important constitutional and European law questions. As the bill moves to Parliament, the key challenge will be ensuring that any expansion of interception powers is accompanied by robust safeguards, effective judicial oversight, and strict compliance with European privacy standards.

At critical stages of growth, businesses look outward for capital, to scale operations, enter new markets, strengthen infrastructure or remain competitive. In those moments, management’s attention usually turns to financial performance, tangible assets and historical revenue.  Intellectual Property is increasingly recognized as a significant driver of enterprise value, although its strategic importance is not always fully reflected in corporate planning. The knowledge, innovation, brand identity and proprietary systems developed over time frequently represent a substantial share of a company’s real worth. When properly identified, protected and appropriately structured, these intangible assets may enhance valuation, strengthen negotiating leverage, support financing and generate recurring licensing income.  Without active management, IP assets may remain underutilized, leading to potentially exposing the organisation to risk, and failing to generate commercial return.   Many businesses are not entirely certain what intellectual property they own, whether ownership is properly secured, or how rights in intellectual property can be commercially leveraged. While financial statements accurately reflect tangible assets like equipment and inventory, intellectual property remains significantly underrepresented, despite often constituting the largest component of an enterprise’s value. As a result, companies may enter investor discussions, mergers or financing negotiations without fully reflecting the strength of their intangible asset base.   Intellectual property is not merely a legal safeguard. When managed strategically, it becomes a financial instrument.   Registered and Unregistered Rights: The Visible and the Hidden   Intellectual property generally falls into two broad categories: registered rights and unregistered rights. Registered rights include patents, trademarks and industrial designs. These are formally recorded and grant defined exclusivity. A patent can secure long-term control over commercially significant technology. A trademark transforms products and services into protected brands capable of commanding loyalty and premium pricing. A registered industrial design safeguards the visual features that influence consumer choice. These rights are often central in due diligence processes and may influence valuation discussions.   In practice, some businesses may overlook patentable developments, delay brand protection in expansion markets or record registered rights at historic filing cost rather than at figures reflecting true commercial impact.   Unregistered rights are less visible and often more underestimated. Copyrights arise automatically in creative content, such as software, databases, training materials and internal systems. Trade secrets protect confidential know-how, manufacturing processes, pricing strategies, customer intelligence and proprietary methodologies, provided appropriate safeguards are in place. These assets do not appear in public registers, but in many organisations, they represent the core of profitability and competitive advantage.   The key consideration is often not whether intellectual property exists, but whether it has been properly identified, secured and aligned with the company’s growth strategy.   Intellectual Property as a Strategic Growth Tool   Well-managed intellectual property behaves differently from most tangible assets. Technology, brands and proprietary know-how can be appreciated as market recognition deepens and exclusivity strengthens. Strong portfolios can support higher valuations, improve investor confidence. Besides that, they reinforce defensibility in mergers and acquisitions and create structured licensing revenue. In certain circumstances, they may also support financing arrangements.   Where intellectual property is not clearly structured, companies struggle to demonstrate defensibility and scalability. During transactions, this can translate into reduced purchase price or increased scrutiny. In financing contexts, assets that could strengthen the balance sheet may not be fully reflected. Increasingly, intellectual property is regarded not solely as a legal function, but as a board-level consideration intersecting finance, tax planning, risk management and corporate strategy.   In this context, the impact of overlooking intellectual property is often measurable, particularly in transactional or financing environments.   Cyprus as a Strategic Platform   For businesses operating in Cyprus, the jurisdiction offers a commercially attractive environment for holding and exploiting intellectual property. Beyond robust legal protection aligned with European standards, Cyprus provides a competitive IP Box regime under which qualifying intellectual property income may benefit from a significantly reduced effective tax rate, subject to applicable conditions. For companies generating returns from patented technology or proprietary software, this can translate into meaningful, retained earnings, available for reinvestment and expansion.   As an EU member state, Cyprus also provides access to European protection systems and international registration mechanisms, facilitating expansion into multiple markets. Combined with an extensive double tax treaty network and a common law system, Cyprus offers a framework that is both internationally recognised and administratively predictable.   For internationally active businesses, the jurisdictional location of intellectual property may also have implications for cross-border tax treatment and regulatory coordination.   These advantages are most effective when intellectual property is structured and integrated within broader corporate and tax governance frameworks.   From Protection to Positioning   Most businesses have never conducted a structured review of their intellectual property portfolio. They may not know what can be registered, what already exists automatically, whether ownership has been properly assigned, or whether confidential assets are adequately protected. Without clarity, intellectual property may remain underleveraged. With clarity, it can become a more central component of corporate strategy. Periodic evaluation of intellectual property assets is increasingly viewed as part of sound corporate governance and risk management practice.   When intellectual property is aligned with commercial objectives, it may strengthen balance sheets, influence transaction outcomes and enhance investor perception. It shifts from being a legal background concept to a driver of enterprise growth.   Intellectual property is not a formality created by paperwork. It is the accumulated result of innovation, experience and market presence. The difference between simply owning intellectual property and strategically managing it may influence valuation, financing capacity, long-term growth and competitiveness.   For many businesses, this distinction has not been systematically assessed. In an increasingly innovation-driven environment, periodic evaluation of intellectual property assets forms part of prudent corporate governance. In some cases, organizations may discover that the information, data, systems and brands underpinning their operations represent value comparable to, or exceeding, traditional tangible assets such as land or gold.   Co authors:   Ramona Livera –  Senior Associate Kyveli Antoniou – Associate Anastasios Kostekoglou – Lawyer Trainee  

Elias Neocleous & Co LLC has advised in connection with the issuance of €550,000,000 aggregate principal amount of senior secured notes due 2031 by Allwyn. The notes were issued pursuant to an indenture dated 20 February 2026 among the issuer, Allwyn International AG as parent company, Kroll Trustee Services Limited, The Bank of New York Mellon, London Branch and The Bank of New York Mellon SA/NV, Dublin branch. The €550 million issuance forms part of the Allwyn group’s broader financing programme together with the syndication of EUR 1.5 billion term loan supporting its strategic growth initiatives, refinancing activities and ongoing corporate transactions across multiple jurisdictions. Structured under a high-yield covenant framework customary for European debt capital markets offerings, the offering also provides flexibility for the potential issuance of additional notes under the same terms. Allwyn is a multinational gaming entertainment company, lottery-led, with leading market positions and trusted brands across Europe including Cyprus and North America. Its purpose is to make play better for all by focusing on innovation, technology, player safety and increasing returns to good causes across its growing casual gaming entertainment portfolio. This transaction further demonstrates our firm’s strong capabilities in cross-border debt capital markets transactions and our continued involvement in complex, multi-jurisdictional financing structures working on this transaction inter alios along Clifford Chance Prague. The Elias Neocleous team was led by the managing partner Elias Neocleous, with support from partner Demetris Rotis and associate Theodora Alexandrou.

Continuing its active involvement in this prestigious international summit, Elias Neocleous & Co LLC sponsored the Legal500 GC Summit 2026 in Cyprus, marking eight consecutive years of support. The Legal500 GC Summit is widely recognised as a key platform for dialogue between in-house counsel and leading law firms, fostering collaboration, knowledge exchange and meaningful discussion of emerging legal and regulatory developments. Held at the Landmark Nicosia Hotel, the conference welcomed approximately 100 leading lawyers and in-house counsel from high-calibre companies across Cyprus. The event provided an opportunity for participants to interact, network, and discuss current legal and regulatory developments, including the recent incorporation of EU Regulation 2019/452 into Cyprus law through The Law on the Establishment of a Framework for the Control of Foreign Direct Investments (FDI) of 2025, which is scheduled to enter into force on 2 April 2026. This timely topic was the focus of an engaging panel delivered by Elias Neocleous & Co LLC. The panel explored the concept of investing with foresight under the new FDI screening mechanism and featured the following speakers: Mrs. Andrea Kallis, Partner at Elias Neocleous & Co LLC; Mr. Alexey Drobyshev, Deputy Chief Legal Officer at Sumsub; Mrs. Rafaella Charalampous, Senior Legal Counsel at Pepperstone EU Limited; Mr. Emilios Charalambous, Associate Lawyer at Elias Neocleous & Co LLC. Following the opening remarks by Mrs. Andrea Kallis, the key aspects of the new law were presented by Mr. Emilios Charalambous, who outlined its background, scope, process, and potential impact. His introduction set the foundation for a high-level and informed legal discussion. In turn, Mrs. Rafaella Charalampous, drawing on her experience in corporate structuring, shared her views on whether the new provisions are likely to deter or attract foreign capital. The discussion addressed the possibility of fund rerouting through alternative legal structures or jurisdictions with less stringent screening frameworks. In the same vein, Mr. Alexey Drobyshev provided his perspective on how the new law may be received by affected foreign investors and offered a broader assessment of whether such regulations contribute to making the European Union a safer and more attractive investment destination. The panel concluded with Mr. Emilios Charalambous offering practical guidance to the lawyers and General Counsels present on how best to support their clients under the new framework. Before closing the session, Mrs. Andrea Kallis presented four key questions that the firm had raised with the Ministry of Finance, as the supervising authority of the FDI law, together with the responses received. This provided the audience with further clarity on the regulator’s approach and intentions going forward. Overall, the panel delivered valuable insights into the operation, implications, and evolving perceptions of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in Cyprus, reaffirming Elias Neocleous & Co LLC’s commitment to contributing meaningfully to the legal community and to the development of an effective and sustainable services industry. For more information of inquiries, please contact our Partner Mrs. Andrea Kallis Parparinou at [email protected], or our Associate Mr. Emilios Charalambous at [email protected]