Harris Kyriakides

Cyprus legislation incorporates the sanctions regime promulgated by the United Nations and the European Union through the Law on the Implementation of Provisions of Resolutions orDecisions of the Security Council of the United Nations Organisation (Sanctions) and the Decisions and Regulations of the Council of the European Union (Restrictive Measures) of 2016. In the European Union, sanction laws are adopted in a two-step process and are then implemented in national laws. First, the Council of the European Union (the Council), which represents the EU governments, takes a political decision to impose sanctions on a specific country or in relation to a particular region or group. Second, the Council adopts a Regulation that implements the Council Decision (the Council Sanctions Regulation). Except for travel bans and exports of arms, which are only provided in Council decisions, Regulations detail the specific sanctions (i.e. freezing of assets and export bans) and persons listed under them.  EU sanctions are enacted as Regulations (for Russia, e.g. Council Regulation (EU) 269/20144, Council Regulation (EU) 833/2014, both as amended). Thus, such sanctions have immediate effect in all member states of the European Union under Art. 289 TFEU as soon as they are published in the Official Journal of the EU. They are legislative acts and thus are directly effective as laws in all EU member states and for all EU institutions. That means that any citizens of EU member states, any legal entities and national authorities as well as any EU institutions are required to comply with them. In the legal hierarchy, they are ranking immediately below the TFEU, itself. In case of contradiction with other EU regulations, it is necessary to interpret the different regulations in light of each other. In case of unsolvable contradiction, the lex posterior rule applies. Because of the effet utile, EU Regulations (including sanctions Regulations) rank higher than Cyprus law. In case a subject is governed by a national law and a Regulation is in place as well, the Regulation is effective while the national law is considered ineffective. In case a national law touches the subject of a Regulation, the national law needs to be interpreted in a way that it does not in any way contradict the Regulation. In case such national laws are implementations of EU Directives (which are also legislative acts of EU but only have direct effect on member states but not individuals), in case a Directive contradicts a Regulation, a harmonised interpretation of both the national law implementing the Directive and the Regulation is required. If this is not possible, the lex posterior rule applies. As a general rule, EU sanctions Regulations apply: (a) within the territory of the European Union, including its airspace; (b) on board any aircraft or any vessel under the jurisdiction of a Member State; (c) to any person inside or outside the territory of the Union who is a national of a Member State; (d) to any legal person, entity or body, inside or outside the territory of the Union, which is incorporated or constituted under the law of a Member State; (e) to any legal person, entity or body in respect of any business done in whole or in part within the Union. Though EU sanctions are expected to produce effects in third countries through pressure on listed persons, they do not apply extraterritorially. In other words, they do not create obligations for non-EU persons or entities, unless the business is conducted at least partly within the EU. In parallel, and as a matter of principle, the EU does not recognise the extraterritorial application of laws adopted by third countries and considers such effects to be contrary to international law. US and UK sanctions in Cyprus US and UK sanctions do not have an immediate legal effect in member states of the EU. There are no international agreements in place that would provide them with legal effect in the EU or any of its member states. However, as long as this is not a breach of an EU Blocking Statute (the only Blocking Statute in place, currently, relating to Cuba, Iran, and Libya only is Regulation (EC) 2271/96 as amended), EU citizens and entities are not generally prohibited to comply with them. In case compliance would lead to breach of contract etc., the claim of compliance with US or UK sanctions is not a valid defence. Still, with regard to some sanctions, especially US sanction rules claim extraterritorial effect: US sanction rules often require that subsidiaries of US entities or even anyone in the world comply with US sanctions rules, they prohibit doing US$ transactions with certain persons and countries, etc. While such sanctions do not have legal effect in EU member states, the US have a history of enforcing such extraterritorial sanctions by ordering excessive financial penalties to non-compliant entities doing business in the US, jailing and imprisoning C-suites and other employees of non-compliant entities when entering the US, and listing non-compliant foreign entities as sanctioned persons, themselves, which prohibits any US entity from doing business with such person (and in case of extraterritorial sanctions, even requiring anyone in the world to not do business with such sanctioned person or otherwise facing the same penalty). Impact of EU sanctions on commercial contracts governed by Cyprus law Cyprus did not enact any specific legislation in Cyprus to regulate restrictive measures or sanctions. In addition, Cyprus Courts do not seem to have issued any judgements in relation to issues pertaining to the validity, extent and interpretation of the EU sanctions regime. Given that common law precedents are a source of law under Cyprus law, it is likely that Cyprus Courts would adopt decisions issued by English Courts or other Commonwealth countries on the issue, although a note of caution would apply on any post-Brexit case law that may focus on UK legislation rather than EU instruments. For instance, one issue that may arise is the meaning of ownership or control of assets.  In the recent judgement in PJSC v. Mints, English Courts took the view that, whilst fact-specific, these concepts are directed towards individuals (as opposed to the institutions) and that sanctions applicable to specific persons may not affect companies which are within the designated person’s power or control. It would be, therefore, unusual that large institutions could be subject to sanctions intended to cause personal financial troubles. Another point of contention is whether a designated persons could exercise active rights of access to justice, such as in order to initiate litigation or pursue a cause of action. Whilst accepting the fact that a cause of action constitutes an economic resource, the English Court in PJSC v. Mints upheld the common law principle that legislation must explicitly authorise restrictions to basic human rights, such as access to justice, in order for the Court to be able to give effect to a prohibition of exercise of such rights. Therefore, absent specific legislation providing otherwise, designated persons must be seen to remain able to access courts and seek judgement for their claims. Another difficult point is the issue of how courts will approach the enforcement of commercial contracts in case that any of the parties is affected by sanctions.  In the recent case of Gravelor Shipping Ltd v. GTLK Asia M5 Ltd & Anor, sanctions materially impacted the ability of one party to pay under the contract, which required specific payment in US dollars to a certain bank account. The English Court allowed a request for the revision of the contract which changed the bank account and switched the currency of the payments. The fundamental of the judgment advocates that, even if it deviates substantially from the original terms, English courts in the proper case will interpret contracts liberally in order to preserve the contractual deal and accommodate in a fair and equitable manner the actions of the parties impacted by sanctions. Conclusion The unknowns surrounding the impact of sanctions in commercial contracts highlight the need for careful consideration of specific circumstances, ideally at a pre-contractual stage. The cases discussed demonstrate that Courts would adopt a pragmatic and liberal approach, which will seek to preserve considerations of justice and equity in contractual deals, yet the limits of this approach are yet to be specified. Cyprus Courts are yet to show any specific trends on the issue and it would be interesting to see how Cyprus Courts would approach matters related to sanctions and restrictive measures.  

Effective as of 15 March 2024, new legal provisions apply to Cyprus companies converting to companies in other EU Member States and vice versa. These changes result from the Companies Law (No.3) of 2024 (Law 26(I)/2024), known as the Amendment Law. This amendment integrates the provisions of Directive (EU) 2019/2121 (the Mobility Directive), which updates Directive (EU) 2017/1132 concerning cross-border conversions. Definition of cross-border conversion Under the Mobility Directive and the Amendment Law, a “cross-border conversion” allows a Limited Liability Company to change its legal form and relocate its registered office to another EU Member State without dissolving, winding up, or entering liquidation, while maintaining its legal identity. The departure Member State governs the initial procedures to obtain the pre-conversion certificate, while the destination Member State governs subsequent formalities. Notably, cross-border conversions do not apply to companies undergoing liquidation, insolvency, or similar proceedings (Section 201ΗΑ of the Amendment Law). Involvement of authorities and protection of stakeholders The Amendment Law mandates the involvement of both the Cyprus Department of Registrar of Companies and Intellectual Property (the RoC) and the Cyprus Court. It ensures the protection of employees' and members' interests during the conversion process. Directors of the converting company must draft detailed terms of the cross-border conversion, including the new legal form, name, registered office location, and a proposed timeline. These terms also address rights and protections for members with special rights, securities holders, creditors, and employees, along with any special benefits for company officials and compensation details (Section 201ΗΔ of the Amendment Law). Additionally, directors must prepare a report explaining the legal and financial implications of the conversion for employees and members. An independent expert must review the draft terms and provide a report on the adequacy of cash compensation for members (Section 201ΗΣΤ of the Amendment Law). Notification and approval process The company must submit the following documents to the RoC at least one month before the general meeting that will approve the conversion by special resolution (Section 201ΗΗ of the Amendment Law): Draft terms of the cross-border conversion A notice informing members, creditors, and employees about the draft terms and their right to submit comments The independent expert’s report, if required These documents are made publicly accessible by the RoC and through the interconnection of EU Member States' registers. Creditor protections Creditors dissatisfied with the safeguards provided in the draft terms can apply to the Court within three months of the disclosure, provided they demonstrate credible concerns about their claims' satisfaction due to the conversion (Section 201H1 of the Amendment Law). Court application for pre-conversion certificate The converting company must file an application with the Cyprus Court to obtain a pre-conversion certificate. The application includes the draft terms, directors’ and independent expert’s reports, and general meeting approval details. The Court may request additional information and, if all conditions are met, issue the pre-conversion certificate. This certificate is then transmitted to the destination Member State through the interconnection system. Legal scrutiny and completion The Cyprus Court scrutinises the legality of the cross-border conversion based on Cyprus law and approves or rejects the conversion. The converting company submits the Court’s approval to the RoC, which handles the registration and publication, marking the completion of the conversion. The laws of the destination Member State determine the final registration date. Upon completion, all assets, liabilities, contracts, credits, rights, and obligations transfer to the converted company, and members retain their status unless they have sold their shares. Employment contracts and relationships existing at the conversion date also transfer to the new entity. Conclusion The new procedures for cross-border conversions under the Amendment Law are expected to enhance the internal market's functionality and the freedom of establishment for companies within a harmonised legal framework. This will foster better cooperation between Member States concerning cross-border conversions, making the process more efficient and business-friendly.  

On 27 June 2024, the English Court of Appeal delivered a judgment in Nicholls v AXA Assistance Group T/A AXA Travel Insurance [2024] EWCA Civ 718,addressing crucial issues under the Rome II Regulation (“Rome II”), which is assimilated EU law in the UK, regarding the classification of interest rates on damages and the principles of subrogation. For a comprehensive read, you can access the link. Key Ruling on Substantive vs. Procedural Law The ruling, delivered by Lord Justices Dingemans, Stuart-Smith, and Coulson, concerned personal injuries sustained in Spain and the subsequent legal actions under Spanish law, which was applicable to the torts involved. A central issue in the case was whether the rate of interest on damages should be considered a substantive or procedural matter under the Rome II. Article 1(3) of Rome II excludes matters of evidence and procedure from its scope, while Article 15(c) includes the assessment of damage under substantive law. The Court of Appeal ruled that the issue of the rate of interest falls within the scope of substantive law, a decision that brings clarity to a previously divided lower court opinion landscape. Spanish vs. English Law on Interest Rates The court considered the provisions of Spanish Law 50/1980, which penalises insurance companies for delays in compensation payment with an interest rate significantly higher than the statutory rate, against English law, where interest rates on damages are procedural. The judgment concluded that interest rates under Spanish law are intertwined with the assessment of damages and thus are substantive, aligning with Rome II's objectives of uniform substantive law application. Subrogation Under Spanish and English Law The court also addressed the subrogation issue, determining that under Article 19 of Rome II, English law governs the right of an insurer to claim repayment of medical and repatriation costs paid on behalf of the victim. This decision highlights the distinction between Spanish and English law in handling subrogated claims and affirms the application of the law governing the underlying insurance contract. Court’s Reasoning and Interpretation The court emphasised the need for an independent and uniform interpretation of Rome II, aligned with its objectives to ensure a consistent approach to substantive law across jurisdictions. The decision underlines that a broad interpretation of procedural exclusions could undermine these objectives, and therefore, a substantive interpretation was warranted for the interest rate issue. Implications of the Judgment The Nicholls ruling is significant as it resolves a contentious issue in English case law regarding the classification of interest rates on damages. It supports the view that such rates are linked to the overall assessment of damages and should be treated as a matter of substantive law. This judgment sets a precedent for future cases involving cross-border tort claims under Rome II. Author:  Eva Manolova

A recent judicial ruling declared unconstitutional the provisions contained in the articles 44IH - 44KB of the   Transfer and Mortgage of Real Estate Law of 1965 (9/1965). The abovementioned articles regulate the process of issuing title deeds to “Enclaved” buyers through elimination or discharge of previous encumbrances, such as a mortgage. Cyprus law on Transfer and Mortgage of Immovable Property (No. 9/1965), as amended by Law with No.139(I)/2015 (the Law), allows for the compulsory transfer of immovable property in the name of the “Enclaved” buyers when the seller fails to do so. Articles 44IH – 44KB of the Law regulate this procedure by addressing the elimination or discharge of previous encumbrances, including  mortgages. However, the Cypriot Court of Appeal, in its recent judgment Bank of Cyprus Public Company ltd v. The Director of the Department of Lands and Surveys in Paphos and others, Civil Appeal No. 285/2018, 20/06/2024, found these provisions to be unconstitutional, citing conflicts with Articles 23 and 26 of the Constitution. Background The Bank of Cyprus (the Appellants) provided loans to a developer (the Defendant 2), who pledged two mortgages as security. The case also involved an “Enclaved" buyer (the Defendant 3) who purchased an apartment from Defendant 2 which would be built on two properties that were secured by the abovementioned mortgages. The contract of sale between Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 was deposited on 05/02/2004 within the Land Registry Office for specific performance. Later, on 27/09/2016, Defendant 3 initiated proceedings under the Law to transfer the apartment into his name with the application AEA 1744/16. Defendant 3 exercised his right under the Law and filed an objection against the decision of the Director of the Department of Lands and Surveys (the Defendant 1), concerning the transfer of the property and the deletion of the existing mortgages (the Decision). After the objection was rejected, Defendant 2 filed an application before the District Court to annul the Decision and to declare the Articles 44ΙΗ - 44ΚΒ of the Law unconstitutional. The Judgment of the District Court The District Court ruled in favour of Defendant 1 and Defendant 3, rejecting the application without considering the alleged non-conformity of Articles 44ΙΗ - 44ΚΒ of the Law with constitutional provisions. The Judgment of the Court of Appeal Defendant 2 appealed the District Court’s decision, arguing, among other points, that the District Court erred in failing to assess the constitutional compliance with the Law’s provisions. The Court of Appeals upheld Defendant 2’s arguments, overturning the appealed decision of the District Court. Findings of the Court of Appeal The examination of the constitutionality of Articles 44IH – 44KB was essential for the diagnosis of the case before the District Court. That Articles 44ΙΗ - 44ΚΒ of the Law contradict Article 23 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to property. Specifically, the Court highlighted the following points: Article 23 of the Constitution provides that the deprivation of property rights is justified under specific circumstances, namely after compulsory acquisition accompanied by fair and reasonable compensation. The discharge of the registered mortgage from the property, which benefited Defendant 2 and was registered before the deposition of the Contract of Sale, clearly results in the abolition of Defendant 2’s property rights. The Court of Appeal found that Articles 44ΙΗ - 44ΚΒ of the Law contradict Article 26 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to freely enter into contracts. Specifically, the Court stated the following: Allowing the Director of the Land Registry Office to eliminate or discharge a property purchased from an “Enclaved” buyer from any encumbrances without ensuring compliance with the terms of the mortgage as chosen by one for the contracting parties violates the rights protected under Article 26 of the Constitution. The Court of Appeal found that Articles 44ΙΗ - 44ΚΒ of the Law are not conflicted under the circumstances of this case with the provisions of Articles 25 and 30 of the Constitution. Conclusion The Court’s analysis sheds light on the legislature’s attempt to protect both the rights of an “Enclaved” buyer and the rights of mortgage lenders. However, it was concluded that Articles 44ΙΗ - 44ΚΒ of the Law exceed the constitutional framework. The judgement can be found here. Authors: Chariklia Thedoulou, Evi Chalkidi

A recent ruling by the Cyprus Court of Appeal provides key insights into the standards required for granting such injunctions, especially where fraud and conspiracy are alleged. Brief summary of the case facts The case of TOUCHSTONE SNAIL TECHNOLOGIES LTD κ.α. v. K. INVEST CONSULTING S.A.L. OFFSHORE (Civil Appeal no. E11/21, 29/3/2024) revolves around a business dispute between two entities, in which the claimants (the respondents) alleged that the defendants (the appellants) engaged in fraudulent behaviour and conspiracy. The respondents had entered into agreements with the appellants for investment in snail farming, which was expected to yield returns over several years. However, the appellants terminated the agreements, citing water shortages and other external factors. The respondents alleged that the termination was a pretext, as the appellants continued to attract new investors and form new entities without informing the original investors, which they claimed amounted to fraud and conspiracy. The District Court had issued interim freezing orders on the appellants' assets and Norwich Pharmacal orders for the disclosure of financial information. The appellants challenged these orders, resulting in this appeal. How courts should approach allegations of fraud in interim injunctions The Court of Appeal took a detailed approach in explaining how fraud should be understood in the context of interim injunctions. Drawing from established common law principles, it emphasised that fraud is not an independent tort but falls under claims such as deceit or fraudulent misrepresentation. This understanding was supported by legal texts like Bullen & Leake & Jacob's Precedents of Pleadings and Clerk & Lindsell on Torts. In cases involving fraud, the court must consider whether the claim involves false representations made knowingly or recklessly with the intent to deceive. Fraud must not be treated as a stand-alone civil wrong, but rather in conjunction with deceit. The Court referred to Pasley v. Freeman and Derry v. Peak to underscore the importance of intention and the falsehood of representations in establishing fraud. Additionally, conspiracy was discussed as a separate ground of liability. As noted in the case law cited (Christoforou v. Barclays Bank Plc and Paikkos v. Kontemeniotis), conspiracy requires an agreement between two or more parties where the predominant purpose is to harm the claimant. The conspiracy claim must show that the actions taken were specifically intended to injure the other party, not merely to advance the defendants’ own interests. Court's decision on the issue In reviewing the District Court’s decision, the Court of Appeal found that the lower court had erred in its understanding and application of fraud and conspiracy. It clarified that the first two elements of fraud, as outlined in Article 36 of the Civil Wrongs Law, Cap. 148, were not adequately supported by the evidence. While there were allegations of false representations by the appellants, the court found that key components—such as whether the respondents acted upon those representations or suffered losses as a direct result—were not sufficiently proven. Regarding the conspiracy claim, the Court acknowledged that the appellants had continued their business operations through new entities but did not find enough evidence to suggest that the appellants’ primary goal was to harm the respondents. The evidence showed that the appellants were primarily acting in their own commercial interests, which did not meet the legal threshold for conspiracy. Consequently, the Court of Appeal partially overturned the District Court’s ruling. It lifted the freezing orders against some of the appellants (2-4) and limited the scope of disclosure orders under the Norwich Pharmacal doctrine. The freezing order for the first appellant was upheld, but the amount was reduced from €6.18 million to €1.17 million, as the initial sum was not proportionate to the evidence of potential damages. Impact of the ruling on future cases This ruling offers valuable guidance on the application of interim injunctions in cases involving fraud and conspiracy allegations. It emphasises the importance of courts applying a rigorous standard when granting interim remedies such as freezing orders. Specifically, the court must ensure that the legal ingredients of fraud and conspiracy are fully met before imposing such orders. For future cases, this decision reinforces the notion that fraud must be tied to concrete misrepresentation and harm, and conspiracy must involve a clear intent to damage the claimant. Courts will need to examine evidence carefully to avoid granting excessive or disproportionate injunctions. This ruling also highlights the importance of proportionality in freezing orders, particularly in cross-border business disputes, where asset dissipation is a concern. Businesses must be prepared for careful scrutiny of their financial dealings, and this decision demonstrates that courts will act to protect claimants' interests, provided that the legal thresholds are met.  

By a majority vote, Parliament has enacted a legislative package to align national law with European Directive 2021/2167, which establishes a unified framework for credit servicers and purchasers. The legislation aims to facilitate the creation of a secondary market for Non-Performing Loans (NPLs), regulate the licensing and supervision of credit servicers, and protect borrowers' rights in loan sale transactions. Specifically, with 27 votes in favour, 17 against, and one abstention, the plenary approved seven bills to establish a legislative framework for the secondary loan market. Two amendments were also approved: the first prohibits the sale of performing loans, while the second grants authority to the Central Bank of Cyprus (CBC) to refuse or revoke licenses for credit servicers and to veto board appointments in credit servicing companies when deemed necessary for the protection of national interests. The framework provides credit servicers access to property data from the Land Registry and mandates compliance with anti-money laundering and data protection laws, as recommended by the Data Protection Commissioner. It also includes borrower notification obligations before performing loan sales and the right for borrowers to repurchase their loans. The legal framework aligns credit transactions with the new standardized management regime, eliminating licensing requirements and the €100,000 minimum capital threshold for credit purchasing companies. This framework will apply to credit facilities transferred or sold by credit institutions after the implementation of the proposed legislation, as well as to all future restructurings, substitutions, modifications, and resales of such loans by a credit purchaser. Credit facilities that have already been transferred and are currently held by credit institutions prior to the new framework taking effect will remain governed by the provisions of the Sale of Credit Facilities and Related Matters Act 2015, which will continue to apply to any future restructurings or resales of these facilities, whether serviced or unserviced. Author: Michaela Antoniou and Skevi Georgiou

The European Commission’s €15.9 million fine against IF&F signals an expanded enforcement approach, extending its investigative powers to digital communications like WhatsApp, setting a precedent for future competition law investigations. Background In its recent decision dated 24 June 2024 the European Commission (the Commission), while investigating International Flavors & Fragrances IFF (France) SAS and International Flavors & Fragrances Inc. (jointly IF&F) for a possible competition law infringement, examined a senior employee’s personal WhatsApp account on their work smartphone. The Commission imposed a fine of €15.9 million for obstructing the investigation after it was discovered that the employee had deleted business-related messages with a competitor upon learning that he was a target of the investigation, essentially preventing the Commission from accessing evidence that could have been crucial to the investigation. Expanding EU competition law to digital platforms This groundbreaking decision marks the first time the Commission has interpreted the deletion of WhatsApp messages as obstruction of an inspection, leading to the imposition of a fine on the company. This decision highlights the Commission and national competition authorities' willingness to keep pace with technological developments and extend their inspections to new forms of communication, such as electronic communication platforms. However, this decision also marks the first time that the cooperation procedure was applied. Specifically, after IF&F admitted, albeit retroactively, the incident and the deletion of the messages, the company not only dismissed the employee in question for breaching the law, but also fully cooperated with the Commission’s forensic technicians in recovering the deleted messages. This late admission and significant cooperation were taken into account as mitigating factors by the Commission when determining the inevitable fine, which was reduced by 50%, resulting in a final amount of €15.9 million. The broad scope and consequences of dawn raids The Regulation[1] grants broad, unusual, and highly effective powers to conduct dawn raids and digital forensic investigations to the Commission and the national competition authorities, including the ability to search not only business premises but also employees' personal spaces, such as their private residences, if there is reason to believe that relevant activities are taking place there,especially with the rise of remote work. Furthermore, they have the authority to inspect books, records, documents, and all kinds of data related to the business, as well as any necessary technological devices such as smartphones, tablets, and personal computers, provided they are used for business purposes. Preventing or obstructing such a raid and investigation is a violation of the Regulation in itself and can result in significant fines, as seen in the IF&F case, which are calculated on a proportionate and deterrent basis of up to 1% of the annual turnover of the infringing company or association. In the IF&F case, the fine amounted to 0.03% of the total turnover because the obstruction was found to have been carried out intentionally by an employee who had been informed that they were a target of the investigation. It was only after the discovery of the obstruction that IF&F admitted the wrongdoing and cooperated in recovering the deleted messages. However, this cooperation led the Commission to reduce the fine by 50%, down to 0.015% of the total turnover. It should be noted that EU personal data protection legislation remains in force, but during a dawn raid, it cannot prevent the full and comprehensive inspection of records and electronic devices. Any personal data mixed with business information may be examined if deemed relevant to the investigation. However, the inspectors are expected to process this personal data in compliance with GDPR regulations, ensuring that irrelevant personal information is excluded from the investigation. The IF&F case, which remains ongoing as the investigation is not yet complete, illustrates how a single incident can lead to serious financial consequences. Cypriot companies, operating in a traditionally small but growing market, often face implications related to EU competition laws. Successful handling of a dawn raid by the Competition Protection Committee can only be ensured by taking proactive measures such as staff training and obtaining timely, adequate, and effective legal advice and representation. This will help companies withstand the pressure and avoid actions that could be interpreted as obstructing the inspection, which would inevitably lead to heavy fines. Footnotes [1]Articles 20 and 21 of the Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty

On the 24th of September 2024, the Harris Kyriakides Foundation proudly hosted its first official lecture titled “Legal Ethics in a New Age”. This event reflects the Foundation’s ongoing commitment to promoting the highest standards of integrity and professionalism among young legal professionals, reflecting the vision of its founder. The keynote address was delivered by Steven Gee KC, an internationally recognised legal expert and esteemed authority on matters of commercial litigation and arbitration. Drawing on his extensive experience, Mr. Gee shared his perspectives on the evolving ethical challenges faced by today’s legal professionals, touching on challenging case law that raises critical ethical questions, the regulation of ethics within the legal profession, and the balance between freedom of speech and judicial conduct. Mr. Gee’s contributions to legal scholarship and practice have been pivotal in shaping discourse on commercial disputes, injunctions, and procedural law across multiple jurisdictions. The event took place at the University of Cyprus, attracting an audience of legal practitioners and students, all eager to engage in discussions on the principles of legal ethics, the regulation of professional conduct, and how these principles apply in an ever-changing legal landscape. The Harris Kyriakides Foundation continues its mission to foster the development of legal knowledge and uphold the importance of ethical practice within the legal community. By hosting events such as this lecture, the foundation reaffirms its dedication to providing platforms for dialogue on crucial issues affecting the legal profession.  

Legal scholars and practitioners gathered on 22 April 2024 for an insightful online conference titled "Conservatory Measures (Interim Injunctions) In Cypriot and Greek Law." Hosted by the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, the event delved into critical aspects of interim injunctions within the legal frameworks of Cyprus and Greece. Chaired by distinguished academics Prof. Dr. Kalliopi Makridou and Prof. Dr. Georgios Diamantopoulos, both from Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, the conference featured a lineup of esteemed keynote speakers and commentators. The conference also featured insightful comments from esteemed professionals, including Dr. Nicolas Kyriakides. The organising committee, led by Prof. Dr. Kalliopi Makridou and Prof. Dr. Georgios Diamantopoulos of Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, ensured a fruitful exchange of ideas and perspectives on conservatory measures in both Cypriot and Greek legal systems. The conference served as a vital platform for fostering deeper understanding and collaboration in legal scholarship and practice.  

Nicolas Kyriakides served as one of the representatives for Cyprus, recently took part in the 95th meeting of the European Judicial Network (EJN) held in Brussels.The meeting particularly delved into EU procedures concerning the Small Claims (Regulation (EC) No 861/2007), European Payment Order (EOP/Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006), and European Account Preservation Order (EAPO/Regulation (EU) No 655/2014) Regulations. The two-day gathering, convened on April 25th and 26th, gathered contact points and central authorities from various EU member states. Among the highlights of the agenda were presentations on practical implementations of these regulations. Marco Giacalone and Paola Giacalone from the Vrije Universiteit of Brussels shed light on the SCAN2 Project, offering insights into the Small Claim Regulation. Additionally, representatives from the European Commission, including Jacek Gartska and Georg Haibach, provided overviews of recent CJEU caselaw on EU procedures and discussions on the operation of the aforementioned regulations. The meeting serves as a platform for sharing best practices, exploring challenges, and enhancing collaboration among EU member states in the realm of civil and commercial law.  

Harris Kyriakides organised a Memorial Day at the Larnaca Municipal Theatre on Monday, May 13, 2024, to honour and express gratitude to its founder. During the event, the establishment of the Harris Kyriakides Foundation in memory of Harris Kyriakides was announced, aiming to continue his vision and work through a series of annual activities. The mission of the Harris Kyriakides Foundation is to support the next generation of talented young lawyers, helping them develop knowledge and skills and contribute to their ongoing professional education as well as the empowerment and development of their careers. The first initiative announced by the Harris Kyriakides Foundation is an annual scholarship for a Cypriot student at the University of Oxford. The programme will last from the academic years 2023 to 2027, with the Harris Kyriakides Foundation funding scholarships of £10,000 annually. Eligible candidates will include both Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot students enrolled in either the Bachelor of Civil Law (BCL) or Magister Juris (MJur) programmes and have chosen the Civil Procedure course. This is a way for Cyprus to continue creating its own legal tradition, which began with the few lawyers who practiced after independence, such as Harris Kyriakides. Additionally, the Harris Kyriakides Foundation announced, in collaboration with Harris Kyriakides, the organisation of annual educational programs and lectures on the fundamental principles of the legal profession's code of ethics and conduct, aimed at young lawyers. The goal of this initiative is to familiarise young lawyers with ethical and conduct issues, both theoretically and practically, adhering to the highest standards as Harris Kyriakides himself did. Finally, the beginning of a collaboration between the Harris Kyriakides Foundation and the Municipality of Larnaca was announced, with the aim of supporting various initiatives in the city where Harris Kyriakides founded his firm and family. The first project of the collaboration will be the Harris Kyriakides Foundation's contribution to the construction of the Salina Municipal Park. Spanning an area of 14,000 square meters, a beautiful urban park is being developed in the center of Larnaca, which is expected to connect with the Municipal Garden, forming the city's most significant green area. The Harris Kyriakides Foundation will contribute to the landscaping of the Salina Municipal Park in coordination with the municipal authorities, financially supporting the implementation of the design and the creation of the space, ensuring that it remains clean and available for the city's needs. The aim of the Harris Kyriakides Foundation is to continue implementing an annual action, always in consultation with the municipal authorities, contributing and assisting in honouring Harris Kyriakides's desire for continuous progress and prosperity for Larnaca and its people. For more information about the Harris Kyriakides Foundation and its activities, you can visit the website www.hkfoundation.cy or contact at [email protected].  

Harris Kyriakides participated in the 2nd Cyprus Arbitration Day, an event that underscores Cyprus’s growing prominence as an international arbitration hub. Michael Kyriakides contributed to the discussions as a panellist in the round-table session on "Expert Witnesses in Arbitration." The session explored the current state of expert testimony in Cyprus and the essential role expert witnesses play in arbitration proceedings, offering valuable insights into their influence on resolving complex disputes. The event provided a platform for knowledge exchange and discussion, further enhancing Cyprus’s reputation in the global arbitration landscape.  

On June 26, 2024, Harris Kyriakides proudly hosted an insightful seminar titled “Latest Developments in Banking Law,” bringing together industry professionals, legal experts, and financial practitioners. The event served as a comprehensive platform for discussing key issues shaping the banking and legal landscape. Participants explored the new Civil Procedure Rules, delving into their implications for legal practice and dispute resolution. Other significant topics included the intricate processes of foreclosures and repossessions, shedding light on the evolving regulatory and procedural frameworks in these areas. The seminar also addressed the challenges of cross-border disputes, emphasizing strategies for navigating complex jurisdictional issues, and provided an in-depth examination of the enforcement of judgments abroad, offering practical insights into ensuring compliance across international boundaries. Attendees left equipped with a deeper understanding of these pressing topics, making the seminar a pivotal event for staying ahead in the dynamic field of banking law.  

On June 26, 2024, Harris Kyriakides successfully hosted an engaging seminar titled “Latest Developments in Insurance Law,” attracting legal professionals, industry specialists, and stakeholders in the insurance sector. The event offered a detailed exploration of key issues currently shaping the field of insurance law. Among the topics discussed were the Civil Procedure Rules and compensation cases, providing clarity on how these rules impact dispute resolution and legal processes in insurance claims. Attendees also delved into the amount of compensation and emerging trends, with speakers highlighting shifts in the calculation of awards and the factors influencing compensation outcomes. Additionally, the seminar addressed the statute of limitations for claims, focusing on its implications for policyholders and insurers alike, with practical insights on navigating time-barred claims. This seminar provided invaluable knowledge and actionable insights, cementing itself as a must-attend event for those seeking to stay ahead in the dynamic world of insurance law.  

The Insurance Institute of Cyprus (IIC) recently conducted a one-day seminar titled "Succession and Insurance," featuring a presentation by our partner, Nicolas Kyriakides. This seminar provided a comprehensive introduction to inheritance law, specifically addressing its relevance to the insurance sector. The seminar covered several key topics, including an overview of the legal status of inheritance and the determination of inheritance rights. Participants gained insights into the complexities of wills, including aspects such as the capacity to create a will, its validity, and the processes for revocation. Further, the seminar delved into both legal and intestate succession, clarifying the rights of legal heirs. It also addressed the commencement of life, focusing on the declaration of death and issues related to obsolescence. Additionally, the seminar explored inheritance taxation and the administration of estates, providing attendees with practical knowledge on managing and distributing inheritances. Nicolas Kyriakides' expertise offered valuable perspectives on the intricate relationship between inheritance law and insurance, enriching participants' understanding of this critical area.