Cyprus

On 15 September 2025, the District Court of Limassol delivered an important ruling on contempt procedure, holding that personal service is not invariably required and that, depending on the circumstances, the Court may order substituted service on a party’s lawyers. Background Facing an application for contempt, the defendants argued that such an application must be served personally and sought to set aside service made on their legal representatives. Decision The Court held it retains discretion to permit alternative (substituted) service of a contempt application on a party’s lawyers. It further clarified that, depending on the circumstances of each case, an unsuccessful prior attempt at personal service is not always a precondition to ordering substituted service. Why this matters (Cyprus context) The ruling reinforces judicial discretion and prevents contempt proceedings from being frustrated by procedural technicalities. As Pikis J. has observed, “Disobedience to a court order strikes at the foundation of the legal order; its continuation tends to overturn it.” (Loizou v. Police (1996) 2 A.A.D. 227). Where there is continuing disobedience, the need to address it immediately and appropriately to safeguard the administration of justice becomes even more urgent and imperative. Practical takeaways for litigants in Cyprus Do not assume personal service is a strict prerequisite in contempt matters. Seek directions for alternative service early where justified. Keep a clear record of efforts and context; lack of a failed personal-service attempt will not invariably bar substituted service. The successful Claimant was represented by Economou & Co LLC.

Economou & Co LLC successfully represented a leading electronic money institution in a significant online defamation matter before the Cypriot courts. The Defendant carried out a sustained and coordinated defamatory campaign against our client via an online platform. The Cypriot Court, fully adopting our client’s legal position, issued a final judgment ordering the removal of identified defamatory content from the internet and prohibiting its future republication, including content of a similar nature. The judgment is particularly noteworthy in that: It concerned a deliberate, wide-scale reputational attack orchestrated through an online medium. It reflects the Cypriot courts’ readiness to provide effective judicial relief in cases involving online defamation. It affirms that anonymity and the use of digital platforms do not insulate individuals from legal responsibility. This decision provides meaningful and enforceable redress for individuals and entities targeted by unlawful online conduct, reinforcing the protection of reputational rights in the digital age. Economou & Co LLC has developed substantial expertise in online defamation and digital reputation management, having acted in some of the most complex and high-profile matters in this evolving area of law. Our team brings together deep legal insight and technical understanding to effectively address the unique challenges of online reputational harm.

Our firm represented one of the successful Defendants / Applicant in a major commercial dispute before the Limassol District Court, involving claims exceeding USD 135 million, culminating in a significant ruling with both procedural and substantive implications. In a detailed interlocutory judgment, the Court struck out the entire Statement of Claim, accepting that the pleading was fundamentally defective for several reasons: The Statement of Claim incorporated extensive narrative and evidence, rather than a concise pleading of material facts. It suffered from lack of clarity, with numerous repetitions and unclear attribution of actions to individual Defendants. It improperly invoked foreign law without providing the required legal particulars. The volume and structure of the pleading created a serious procedural disadvantage for the Defendants. Importantly, the Court observed, that the more complex and multi-faceted a dispute is, the greater the need for pleadings to be well-structured and limited to the material facts: “The more complex a case is, with disparate alleged facts, the greater the need for the Statement of Claim to comply with the rules of civil procedure so that, at the end of the day, there is a concise statement (depending, of course, on the complexity of the case) with the necessary alleged facts revealing the cause of action.” The Plaintiffs were instructed to file a new Statement of Claim within a fixed period. Procedural Importance: The judgment is significant in reaffirming the procedural integrity expected in complex litigation. The judgment serves as a clear reminder that proper pleading is not a formality, but a safeguard of due process. Especially in complex, multi-party actions, pleadings must enable the fair and efficient adjudication of disputes.

We are pleased to announce that Economou & Co LLC has successfully represented a leading company in obtaining a liquidation order against its debtor, involving a debt in excess of EUR 16 million. The debt that formed the basis of the liquidation petition was based on an arbitral award issued by the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA). According with the relevant case law of the Supreme Court of Cyprus, as established in INTERPARTEMENTAL CONCERN OAO URALMETROM v. BESUNO (2014) 1 AAD 427 and more recently reaffirmed in ONEMIX GROUP MANAGEMENT LTD v. ROSTEX ENTERPRISES LTD (Civil Appeal 116/2015, 31/01/2024), a foreign arbitral award or judgment that has not been recognised in Cyprus cannot serve as the basis for filing a liquidation petition. This above principle was recently confirmed by the English Court of Appeal in SERVIS TERMINAL LLC v. DRELLE (2025) EWCA Civ 62, where it was held that a foreign judgment which has not been recognised and enforced in England cannot be used as the basis for any bankruptcy or winding-up petition, even where the debt is liquidated and undisputed. Accordingly, prior to initiating the liquidation proceedings, the LCIA arbitral award was recognised in Cyprus as if it were a domestic court judgment. Implications of the Liquidation Order This case demonstrates the importance of first securing the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards before initiating liquidation proceedings in Cyprus. This outcome reinforces Cyprus’s status as a reliable jurisdiction for international enforcement and underlines Economou & Co LLC’s expertise in cross-border insolvency and enforcement proceedings.