Elias Neocleous & Co LLC

Elias Neocleous & Co LLC

Global

News and developments

Family Law

Cross-Border Parental Responsibility: Jurisdiction as the “Apple of Discord”

In cases of cross-border parental responsibility, borders do not merely divide States but also lives. Where different legal systems and perceptions of the child’s best interests intersect, jurisdiction emerges as the modern “apple of discord.” This is evident from the recent Court of Appeal decision dated 12/3/2026 in Civil Appeal No. E58/25 (W. S. v. J. I. K.), which concerned parental responsibility with an international element, where the key issue was whether the Cypriot courts had jurisdiction to hear the case. In the present case, the father filed an application for parental responsibility, seeking sole parental responsibility over his four minor children, as well as regulation of their residence and contact arrangements. Following the mother’s departure in 2021, the children had moved to and settled in Germany. This became the core of the dispute, as the father claimed that the relocation had taken place without his consent and characterized it as abduction. He reported the mother to the police and initiated proceedings under the Hague Convention for the repatriation of the children back to Cyprus. However, the mother argued that there had been an agreement between them for permanent relocation to Germany due to better living conditions and educational opportunities for the children. During the first-instance proceedings, the Limassol Family Court examined a preliminary objection raised by the mother concerning lack of jurisdiction. The court held that, based on the relevant European regulation, the children’s “habitual residence” at the time the parental responsibility application was filed was no longer in Cyprus but in Germany. Significant factors in this assessment included the children’s long-term stay in Germany, their schooling there, their social integration, and the lack of day-to-day living in Cyprus. Subsequently, the father appealed the first-instance decision before the Court of Appeal, arguing primarily that the lower court had improperly taken into account a decision of a German court which had rejected an application for the return of the children under the Hague Convention, despite that decision not having been recognized in Cyprus. He further argued that this decision should not have influenced the assessment of “habitual residence.” The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the first-instance court had not relied on the foreign decision in determining jurisdiction, but had merely acknowledged the fact of its existence. The substantive assessment of the lower court had been based exclusively on the factual circumstances of the children’s residence and on the concept of “habitual residence.” In support of this approach, the Court of Appeal adopted the ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-523/07, where it was stated that habitual residence “corresponds to the place which reflects some degree of integration by the child in a social and family environment”. Consequently, the Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance decision, finding that the Family Court had correctly ruled that it lacked jurisdiction, since the children’s habitual residence at the critical time was in Germany.   Therefore, the issue of court jurisdiction in matters of cross-border parental responsibility has intensified because of globalization and the continuous movement of people between States. Nevertheless, it remains a crucial legal issue that places the child at the center of the analysis while taking into account the child’s best interests and their actual integration into society.   Anna Demetriou – Advocate/Partner at Elias Neocleous & Co LLC / Member of the International Academy of Family Lawyers   Petros Papadopoulos – Advocate/Associate at Elias Neocleous & Co LLC  
27 May 2026
Corporate and Commercial Law

When rules change, it’s never just about the rules

Whenever a new legislation is introduced, it is easy to assume that everything in business will suddenly change. In Cyprus, the first months of this year have brought two significant developments: a tax reform that came into force in January, and new foreign direct investment legislation that began applying in April. At first glance, these may appear to be technical updates, but the bigger story is about trust, stability, and the certainty businesses require to invest on the island. While some rules have become stricter to align with global standards, many of Cyprus’ tax advantages remain, preserving its appeal as a business hub. These reforms are not just compliance developments, they reflect a broader shift towards a more transparent and predictable investment environment, where companies can operate with confidence. From tax haven to trusted hub Cyprus has long been associated with a favourable tax environment. Recent legal reforms, however, demonstrate a deliberate shift toward positioning the island as a transparent and stable business hub. While some rules have become stricter and certain corporate tax advantages have been recalibrated in line with international practices, such as anti-money laundering measures and corporate taxation, many of Cyprus’ attractive business features remain in place, notably the well-established IP box regime and the non-domiciled regime. For investors, the significance lies less in the technical amendments themselves and more in the clearer framework they create.  They are not simply rules to be complied with but part of a broader framework that contributes to a trusted and stable operating environment for businesses. This means that the island is not merely open to investment but offers a legal and commercial environment in which operations can be planned with greater certainty. The rules, in other words, are not just rules, they are signals of regulatory maturity and long-term policy direction. The Tax Reform The tax reform that came into effect in January exemplifies how legal change can simplify, clarify, and enhance certainty without fundamentally altering the system. The reform addressed key areas where uncertainty had previously existed, particularly in relation to corporate tax treatment and compliance expectations, providing clarity on grey areas that could create doubt for companies operating on the island. Rather than overhauling the entire tax system, the reform focuses on certainty and reliability. At the same time, some adjustments were introduced in line with global practice, particularly around corporate tax rules and anti-money laundering obligations. These changes reflect the growing expectation for transparency and alignment with international standards. For investors, the effect is significant. A clear and predictable tax framework allows companies to make more informed decisions. The reform demonstrates that Cyprus is committed to a system in which the rules are transparent, manageable, and dependable. It signals that the island values stability, and that planning can be undertaken with greater clarity rather than concern.   The FDI Legislation The legislation on foreign direct investment, which came into force on 2 April 2026, builds on Cyprus’ long-standing policy of encouraging FDI to diversify the economy. Historically, Cyprus has been an attractive destination for individuals, investors, and businesses, with no general restrictions on ownership or investment and no capital controls beyond standard EU requirements. The new law implements the EU FDI Regulation (2019/452) and introduces a national screening mechanism to review investments in strategically important sectors, particularly those linked to national security or critical infrastructure.  The legislation does not seek to close the market to foreign capital, but to subject certain investments to a clearer review framework, ensuring that Cyprus can welcome capital while maintaining a secure business environment. Together with the tax reform, this legislation illustrates Cyprus’ holistic approach to legal change, where stricter standards coexist with simplifications and retained advantages, creating an ecosystem where serious investors can operate effectively. Why legal rules do not operate in isolation Legal reforms rarely operate in isolation. Even changes that appear minor can ripple across corporate structures, financing arrangements, and contractual obligations.  Those effects are not necessarily negative, they are often part of what makes a legal framework more coherent and easier to assess. Businesses and investors notice them. Stability and legal certainty often outweigh the significance of any single tax rate or procedural requirement. The combination of tax reform and FDI legislation shows that Cyprus is thinking strategically about its business environment. The rules themselves become a mechanism to signal confidence, transparency, and reliability to those considering investment and long-term jurisdictional commitment. Rules as Signals, Not Just Requirements While each of these reforms carries its own pros and cons, their true significance lies in the broader strategic direction they reflect, positioning Cyprus as a credible and forward-looking international business hub, strengthened by both regulatory maturity and its strategic geographic location, aimed not merely at attracting investment, but at drawing serious investors committed to building long-term value. Legal change is about more than a list of obligations, it is about shaping perceptions and guiding behaviour. Cyprus’ recent reforms demonstrate that serious investors can rely on the island’s legal framework. Planning is simplified and uncertainty is reduced, but the system is not oversimplified or loophole-driven. The tax reforms clarify previously uncertain areas, while the FDI legislation ensures that serious investment is supported by a predictable and structured legal framework. At the same time, stricter requirements and increased alignment with global standards show that Cyprus is serious about maintaining a trusted, stable environment. The combination of simplifications and stricter standards ensures that the island remains attractive, but in a responsible, internationally aligned way. Investors may need to review their structures, but the broader significance lies not simply in the fact that the rules have changed. It is that the overall direction appears to be towards greater clarity, structure, and regulatory maturity. That is why legal change is rarely just about the rules themselves. Alexandros Neofytou - Associate  
21 May 2026
Press Releases

Motaher Chowdhury Named Again to the India Business Law Journal International A-List 2026

Elias Neocleous & Co LLC is pleased to announce that Motaher Chowdhury, Senior Legal Counsel at the firm, has once again been recognised in the India Business Law Journal International A-List 2026. The International A-List, compiled following extensive research by India Business Law Journal, identifies leading international lawyers distinguished for their expertise, reputation, and cross-border capabilities. Inclusion in this list represents a notable professional distinction and reflects the esteem in which practitioners are held by clients, peers, and the wider business and legal community. Motaher’s recognition once again underscores his outstanding professional standing, his consistent commitment to excellence, and his dedication to delivering the highest standard of service to clients. It also reflects the depth of his experience and the trust he continues to inspire in complex international matters. We warmly congratulate Motaher on this well-deserved achievement and are delighted to see his accomplishments recognised once again by one of the legal market’s most respected publications.
19 May 2026

Validation Orders: Balancing Asset Preservation and Business Continuity

Imagine operating a company, only to find without any warning that the company’s bank accounts have been blocked. The immediate consequence is one of acute disruption and uncertainty. You learn that a winding-up petition has been filed against the company, triggering restrictions that effectively prevent it from carrying out ordinary financial transactions. At that point, a pressing question arises: how is the business expected to continue operating under such constraints? This situation arises merely because a winding up petition has been filed and is pending against a company. While this situation may appear manifestly unfair, particularly given that it arises in the absence of any court order or any judicial determination on the merits of the winding-up petition,  the company is not left without any relief, and an application to unfreeze the company’s bank accounts can be made (validation order), namely an order that validates the payments to be made by the company.  This article explains how such circumstances typically arise and examines the role of validation orders as the appropriate form of relief. Winding-up petition A winding-up petition constitutes a legal procedure through which a creditor, a contributory, or a competent authority may request the winding up of a company, provided that certain conditions prescribed by law are met. In Cyprus, this procedure is regulated by the Companies Law, Cap. 113, with Part V specifically addressing court-ordered winding-up. A winding-up petition can be made, inter alia, on the ground that it is “just and equitable”, including cases where minority shareholders are oppressed by the majority.1 Once such a petition is filled, it is common practice to serve it on interested parties, such as creditors and banks. Furthermore, a copy of the winding up petition may also be published in the Official Gazette of the Republic.  In most cases, as soon as banks are notified, they usually block the company’s bank accounts, while they may exceptionally permit the execution of certain transactions relating to the daily affairs of the company.2  This reaction is based on the combined interpretation of articles 216 and 218(2) of the Companies Law, Cap. 113, aiming to prevent the company’s officers from disposing the company’s assets after the filing of a winding up petition, to preserve those assets for the benefit of the general body of creditors in the event of liquidation.3  It should be noted, however, that it is debatable to what extent the approach of complete freezing of accounts is legitimate and complies with the intention of the legislature and the rationale of the case law. Articles 216 and 218(2) read as follows: “216. In a winding up by the Court, any disposition of the property of the company, including things in action, and any transfer of shares, or alteration in the status of the members of the company, made after the commencement of the winding-up, shall, unless the Court otherwise orders, be void.” “218(2) (2) In any other case, the winding up of a company by the Court shall be deemed to commence at the time of the presentation of the petition for the winding-up.” Validation order In such a scenario, the company can apply for a validation order seeking the court’s authorisation to validate transactions that would otherwise be restricted. In practical terms, such an order is sought to secure the unfreezing of bank accounts or to allow essential payments to be made, thereby enabling the company to meet its operational and financial obligations. An application of this kind can be made ex parte without an obligation to notify the other party.4 Under Cyprus Law, courts have discretion to issue such an order pursuant to Article 216 of the Companies Law. It is noted that, according to Article 218(2), the commencement of the winding up of a company by the Court is deemed to begin at the time of the filing of the petition for winding-up.5 Balance between asset preservation and business continuity As it is established under Case Law, what is prohibited is the disposition of the company’s property, the alteration of the status of its members, and the transfer of shares, so that the ownership regime of the company as it exists at the time of the filing of the winding-up petition is not affected. The operation of the company as a going concern during the pendency of the winding-up petition is not prohibited. As is stated in the case, Re Application of Nikos Christofi:6 “It is clear from the judgment, based also on the corresponding provisions of England (section 227 of the Companies Act 1948) and the relevant legal writings, that Article 216 aims at the protection and at “…preventing the company’s officers from disposing of its assets after the filing of a petition for its winding up.” It is not intended to hinder the company’s continued operation as a going concern in the meantime...” The case of Re New Steriotis Ltd v. Re Michail Fotios & Sons Ltd7 is an illustrative example. The winding up petitioners proceeded to serve the petition on certain banks. The banks in turn informed the applicants that due to the existence of the petition they had proceeded to freeze their accounts. The court held that if the accounts are not unfrozen, serious issues regarding the company’s survival would arise, since these accounts were used for payments of suppliers abroad, VAT, purchases of machinery, salaries for 40 employees, tax obligations, etc. In exercising its discretion to issue a validation order, the court performs a balancing exercise. On the one hand, the assets of the company must be maintained in case of liquidation for the protection of creditors, and, on the other, not to hinder the company’s ongoing operational and financial obligations. In carrying out this exercise, the Courts should also take into consideration the potential legal consequences that may arise under civil and criminal law for the company and its officers, as a result of the company’s inability to comply with tax and other legal or contractual obligations. As the English court stated in Gray’s Inn Construction Co. Ltd [1980] 1 WLR 711: “The desirability of the company being enabled to carry on its business was often speculative. In each case the court must carry out a balancing exercise.” Conclusion In conclusion, a winding-up petition, whether ultimately well-founded or not, can have significant and disruptive effects on a company, particularly where it is employed to exert pressure on the company or its shareholders. To counter this and ensure the continuity of business operations, the issuance of a validation order is an available remedy, providing a necessary breathing space that allows the company to carry out essential transactions and maintain its activities until the winding-up petition is finally determined by the Court.  The question that remains to be examined by the legislature is whether certain safeguards should be introduced to the law to prevent the mala fides advancement of winding-up petitions as a means to exert pressure on companies. Footnotes In Re Pelmako Development Ltd (1999) 1 Α.Α.Δ. 1369. Ηοllicourt (Contracts) Ltd v. Bank of Ireland (2001) Ch. 555. Hellindo Shipping Company Ltd (2003) 1 A.A.Δ. 238, In Coutts & Co v Stock [2000] 2 All ER 56, [2000] 1 WLR 906. MG Timinis & Sons Ltd, Application No. 76/14, 13/11/2014 MG Timinis & Sons Ltd, and Express Electrical Distributors Ltd v Beavis and others [2016] EWCA Civ 765. Re Application of Nikos Christofi, Civil Application No. 153/13, dated 09/08/2013. Re New Steriotis Ltd v. Re Michail Fotios & Sons Ltd, Application No. 69/2019, 14/6/2019. Iraklis Kyprianou, Advocate/ Associate at Elias Neocleous & Co. LLC.  
18 May 2026
Taxation

Cyprus Personal Taxation: What Foreign Investors and Employees Need to Know Following the January 1, 2026 Tax Reform

The Cypriot tax landscape has undergone a significant recalibration following the entry into force of a broad package of fiscal reforms, effective as from the 1st of January, 2026. Although a considerable part of the legislative focus has centered around corporate-related matters, the amendments introduced in the area of personal taxation are also noteworthy, particularly for internationally mobile individuals, foreign executives and high-net-worth investors considering Cyprus as a jurisdiction for relocation, employment and long-term wealth structuring. The revised framework reflects a clear policy objective of enhancing Cyprus’ competitiveness as an attractive destination for international talent and private capital through the modernisation of existing reliefs, the expansion of targeted exemptions and the reduction of the effective personal tax burden applicable to newly arriving taxpayers. Against this backdrop, this article outlines certain key personal tax measures introduced by the 2026 reform, with particular emphasis on the updated tax residency test under the 60-day test, the revised personal income tax bands, the extension of the non-domicile rules and the employment income tax exemptions available to foreign individuals taking up employment in Cyprus. As a general rule, it is worth noting that individuals qualifying as Cyprus tax residents are subject to tax in Cyprus on their worldwide income, irrespective of whether such income is remitted to Cyprus, subject always to any available double tax relief in respect of taxes paid abroad. Tests for obtaining tax residency Cyprus tax residency is determined pursuant to the Income Tax Law of 2002 (118(I)/2002) (the “Income Tax Law”), which sets out the statutory criteria under which individuals may be treated as tax residents of Cyprus for a given tax year, either by satisfying the “183-day test” or, alternatively, the “60-day test”. “183-Day” Test Where an individual is physically present in Cyprus for one or more periods exceeding, in aggregate, 183 days within the same tax year (being the relevant calendar year), such individual is automatically deemed to be a Cyprus tax resident. In such case, the individual’s worldwide income becomes subject to taxation in Cyprus regardless of whether an application for the issuance of a tax residency certificate is submitted. “60-Day” Test Pursuant to the “60-day test”, which is applicable as from the 1st of January, 2017, an individual may likewise be considered a Cyprus tax resident in a given year, provided that such individual has not stayed in any other country for a period exceeding 183 days in aggregate during the tax year in question and, further, that all three conditions below are satisfied: 1. The individual maintains a permanent residence in Cyprus (whether by owning a permanent residence or leasing out a permanent residence); and 2. The individual undertakes a business in Cyprus (i.e. self-employed) or is employed by (or maintains an office with) a Cyprus company for all the relevant period concerned; and 3. The individual is physically present in Cyprus for a minimum of 60 days during the tax year concerned. For the purposes of both the 183-day and the 60-day tests, the days spent in and outside Cyprus are calculated in accordance with the following statutory rules: • the day of departure from Cyprus is treated as a day outside of Cyprus; • the day of arrival in Cyprus is treated as a day within Cyprus; • the arrival in Cyprus and the departure from Cyprus on the same day are treated as one day within Cyprus; and • the departure from Cyprus and the return to Cyprus on the same day are treated as one day outside Cyprus. Personal income tax rates The 2026 tax reform has revised the income thresholds applicable under the progressive personal income tax scale in Cyprus. The updated applicable income bands and corresponding tax rates are set out below: In addition to the above progressive rates, certain categories of income are exempt from income tax pursuant to the provisions of the Income Tax Law. The most commonly encountered exemptions include the following: • all dividend income; • gains arising from the disposal of securities; • the whole amount of remuneration derived from rendering salaried services outside Cyprus to a non-resident employer, or to a permanent establishment outside Cyprus of a resident employer, for a total period in the year of assessment exceeding 90 days; • foreign exchange (FX) gains, with the exception of FX gains arising from trading in foreign currencies and related derivatives; and • lump-sum repayment from life insurance schemes or from approved provident or pension funds. The Cyprus non-domicile regime A particularly significant feature of the Cyprus personal tax framework remains the non-domicile regime, introduced with effect from the 16th of July, 2015. Individuals who are both Cyprus tax residents and Cyprus-domiciled, are subject to special defence contribution (SDC) on certain categories of income, most notably dividend income at the rate of 5% and passive interest income at the rate of 17%, subject to certain reduced rates of 3% applicable in respect of interest from national and/or European Union government/development bonds, listed corporate bonds, or similar qualifying securities. By contrast, individuals who qualify as Cyprus tax residents but are not considered domiciled in Cyprus for SDC purposes are exempt from SDC on both dividend and passive interest income. This remains the case until such individuals complete 17 years of tax residency in Cyprus, provided that they become Cyprus tax residents for the first time. Importantly, the reform measures further strengthened the attractiveness of the regime by introducing an alternative method of SDC taxation for individuals who, despite not having a domicile of origin in Cyprus, are subsequently deemed to have acquired a Cyprus domicile after completion of the 17-year non-dom period. Such individuals may elect, subject to approval by the Tax Commissioner, to continue benefiting from a fixed and simplified SDC treatment through the payment of a lump-sum contribution of €250,000 covering a consecutive five-year period. The election is irrevocable, applies on a binding basis for the relevant five tax years, and may be exercised for up to two such periods. Employment income tax exemptions for individuals taking up employment in Cyprus A central component of the 2026 tax reform is the retention and refinement of the employment income tax exemptions available to individuals taking up employment in Cyprus. These exemptions continue to represent an attractive feature of the Cypriot personal tax regime, as they are capable of reducing the effective income tax burden of foreign employees, returning expatriates and internationally recruited executives. The legislative framework provides for a tiered system of relief, depending on the level of remuneration, the prior residence status of the individual and the nature of the individual’s employment history immediately preceding relocation to Cyprus. 50% exemption (high-income first employment relief) The most substantial relief is the 50% exemption on employment income derived from first employment exercised in Cyprus. The exemption applies where the individual’s annual remuneration exceeds €55,000 and the individual was not resident in Cyprus for at least 15 consecutive years immediately prior to the commencement of such first employment in Cyprus. The exemption is granted from the tax year in which the first employment commences and remains available for a period of 17 tax years. Importantly, the relief may only be claimed once during the individual’s lifetime, thereby making it a particularly valuable long-term incentive for highly remunerated foreign executives and specialised international personnel relocating to Cyprus. 20% exemption (lower-tier first employment relief) An exemption of 20% of employment income, capped at €8,550 per annum, is also available in cases where an individual takes up first employment in Cyprus following a qualifying period of employment abroad with a non-Cyprus resident employer. This relief is granted for 7 tax years, commencing from the tax year following the year in which employment in Cyprus begins, and is principally designed to facilitate the relocation of mid-level foreign employees who may not meet the remuneration threshold required for the 50% exemption. 25% exemption (brain gain incentive) In addition, a separate 25% exemption exists on employment income (or business profits, where applicable), subject to a maximum annual exemption of €25,000, aimed at encouraging the relocation or return of economically active individuals to Cyprus as part of “brain gain” efforts. The relief applies to individuals commencing employment or business activity in Cyprus between 2025 and 2030, provided that annual employment income or business profits exceed €30,000 and that the individual satisfies the prescribed prior non-residence and overseas employment experience criteria. Where applicable, the exemption is granted from the year of arrival and may continue for up to 7 tax years. As with the 50% regime, the exemption is available once only during the lifetime of the taxpayer. Legacy exemptions (transitional arrangements) In parallel, the legislation preserves certain earlier exemption regimes on a grandfathered basis for individuals whose Cyprus employment commenced under the previous statutory framework. These include, most notably, the earlier 20% exemption as well as the former 50% high-earner exemption linked to the historical €100,000 remuneration threshold. Although no longer available to new entrants, these legacy exemptions continue to apply to qualifying individuals subject to the commencement dates and eligibility requirements in force at the time their Cyprus employment began. Taken together, the above provisions create a broad and flexible package of inbound employment incentives, allowing Cyprus-based employers to structure internationally competitive remuneration arrangements while simultaneously enhancing Cyprus’ attractiveness as a destination for foreign talent and executive mobility. Other noteworthy incentives Further targeted incentives have also been introduced under the recent Cyprus tax reform framework, particularly in relation to equity-based remuneration and the broader taxation of employment-related benefits. Share options and share awards A notable development is the introduction of a new preferential tax treatment applicable to employee share option plans and share awards granted under approved employer incentive schemes. Subject to satisfaction of the prescribed statutory conditions, the benefit arising from qualifying share options or share awards may be taxed at a preferential rate of 8%, thereby potentially creating a more efficient framework for long-term employee incentivisation. The regime is available only where the relevant incentive scheme has been formally approved and incorporates, inter alia, a minimum vesting period of 3 years, restrictions on transferability during the vesting period, and qualifying share participation conditions linked to shares in the employer or its direct or indirect parent company carrying rights broadly equivalent to ordinary shares (save, where applicable, for voting rights). In addition, the relevant options or share awards must carry a minimum exercise or acquisition price which is not lower than 50% of the market value of the underlying shares at the time of approval of the incentive scheme. The preferential 8% tax rate applies up to a benefit equal to twice the employee’s annual remuneration from the same employer in the vesting year (excluding the benefit itself), subject to an overall cap of €1,000,000 per individual over a rolling ten-year period. Definition of taxable employment income In addition, the definition of taxable employment income has been broadened so as to expressly capture a wider range of employment-related benefits. This now includes pre-employment incentives aimed at inducing acceptance of employment or appointment (including “golden handshake” payments or pre-start benefits), as well as certain termination and retirement-related payments such as early retirement incentives and compensation linked to termination of employment or office, thereby providing greater legislative clarity in the tax treatment of increasingly sophisticated remuneration packages. Family and sustainability New targeted reliefs have also been introduced to support households and promote sustainable expenditure. These include enhanced child-related deductions (ranging from €1,000 for the first child up to €1,500 for the third and subsequent children, subject to income thresholds), housing reliefs of up to €2,000 for mortgage interest or rent, as well as green incentives of up to €1,000 for qualifying investments such as electric vehicles, solar panels and battery systems. Taken as a whole, the post-2026 Cyprus personal tax framework reflects a broader legislative effort to align individual taxation with modern patterns of international mobility, executive remuneration and household economic support. When considered alongside the tax residency rules, the continued availability of the non-domicile regime and the expanded inbound employment exemptions, the reforms collectively reinforce Cyprus’ position as a fiscally competitive jurisdiction for foreign investors, internationally mobile employees and multinational groups seeking to establish substantive operational presence within the European Union. Specialist tax advice is essential in order to assess the availability of the above incentives and to ensure that both individual relocation structures and corporate employment arrangements are implemented in a tax-efficient and fully compliant manner. Our team remains happy to provide assistance and guidance in navigating through all tax matters both at an individual and company level. - Elena Christodoulou Advocate / Counsel - Maria Vyronos Advocate/ Associate
17 May 2026
Press Releases

Elias Neocleous & Co LLC brings global investment and innovation leaders to Doers Summit 2026

As a long-standing supporter of Cyprus’ innovation ecosystem and a Gold Partner of Doers Summit 2026, our firm is proud to play a leading role in one of the region’s most influential gatherings for founders, investors, entrepreneurs and technology leaders.  Taking place in Limassol on 21–22 May 2026, Doers Summit has evolved into a major international platform connecting the innovation communities of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa, bringing together thousands of participants shaping the future of business, technology and investment.  As part of this year’s programme, our firm will host a high-level panel discussion on the Arcade Stage: Capital on Your Terms: Where Strategy Meets Finance 21 May 2026 | 10:50 a.m. In a market environment where capital remains selective, valuations are under closer scrutiny, and founders face increasingly complex strategic choices, raising finance is no longer simply about securing funding—it is about securing the right capital, at the right time, on the right terms. Moderated by our Managing Partner, Elias Neocleous, this discussion will bring together distinguished international voices from entrepreneurship, venture investment, corporate innovation and complex transactions to explore how founders can approach fundraising with greater strategic clarity and long-term perspective. Our distinguished panel includes: Dr. Oded Lieberman A highly accomplished entrepreneur and investor with deep experience in scaling private and public companies through transformative growth milestones, including NASDAQ listings and major strategic exits. As former CEO of NeuroDerm, he played a central leadership role in the company’s acquisition by Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma in a transaction valued at approximately USD 1.1 billion. Alfredo Gomez Soria Regional Director EMEA at Plug and Play Tech Center, one of the world’s most influential innovation platforms connecting startups, investors and major corporates. His perspective brings valuable insight into fundraising, international scaling and the evolution of high-growth ecosystems—particularly relevant as Cyprus continues to strengthen its technology ambitions. Demetris Roti and Fabian Cabeza Representing our firm’s corporate, finance and transactional capabilities, Demetris Roti, Partner, and Fabian Cabeza, Legal Counsel, will contribute practical legal and structuring insight drawn from extensive experience in cross-border transactions, capital markets, banking and finance. Together, the panel will examine how founders can think more strategically about capital—balancing growth ambitions, investor expectations, governance considerations and long-term value creation. But our contribution to Doers Summit extends beyond the stage.  Throughout the event, our firm will also launch the first-ever Legal Advice Hub, a practical initiative offering attendees the opportunity to book short consultations with specialist lawyers across a range of areas relevant to startups, scaling businesses and innovation-driven ventures.  This reflects a broader belief at our firm: that legal advisers should do more than interpret complexity—they should help ambitious businesses navigate it with confidence. As Cyprus continues its evolution as a centre for innovation, entrepreneurship and international business, meaningful collaboration between founders, investors, advisers and institutions becomes increasingly important. We are proud to support a platform that brings these communities together. We look forward to an engaging and forward-looking discussion at Doers Summit 2026.
15 May 2026
Press Releases

A New Digital Chapter for Our Firm

Some milestones are about growth. Others are about transformation. The launch of our new Neo.law represents both.  This is far more than a website upgrade. It is a new digital expression of who we are as a firm; our values, our international outlook, our commitment to excellence, and our belief that the future of legal services belongs to those prepared to embrace innovation with intelligence and purpose. We wanted to create something that truly reflects the firm we have become.  A platform that is faster, cleaner, more intuitive and more engaging. A digital experience that makes it easier for clients, colleagues, partners, and visitors around the world to access our people, our expertise, our insights and the capabilities that define our firm. But this is only the beginning. Innovation has long been part of our DNA. Our investment in legal technology did not begin yesterday. Years ago, we took the bold step of developing Neolaw.ai, our proprietary AI platform, as part of our belief that technology should not merely support legal work, but it should intelligently enhance it.  What began as an ambitious innovation initiative has evolved into something far more meaningful: an important part of how we think about the future of legal service delivery, internal efficiency, knowledge management and ultimately the value we create for our clients. NeoLaw.ai is a proprietary AI solution built by lawyers, powered by our own LLM technology, and hosted entirely on our in-house servers. This ensures the highest levels of confidentiality, privacy, and control over our clients’ data. The next phase of that journey is already underway.  Our new digital platform has been built with the future in mind, creating the foundations for increasingly intelligent AI-powered functionality that will make client interaction, legal research, access to knowledge and digital engagement significantly more seamless and sophisticated.  Importantly, innovation at our firm will always be guided by responsibility. As lawyers operating at the highest professional and ethical standards, we are deeply conscious that technological advancement must go hand in hand with trust, privacy, compliance, and sound governance. Our digital transformation and AI initiatives will continue to evolve in full alignment with European regulatory frameworks and leading international standards. For us, legal excellence and innovation are not separate ideas. They increasingly define each other. As Cyprus’ largest law firm and one of the leading legal practices in the wider region, we believe leadership comes with a responsibility not only to respond to change, but to help shape it. Elias Neocleous, Managing Partner, commented: “Our firm has always evolved by combining strong foundations with a willingness to look ahead. The launch of the new neo.law reflects exactly that philosophy. It is not simply a redesigned website; it is a more dynamic expression of who we are, how we think and how we serve our clients.  Our investment in innovation, including the continued evolution of Neolaw.ai and our broader digital initiatives, reflects a clear belief: technology should enhance human expertise, not replace it. The future of legal services will belong to firms that combine excellence, judgment, innovation and trust and we intend to be firmly among those helping define that future.” We invite you to explore the new neo.law. A platform built not just for today, but for what comes next.  
15 May 2026
Tort Law and Digital Media Regulation

From “Likes” to Liability: Influencers Through the Lens of Tort Law

In a world where social media influencers have become demigods and authority figures for millions of consumers, it seems that questions of legal accountability have moved from the realm of marketing into the domain of tort law. Influencers routinely promote not only lifestyle trends and consumer goods, fitness regimens, dietary supplements and wellness advice but also political opinions and ideologies that shape public discourse and voter behaviour. Such influence can have far-reaching consequences as audiences may make decisions based on guidance that is largely unregulated and delivered outside traditional standards of transparency and accountability. The new status quo: Harm and Accountability of Influencers   In the European Union, influencers who promote products or services are regarded as engaging in commercial activity similar to that of traders. The European Commission’s Influencer Legal Hub accentuates that influencers must comply with consumer protection standards that apply to all traders in the single market; these include obligations under the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD) and other consumer law instruments, such as clear disclosure of commercial intent in sponsored posts and transparency of partnerships. Failure to comply can be treated as an unfair or misleading commercial practice. In Cyprus, while there is no law per se regulating “influencers,” authorities have been strengthening enforcement efforts under existing consumer protection legislation. The Consumer Protection Law of 2021, Law 112(I)/2021, requires influencers to disclose when content is commercial in nature, and not to omit essential information that would deprive consumers of the ability to make an informed decision. Beyond consumer harm, influencers may also expose businesses and professionals to reputational and economic damage through online publications made to large audiences. Influencers may publicly criticise a hairdresser, restaurant, or other service provider in a misleading, exaggerated, or malicious manner and the resulting exposure may have immediate financial and reputational consequences. Consequently, where statements exceed fair comment and amount to false factual assertions, misleading representations, or intentional attacks on reputation, courts may become more willing to assess whether influencers should bear heightened responsibilities when publishing content capable of causing foreseeable reputational harm. Emerging Tort Responsibilities in the Digital Age Whilst traditional tort doctrines such as negligent misstatement were not designed with social media in mind, their principles remain relevant to assessing influencers’ responsibilities. In Europe, consumer protection frameworks and emerging national laws like France’s provide a pathway from misleading conduct to tortious liability and suggest that the legal system is gradually aligning the responsibilities of digital content creators with the harms their influence can cause. In Cyprus, enforcement under existing consumer protection laws demonstrates that even without dedicated influencer legislation, tort-informed liability is a real and pressing concern. Negligent misstatement Traditionally, tort liability for negligent misstatement arises where a defendant owes a duty of care to the claimant, breaches that duty, and causes foreseeable loss. Indubitably, whilst most of the case law has focused on professional services, such as architects, doctors and lawyers, recent developments would suggest that influencers could, in fact, fall within the scope of negligence where their content causes physical harm to followers. Although EU law does not currently categorise influencer speech in negligence terms per se, in the United States, for example, scholars argue that influencers who provide health advice that can injure or kill should face tort liability, because the risk of harm is foreseeable and reliance on their guidance can be established. Some common law systems may resist extending negligent misstatement to influencer content absent a clear professional relationship, while civil law countries with robust statutory consumer protections may permit an overlap between unfair commercial practice sanctions and tort claims. French Law as a modèle of innovation France has been at the forefront of regulating influencer conduct. Under the French Influencer Act (Law n° 2023-451) influencers are defined as natural or legal persons who, for compensation, use their reputation to promote goods, services, or causes to the public via electronic means. According to this Act, influencers must disclose commercial relationships clearly, and they may be held jointly and severally liable with agents and advertisers for harm resulting from their promotional activity. Consequently, they are subject to sanctions, fines and potential imprisonment, for prohibited promotions. These provisions mark a significant shift from general consumer protection towards a framework that recognises influencers not just as market participants but as persons with potential legal duties and responsibilities whose content can create harm and have a detrimental effect on consumers. In recent years, the rapid proliferation of social media influencers in Cyprus has profoundly transformed the political landscape, fundamentally reshaping the ways in which citizens access information, form opinions, and participate in public discourse. The absence of a comprehensive legal framework governing paid political endorsements, algorithmic amplification, and undisclosed sponsorships has created a regulatory void that fosters misinformation, covert political advertising, potential foreign interference, and the distortion of democratic processes. The challenge lies in balancing freedom of expression with accountability whilst ensuring that digital influence does not become a shield for harm. Antonis Glykis, Advocate / Partner Christina Avgousti, Advocate / Associate  
15 May 2026
Press Releases

Elias Neocleous & Co LLC supports the Cyprus EMEA Healthspan Summit 2026 as Silver Sponsor

Elias Neocleous & Co LLC is proud to participate as a Silver Sponsor of the Cyprus EMEA Healthspan Summit 2026, a landmark regional forum dedicated to innovation in longevity, healthcare, biotechnology and the future of healthier living. The summit will take place on 27–28 April 2026 at the Parklane, a Luxury Collection Resort & Spa, Limassol, under the auspices of H.E. Nikos Christodoulides, President of the Republic of Cyprus. Our participation reflects the firm’s longstanding Corporate Social Responsibility commitment to supporting initiatives that promote innovation, scientific progress, and meaningful collaboration across disciplines. It also aligns with our broader view that the legal profession has an important role to play in helping societies and markets respond responsibly to transformational change. At the same time, as an organisation, we place particular importance on the well-being of our people, recognising that a healthy, supportive and balanced working environment is fundamental to professional excellence and long-term success. Held under the theme “Innovating Life: Shaping the Future of Longevity”, the summit marks the inaugural Cyprus edition of a platform connected with the St. Moritz Longevity Forum and is designed to bring together leading voices from science, biotechnology, investment and policymaking across the EMEA region and beyond. The programme highlights the growing importance of health span research, AI integration, investment infrastructure, ethical frameworks, and policy dialogue in shaping the future of longer, healthier lives. The official agenda makes clear that the summit is not only about scientific breakthroughs, but also about the wider frameworks needed to support innovation responsibly, including regulation, implementation, access, investment and governance. These are areas in which legal expertise is essential. As lawyers, we see first-hand how emerging sectors develop most sustainably when innovation is accompanied by clear legal structures, sound regulation, strong institutions, and respect for ethical standards. For that reason, our support for the Cyprus EMEA Health span Summit is especially meaningful. It reflects our belief that legal advisers should contribute not only to business activity, but also to the broader conditions that allow innovation-driven sectors to grow with confidence, integrity and long-term sustainability. In supporting this initiative, we are pleased to stand behind a forum that encourages dialogue between science, business, investment, and public policy at a particularly important moment for the region. Elias Neocleous & Co LLC remains committed to supporting forward-looking initiatives that strengthen Cyprus’s role as a centre for international business, innovation, and responsible growth. For more information about the summit, please visit the official event page or reach out to your usual contact at our firm.
27 April 2026
Intellectual Property

Can Intellectual Property out perform gold or land?

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  
23 March 2026
Press Releases

Elias Neocleous & Co LLC advises on Pelagic Credit Plc’s USD 75 million private placement and listing on Euronext Growth Oslo

Elias Neocleous & Co LLC acted as Cyprus legal counsel in connection with the successful completion of the USD 75 million private placement and admission to trading of the shares of Pelagic Credit Plc on Euronext Growth Oslo, one of the world’s leading capital markets for shipping and maritime-related companies. The company announced that the first day of trading of its shares on Euronext Growth Oslo took place on 9 March 2026. The transaction involved a private placement to international institutional and industrial investors raising gross proceeds of approximately NOK 728 million (approximately USD 48 million) through the issuance of new shares. Following completion of the offering, Pelagic Credit Plc has a post-money equity capitalisation of approximately USD 75 million. Pelagic Credit Plc is a Cyprus-incorporated maritime leasing and ship owning platform providing asset-backed financing solutions to established shipowners through long-term bareboat charter structures designed to generate stable and predictable cash flows. The platform currently owns vessels employed under multi-year charter arrangements and is evaluating a pipeline of additional acquisitions as part of its fleet expansion strategy. The development of investment platforms such as Pelagic Credit reflects the increasing intersection between the shipping and investment funds sectors in Cyprus. The combination of Cyprus’s established position as a global shipping hub and the rapid growth of its funds industry continues to create attractive opportunities for maritime investment platforms and international investors, further reinforcing the island’s role as a strategic base for international shipping and maritime investment structures. The listing further reinforces Euronext Growth Oslo’s position as a leading international capital markets venue for shipping and maritime investment platforms, attracting global shipowners, maritime financiers and institutional investors. Clarksons Securities AS, Fearnley Securities AS and Arctic Securities acted as Joint Global Coordinators and Joint Bookrunners in connection with the private placement and the listing. Advokatfirmaet BAHR AS acted as Norwegian legal counsel to the company. Acting as Cyprus legal counsel, Elias Neocleous & Co LLC advised on all Cyprus law aspects of the transaction, working alongside international advisers and financial institutions as part of a complex multi-jurisdictional capital markets transaction. This transaction further highlights the firm’s leading role in cross-border capital markets, maritime finance and international investment structures involving Cyprus companies, particularly in connection with listings and financing transactions in the global shipping sector.   Elias Neocleous, Managing Partner of Elias Neocleous & Co LLC, commented: “We are delighted to have advised on this significant international capital markets transaction supporting the successful listing of Pelagic Credit Plc on Euronext Growth Oslo. The transaction demonstrates the continued relevance of Cyprus structures in sophisticated maritime and capital markets transactions and reflects the importance of the Oslo market as one of the world’s premier financial centres for the shipping industry. We congratulate Pelagic Credit and all parties involved on this important milestone.” Deal Team The Elias Neocleous & Co LLC team advising on the transaction included: Elias Neocleous – Managing Partner Demetris Roti – Partner Konstantinos Michael – Senior Associate Norwegian legal counsel to the company was Advokatfirmaet BAHR AS, with the team led by partner Robin Bakken.
20 March 2026
Press Releases

Elias Neocleous & Co LLC supports the Cyprus EMEA Healthspan Summit 2026 as Silver Sponsor

Elias Neocleous & Co LLC is proud to participate as a Silver Sponsor of the Cyprus EMEA Healthspan Summit 2026, a landmark regional forum dedicated to innovation in longevity, healthcare, biotechnology and the future of healthier living. The summit will take place on 27–28 April 2026 at the Parklane, a Luxury Collection Resort & Spa, Limassol, under the auspices of H.E. Nikos Christodoulides, President of the Republic of Cyprus. Our participation reflects the firm’s longstanding Corporate Social Responsibility commitment to supporting initiatives that promote innovation, scientific progress, and meaningful collaboration across disciplines. It also aligns with our broader view that the legal profession has an important role to play in helping societies and markets respond responsibly to transformational change. At the same time, as an organisation, we place particular importance on the well-being of our people, recognising that a healthy, supportive and balanced working environment is fundamental to professional excellence and long-term success. Held under the theme “Innovating Life: Shaping the Future of Longevity”, the summit marks the inaugural Cyprus edition of a platform connected with the St. Moritz Longevity Forum and is designed to bring together leading voices from science, biotechnology, investment and policymaking across the EMEA region and beyond. The programme highlights the growing importance of health span research, AI integration, investment infrastructure, ethical frameworks, and policy dialogue in shaping the future of longer, healthier lives. The official agenda makes clear that the summit is not only about scientific breakthroughs, but also about the wider frameworks needed to support innovation responsibly, including regulation, implementation, access, investment and governance. These are areas in which legal expertise is essential. As lawyers, we see first-hand how emerging sectors develop most sustainably when innovation is accompanied by clear legal structures, sound regulation, strong institutions, and respect for ethical standards. For that reason, our support for the Cyprus EMEA Health span Summit is especially meaningful. It reflects our belief that legal advisers should contribute not only to business activity, but also to the broader conditions that allow innovation-driven sectors to grow with confidence, integrity and long-term sustainability. In supporting this initiative, we are pleased to stand behind a forum that encourages dialogue between science, business, investment, and public policy at a particularly important moment for the region. Elias Neocleous & Co LLC remains committed to supporting forward-looking initiatives that strengthen Cyprus’s role as a centre for international business, innovation, and responsible growth. For more information about the summit, please visit the official event page or reach out to your usual contact at our firm.
20 March 2026

Cyprus Cabinet Approves Draft Phone Tapping Bill: A New Security Tool or a Step Too Far?

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. Co-authors: Filippos Neocleous – Associate Avgi Michael - Associate
16 March 2026
Press Releases

Elias Neocleous & Co LLC has advised on a landmark cross border financing of Allwyn exceeding EUR 2 billion including the issuance of senior secured notes

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.
10 March 2026
Press Releases

Elias Neocleous & Co LLC Delivers Key Insights at the Legal500 GC Summit 2026

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]
18 February 2026
Press Releases

Foreign Direct Investment: Cyprus’s new guardrails between opportunity and security

Cross-border investment has long been one of the most powerful engines of economic integration, shaping markets, supply chains and corporate strategies across jurisdictions. In an increasingly interconnected world, capital no longer flows merely to seek returns, but to secure access to technology, resources, infrastructure, and strategic capabilities. Against this backdrop, foreign direct investments (“FDIs”) have become a central pillar of economic growth, innovation, and international market access. In Cyprus, sustained inflows of foreign capital have played a key role in the development of sectors such as energy, shipping, technology, tourism, and financial services. At the same time, the protection of national security, public order, and critical infrastructure has moved to the forefront of public policy, reflecting broader geopolitical and economic realities. It is within this evolving landscape that Cyprus has introduced its first FDI screening framework through Law 194(I)/2025 (the “Cyprus FDI Law”). The EU FDI screening in context At European Union (“EU”) level, Regulation (EU) 2019/452, adopted on 19 March 2019 and effective as of 11 October 2020 (the “Regulation”), established a framework for screening of FDIs that seeks to reconcile continued openness to foreign capital with the need to safeguard security and public order within the union. Rather than creating a centralised EU approval regime, the Regulation operates as a coordination and information-sharing mechanism that sits alongside national screening systems. It requires member states to notify the European Commission and, where relevant, other member states, of potentially sensitive investments, enabling them to submit comments and allowing the Commission to issue non-binding opinions in cases that may affect projects or programs of the Union’s interest to assist each member state with taking an informed approach. In all instances, final screening decisions remain with the competent national authorities. Since 2020, the framework has driven a gradual shift away from a fragmented landscape towards greater alignment of national regimes, increased use of screening tools, and a broader substantive focus on areas such as critical infrastructure, sensitive technologies, energy, data and supply chain resilience. This trajectory has continued with the European Commission’s 2024 proposal to revise the Regulation, as well as the subsequent provisional political agreement reached in 2025, which indicate an intention to further strengthen coordination, procedural alignment and the scope of screening across the Union. Against this evolving European regulatory landscape, Cyprus’s adoption of a national FDI screening mechanism represents a natural and strategically necessary development, reflecting its growing regional role and increasing investment interest from third countries. The Cyprus FDI Law, must therefore be understood not as an isolated regulatory initiative, but as part of a wider EU-level shift towards coordinated investment governance, carefully calibrated to balance necessary security and public order safeguards with the country’s objective of remaining an attractive European destination for FDI, taking into account Cyprus’s economic profile, market structure, strategic positioning and geopolitical relevance. The Cyprus FDI Law: Purpose and scope The Cyprus FDI Law, which takes effect on 02 April 2026, introduces a formal national screening regime for FDIs in Cyprus. Its purpose is not to restrict foreign capital, but to introduce targeted oversight where foreign participation may raise concerns relating to national security or public order It applies only in defined circumstances and is focused on investments that combine foreign control, economic significance, and strategic relevance. Definitions Foreign Direct Investment - adopts the definition of the Regulation: “an investment of any kind by a foreign investor aiming to establish or to maintain lasting and direct links between the foreign investor and the entrepreneur to whom or the undertaking to which the capital is made available in order to carry on an economic activity in a Member State, including investments which enable effective participation in the management or control of a company carrying out an economic activity”. Foreign Investor: “(a) a natural person who is not a national of a Member State of the European Union (EU), a Member State of the European Economic Area (EEA), or Switzerland, and who intends to make or has made a foreign direct investment; or (b) an enterprise of a third country, which intends to make or has made a foreign direct investment”. Third Country: “Any country outside the Member States of the European Union (EU), the Member States of the European Economic Area (EEA), and Switzerland”. Competent Authority: “The Ministry of Finance of Cyprus with the assistance of an advisory committee”. Strategically important enterprise: “An enterprise that carries out activities falling within particularly sensitive sectors as these are defined in the Annex of the Cyprus FDI Law”. Enterprise:  “(a) any entity, whether or not it is a legal person, that is not a natural person, and includes a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Law or any entity established in any other manner, and includes a partnership, association, foundation, and trust; (b) an entity that has been recognized or established under the law of a country or territory outside the Republic of Cyprus and     (i) carries out activities in the Republic of Cyprus; or    (ii) supplies goods or services in the Republic of Cyprus”. The blueprint of the Cyprus FDI Law Under the Cyprus FDI Law, Foreign Investors are required to notify and obtain prior approval from the Competent Authority before completing a covered investment. Notification is mandatory and subject to a standstill obligation, meaning that the transaction may not be completed until approval is granted, and related agreements are treated as being subject to a condition precedent of obtaining such approval, where all the following conditions are met: Special participation and control: The investment results in the acquisition of a special participation which arises where a Foreign Investor acquires 25% (twenty-five per cent) or more of the shares or voting rights of an enterprise, or otherwise obtains the ability to exercise decisive influence over its management or decisions, whether through formal legal rights or de facto control; Value threshold: The value of the investment reaches or exceeds EUR 2,000,000 (two million euros) either in a single instance or cumulatively over a twelve-month period; and Enterprise of strategic importance: The investment concerns an enterprise of strategic importance, namely an enterprise operating in particularly sensitive sectors linked to critical physical or digital infrastructure, including energy, transport, telecommunications, digital and data infrastructure, financial services infrastructure, health, education, tourism, and land or real estate of critical importance, where foreign control may affect Cyprus’s national security or public order. As a Cyprus specific carve out, transactions involving vessels are generally excluded from the screening regime, reflecting the importance of the shipping sector. This exemption does not extend to floating storage and regasification units, which remain subject to notification due to their relevance to energy security. The Cyprus FDI Law also captures follow-on investments. If a Foreign Investor initially acquires a minority stake and later increases its participation so that it reaches or exceeds 25% (twenty-five per cent) or 50% (fifty per cent), a notification is required at that stage regardless of the value of the additional investment. This prevents transactions from avoiding review through staged acquisitions or incremental increases in shareholding. The same approach applies to indirect investments made through Cyprus based entities where ultimate control rests with a Foreign Investor. Notification, review and decision-making process Notification is submitted by way of a written application, which describes the intended FDI in Cyprus and provides information listed in section 4 of the Cyprus FDI Law, including inter alia, details relating to the investor, the target enterprise, and the ownership and control structure, as well as any additional information requested by the Competent Authority. Upon receipt of a complete notification, the Competent Authority determines within 20 (twenty) working days whether the investment falls within the scope of review. An advisory committee supports the screening process by providing reasoned written input to the Competent Authority, both at the stage of determining whether an investment warrants review and during the substantive assessment phase. Where no risks to national security or public order are identified, the investment may proceed. Where concerns arise, the Competent Authority may clear the investment subject to conditions or prohibit it. It is further noted that the decisions of the Competent Authority are subject to appeal before the Administrative Court pursuant to Article 146 of the Constitution of the Republic of Cyprus. Failure to notify a covered investment may have serious consequences. Non-notified transactions remain legally vulnerable and may be subject to review by the Competent Authority for a period of up to 5 (five) years following the completion of the transaction, with the Competent Authority empowered to order a reversal where appropriate. In addition, the Competent Authority may also review investments outside the mandatory notification framework where there are reasonable grounds to consider a potential impact on security or public order, within 15 (fifteen) months of completion. Closing a transaction without approval constitutes a breach, exposing the Foreign Investor and/or any person exercising direct or indirect control over the investment, to administrative fines ranging from EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros) to EUR 100,000 (one hundred thousand euros) depending on the nature and seriousness of non-compliance. Where measures are imposed and not complied with, additional sanctions may apply, including daily administrative fines of up to EUR 8,000 (eight thousand euros) per day, and restrictions on the exercise of rights attaching to the investment, including voting, management, and control rights.  Impact on Foreign Investors  For Foreign Investors, Cyprus’s FDI screening framework introduces defined jurisdictional thresholds and procedural requirements that have direct implications for transaction planning and execution, particularly in the context of mergers and acquisitions (“M&A”). Transactions that result in the acquisition of qualifying shareholdings, voting rights, or other forms of control, whether through share deals, asset transfers, reorganisations, joint ventures, or equity investments, may now be subject to mandatory prior notification and clearance. This significantly reduces uncertainty as to the regulatory scope but introduces an additional pre-closing condition that must be factored into transaction timetables and documentation. The Cyprus FDI Law requires early and rigorous due diligence to assess whether a transaction falls within the scope, including an analysis of direct and indirect ownership, ultimate beneficial ownership, governance rights, and any anticipated increases in participation. For M&A practitioners, this necessitates careful structuring and sequencing of transactions, the inclusion of appropriate conditions, long stop dates, and regulatory cooperation clauses, and alignment with parallel regulatory approvals where applicable. The Cyprus FDI regime must also be considered alongside other domestic regulatory frameworks. Depending on the sector and transaction profile, clearance or engagement with the Cyprus Competition Commission (CCC) and sectoral regulators such as the Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission (CySEC), the Central Bank of Cyprus (CBC), or the Cyprus Broadcasting Authority (CBA) may be required. As a result, transactions may be subject to multiple, overlapping regulatory processes that must be coordinated to avoid execution risk. In addition, the EU cooperation mechanism enables other member states and the EU itself, to provide comments or opinions on notified transactions, introducing a further dimension of regulatory scrutiny, including for transactions that might previously have fallen outside any national screening process. Practitioners should therefore anticipate enhanced information requirements, longer review timelines in complex cases, and the potential imposition of conditions, or in exceptional cases, prohibition or post-closing remedies. In this environment, proactive regulatory assessment and integrated transaction planning are essential to ensure deal certainty and mitigate execution risk. In parallel with this expanded regulatory scrutiny, the regulatory architecture of the Cyprus FDI regime is underpinned by a structured confidentiality and data governance framework. Information submitted by Foreign Investors is used exclusively for screening purposes and processed in accordance with applicable Cyprus and EU data protection law, including GDPR standards. Foreign Investors may designate information as confidential or as business sensitive, subject to appropriate justification and the provision of a non confidential version where required. The Competent Authority and advisory bodies are bound by strict statutory confidentiality obligations, codified by the Cyprus FDI Law with disclosure permitted only where necessary for the operation and enforcement of the FDI regime, including EU level cooperation and information exchange mechanisms. National security v investment climate in Cyprus From Cyprus’s national perspective, the new FDI screening framework is designed to bolster national security and public order, in line with the EU’s coordinated approach to overseeing sensitive foreign investments. The Cyprus FDI Law empowers the Competent Authority to vet and potentially block or unwind investments that could affect critical infrastructure, supply security, or other strategic interests. This marks a policy shift for Cyprus, which historically prided itself on an open, investor-friendly regime. By adopting an FDI screening mechanism, Cyprus aligns with a growing number of EU member states that have introduced controls in respect of strategically sensitive investments, signalling that it will rigorously protect key sectors, but without closing the door to genuine investments. In fact, adopting the screening law is also a strategic move to reinforce Cyprus’s position as a credible investment hub within the EU. It aligns the island with EU norms and can enhance investor confidence that the playing field is fair and secure. The European Commission’s latest annual FDI Report highlights that member states have managed to increase vigilance without deterring investment with the vast majority of transactions in 2024 being approved unconditionally. This suggests that Cyprus’s new oversight mechanism, much like those in other EU countries, seeks to strike an appropriate balance between safeguarding security and public order while maintaining an open investment climate. Closing reflections The enactment of the Cyprus FDI Law marks a significant turning point in the country’s investment landscape, aligning with EU-level initiatives and embedding national security and public order considerations into the assessment of foreign participation in strategically important sectors. This development does not represent a retreat from foreign investment. Rather, it introduces a structured and proportionate framework that seeks to protect critical interests without undermining the economic dynamism that bona fide foreign capital brings. While investments in sensitive sectors will now be subject to closer scrutiny, the framework encourages greater discipline, foresight, and awareness of strategic implications on the part of all participants. For investors and advisers alike, the practical emphasis is on preparation rather than restraint. Early screening, careful transaction structuring, and informed engagement with the regulatory process will be essential to managing execution risk and preserving deal certainty as the regime takes effect. Ultimately, by combining openness with targeted oversight, Cyprus reinforces its position as a mature, credible, and secure investment jurisdiction within the EU, remaining open to sustainable foreign investment while ensuring that its strategic interests are appropriately safeguarded. Co-authors Theodora Alexandrou Maria Vyronos Alexandra De Gouveia Key takeaways New FDI screening regime: Cyprus introduces its first formal FDI screening framework under Law 194(I)/2025, effective 02 April 2026, aligning Cyprus with EU-wide practices on investment security. Targeted, not restrictive: The regime focuses on foreign investments that combine control, value, and strategic relevance, aiming to protect national security and public order without deterring bona fide Mandatory prior approval: Foreign Investors acquiring 25% or more (or decisive influence) in Strategically Important Enterprises, with an investment value of EUR 2 million or more, must notify and obtain clearance before closing. Sectoral coverage: Screening frameworks apply to investments in areas considered strategically important or sensitive to national security and public order, including critical infrastructure, essential services, and assets of strategic significance to the economy and the state. Data protection and confidentiality: Information submitted by Foreign Investors is subject to statutory confidentiality and specified-use requirements, although sensitive material must be expressly identified as confidential at submission to benefit from such protections. Execution risk for non-compliance: Failure to notify can result in fines, post-closing review for up to five years, or even unwinding of transactions. Greater planning required: Investors and advisers must factor FDI clearance into due diligence, transaction structuring, and timelines, alongside competition and sectoral regulatory approvals.        
30 January 2026
Press Releases

Elias Neocleous & Co LLC Named Law Firm of the Year – Cyprus at the Citywealth IFC Awards 2026

Elias Neocleous & Co LLC is proud to announce that it has been named Law Firm of the Year – Cyprus at the Citywealth International Financial Centre Awards 2026. The awards ceremony took place on 28 January 2026 at the Citywealth IFC Awards Gala Dinner in London, gathering leading professionals from major international financial centres. The firm was represented at the ceremony by Demetris Roti, Partner at Elias Neocleous & Co LLC. Now in their fifteenth year, the Citywealth IFC Awards celebrate excellence across the private wealth sector and are judged by an international panel of senior practitioners. This recognition highlights the firm’s steadfast commitment to advising high-net-worth individuals, family offices, and international clients. It reflects the expertise and collaborative spirit of our team in delivering trusted, high-quality legal advice, while underscoring the firm’s continued growth as a centre of excellence for private client and cross-border advisory work in the region. Managing Partner Elias Neocleous expressed his pride in receiving this esteemed award: “We are truly honoured to be recognised as Law Firm of the Year – Cyprus by Citywealth. This award is a testament to the dedication, professionalism, and teamwork of our people, as well as the trust our clients place in us.” This distinction builds on the firm’s longstanding success at the Citywealth IFC Awards, following multiple previous wins, most notably being named Mediterranean Law Firm of the Year in 2025. The firm extends its sincere gratitude to Citywealth, the esteemed panel of judges, and its clients for their continued trust and support. This recognition strengthens our resolve to continue setting new benchmarks in legal excellence.
30 January 2026
Press Releases

Elias Neocleous & Co Advises on Cris-Tim Family Holding IPO

The Capital Markets team of Elias Neocleous & Co LLC has successfully advised on the sale of existing shares by Rangeglow Limited, a Cyprus-based entity, in connection with the initial public offering (IPO) of Cris-Tim Family Holding on the Regulated Market, Premium Category of the Bucharest Stock Exchange raising RON 454.35 million. Clifford Chance Badea advised the issuer on the IPO and its historic listing  formed part of Cris-Tim Family Holding’s broader development process and marked a significant milestone in the group’s growth, as it successfully transitioned into a publicly listed company. The IPO attracted exceptionally strong investor demand, achieving a subscription rate of approximately 197%. Following the listing, Cris-Tim Family Holding attained a market capitalisation of approximately RON 1.5 billion. This successful offering underscores the strength of the company’s market position and represents an important step in its continued expansion. Elias Neocleous & Co LLC remains committed to delivering exceptional legal services and strategic advice, guiding clients through complex capital markets transactions with expertise and precision. For further details, please contact  Demetris Roti.
23 December 2025
Dispute Resolution

Cyprus Steps Up Sanctions Enforcement: From Compliance Obligations to Criminal Consequences

On the 25th of July, 2025, the Republic of Cyprus (“Cyprus”) enacted Law 149(I)/2025, formally titled The Criminalization of the Violation of the Restrictive Measures of the European Union Law of 2025 (the “Law”). The Law transposes EU Directive 2024/1226 of the European Parliament and Council of the 24th of April, 2024, which harmonises the definition of criminal offences and penalties for the violation of EU restrictive measures. In effect, the Law replaces earlier legislation on the implementation of international and European sanctions, carving a uniform framework for criminal enforcement in line with European standards. Purpose and scope The Law aims to ensure that breaches of restrictive measures of the European Union (“EU”), established pursuant to Article 29 of the Treaty on European Union and Article 215 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (collectively referred to as “EU Sanctions”), constitute clearly defined criminal offences under national law, punishable by proportionate and dissuasive penalties. The Law applies to both natural and legal persons, and covers a wide range of conduct related to the breach or circumvention of the EU Sanctions, among which are the transfer, disposal, and/or concealment of economic resources, capital and/or assets belonging to a natural or legal person, entity or body subject to EU Sanctions (a “Designated Person”). Among the definitions set out in Article 2 of the Law, those of “capital” and “economic resources” are particularly noteworthy. “capital” covers financial assets and economic benefits of any kind, and is drafted broadly to include, inter alia, cash, cheques, monetary claims, deposits, negotiable instruments and other payment means; securities, both publicly and privately traded (including shares, bonds, notes, warrants and derivatives); credits, guarantees, letters of credit and other financial commitments; income or gains derived from such assets; documents evidencing participation in funds or financial resources; and crypto-assets as defined in Article 3(1)(5) of Regulation (EU) 2023/1114. “economic resources” covers assets, whether tangible or intangible, movable or immovable, which are not funds but may be used to obtain funds, goods or services. Article 4 of the Law defines its territorial scope of application, extending the reach of the offences under Article 5 beyond the territory of Cyprus. Specifically, the Law applies to conduct committed wholly or partly within Cyprus, on ships or aircraft registered in Cyprus or flying the Cypriot flag, and to offences committed by Cypriot nationals or by legal persons incorporated in Cyprus. It also extends to acts or omissions occurring outside Cyprus where the offender is habitually resident in Cyprus, is an officer or employee of the Republic of Cyprus acting in an official capacity, or where the offence is committed for the benefit of a legal person established in Cyprus or in connection with business activities conducted wholly or partly within Cyprus. Where the commission of an offence falls within the jurisdiction of more than one EU Member State, Cyprus is required to cooperate with the other Member States to determine which will undertake the prosecution, with the matter being referred to Eurojust where appropriate, in line with Framework Decision 2009/948/JHA. Notably, prosecution of offences committed by Cypriot nationals or by legal persons incorporated in Cyprus may be brought irrespective of whether the state in whose territory the offence occurred has submitted a complaint. Criminal offences Article 5 of the Law sets out the core offences criminalised under Cypriot law in alignment with the EU Sanctions framework. It provides that any intentional act or omission resulting in a breach of an EU Sanction constitutes a criminal offence. In particular, the Law criminalises: the direct or indirect provision of funds or economic resources to, or for the benefit of, a Designated Person; the failure to freeze funds or economic resources owned, held or controlled by such Designated Person; the facilitation of the entry into or transit through the territory of an EU Member State by a Designated Person in breach of a travel ban; the execution or continuation of transactions with a third country, its entities, or entities owned or controlled (directly or indirectly) by it, including the award or continuation of public contracts or concessions, where such conduct is prohibited or restricted under EU Sanctions; the execution of commercial transactions involving the import, export, sale, purchase, transfer, transit or brokering of goods, or the provision of intermediary, technical assistance or related services, contrary to EU Sanctions; the provision of financial services or financial activities, or any other type of service prohibited or restricted under EU Sanctions; the circumvention of EU Sanctions, including through: – the use or transfer of funds or resources to conceal ownership or control; – the provision of false or misleading information to obscure the involvement of Designated Persons; or – the failure to report or disclose to the competent authorities frozen or controlled assets as required by law; and – the violation or non-compliance with licence conditions granted by the competent authorities where the underlying activity would otherwise be prohibited by EU Sanctions. Importantly, an offence involving the trade, export or provision of technical assistance in relation to items on the EU Common Military List or dual-use items (as listed in Annexes I and IV to Regulation (EU) 2021/821) may be committed even through gross negligence, thereby extending criminal liability beyond intentional conduct. The Law further clarifies that its provisions do not criminalise humanitarian aid to persons in need or activities supporting basic human needs, provided such actions are carried out in accordance with the principles of impartiality, humanity, neutrality and independence, and, where applicable, with international humanitarian law. It also reaffirms that persons providing legal services in accordance with the Advocates Law, Cap. 2, are not required to report information obtained from or about their clients which is protected by legal professional privilege. Article 6 extends criminal liability to persons who incite, conspire or attempt to commit the offences under Article 5. Anyone who induces another to participate in such conduct is guilty of the same offence, subject to the same penalties, and may be prosecuted as if they had committed the act themselves. Where two or more persons act with a common intention to pursue an unlawful purpose and, in doing so, commit any of the offences under Article 5, each is likewise deemed guilty and liable to the same penalty. The Law also provides that a person who attempts to commit any of the specified offences in Article 5 is guilty of an offence and may be prosecuted and punished as if the act had been completed. A person is regarded as having attempted an offence where they begin to carry out their intention by suitable means and clearly manifest that intention, even if the act ultimately remains incomplete. Penalties and liability Articles 7 and 8 of the Law introduce a framework of differentiated penalties depending on the gravity of the offence and whether it is committed by a natural or legal person. For natural persons, penalties range from imprisonment of up to five years and/or fines of up to EUR 100,000, depending on the type and value of the offence. Lesser breaches may attract shorter terms or lower fines, while offences involving dual-use or military goods incur the maximum penalties irrespective of monetary value. In addition, the Courts may impose supplementary measures, such as the revocation of licences, exclusion from holding managerial positions, temporary disqualification from public office, or, where public interest so requires, the publication of the judgment in accordance with data-protection rules. For legal persons, the Law establishes corporate criminal liability where an offence is committed for the benefit of the entity by a person in a leading position, or as a result of insufficient supervision or control. Fines may reach up to 5% of the entity’s total worldwide turnover for the preceding financial year, or, where such turnover cannot be determined, up to EUR 40 million. Additional sanctions may include exclusion from public funding or procurement, suspension or withdrawal of authorisations, temporary or permanent business restrictions, or even judicial dissolution. Courts may also order the publication of their decisions in cases of public interest. The liability of a legal person does not preclude the prosecution of natural persons involved in the same conduct. Article 9 further defines the basis of corporate liability, providing that a legal person incurs responsibility for offences committed for its benefit by individuals exercising representational, decision-making, or control powers within it. Liability also arises where a lack of supervision or control by such persons enables the commission of an offence by subordinates. The corporate liability provisions do not preclude the criminal prosecution of natural persons who act as perpetrators, instigators, or accomplices. Finally, Article 10 introduces aggravating and mitigating circumstances relevant to sentencing. Aggravating factors include, among others, the commission of an offence within a criminal organisation, the use of forged or falsified documents, violations by professional service providers acting contrary to their duties, the involvement of public officials, the derivation of significant financial benefits, obstruction of justice, or prior convictions for similar offences. Mitigating factors include situations where the offender cooperates with authorities, providing information or assistance that would not otherwise be obtainable, and which facilitates the identification or prosecution of other offenders or the gathering of evidence. Enforcement and cooperation Part III of the Law strengthens enforcement by providing for the freezing and confiscation of assets linked to EU Sanctions breaches, the investigative powers of the police, customs, and other authorities, and cooperation with EU bodies such as Europol, Eurojust, and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, particularly in cross-border cases. It also requires the collection of anonymised enforcement data and its reporting to the European Commission through the Unit for the Implementation of EU Restrictive Measures (EMEK). Complementary legislative measures have also been introduced to ensure consistency and effective implementation. Law 150(I)/2025 establishes the National Sanctions Implementation Unit within the Ministry of Finance, responsible for coordinating national enforcement of both EU and UN sanctions, issuing guidance, managing licensing procedures, and imposing administrative fines. In parallel, Law 148(I)/2025 amends the existing whistleblowing framework to extend protection to persons reporting breaches of EU Sanctions, including acts of incitement, aiding and abetting, or attempted violations. Significance The Law positions Cyprus firmly within the EU’s collective effort to strengthen the enforcement of restrictive measures amid a shifting geopolitical environment. At the national level, it signifies that compliance with EU Sanctions is no longer merely a matter of regulatory diligence but now carries potential criminal liability for both individuals and corporate entities; not only those who commit breach, but also those attempt, facilitate, or conspire to do so. Its adoption marks an important step in reinforcing Cyprus’ commitment to transparency, accountability, and effective alignment with the EU Sanctions regime. Authors Kyriaki Stinga, Adonis Zachariou, Maria Vyronos Elias Neoleous & Co LLC
17 November 2025
Dispute Resolution

The New Civil Procedure Rules in Cyprus: Into a Brighter Litigation Landscape

Two years have passed since the introduction of the new Civil Procedure Rules (CPRs) on 1st of September 2023. All proceedings initiated after that date now fall under the scope of the new CPRs, while ongoing cases prior to that date remain subject to the old CPRs. By mirroring the English CPRs content and spirit, the Cyprus new CPRs introduce an ambitious procedural framework, and it remains to be seen what the actual impact of the recent reforms in the Cyprus legal order will be. With this context, this article highlights key changes and judicial interpretations since the implementation of the new CPRs. Primary Purpose At the heart of the new CPRs lies their so-called primary purpose. According to the CPRs, their primary purpose is to enable the court to manage cases fairly and proportionate in costs.[1] Essentially, this means ensuring that the parties are placed on an equal footing and handling the case in ways that is proportionate and practical in terms of costs, timeframe, and complexity of each case. Through active case management, the court promotes the primary purpose, which includes, inter alia, encouraging the parties to cooperate, setting timetables, making use of technology, and giving orders and directions to ensure that the case is dealt with promptly and efficiently.[2] As stated in Kandounas v. Iliadis,[3] an attempt is made to bring a shift in legal culture and philosophy that will allow the Court to manage cases with flexibility and practicality, to move away from dysfunctional and unnecessary procedures which contributed to delays and caused expenses to escalate uncontrollably. This avoids frivolous and vexatious actions and achieves a more structured civil procedure. As per the Supreme Court’s decision in Kouzalis v. Gordian Holdings Limited:[4] “More important, however, in relation to the purpose of the Regulations, is the provision in R.3. According to this, the Court, in the exercise of its powers in relation to any proceedings before it, takes into account that 'The primary purpose of the Regulations is to ensure the right of access to the Court and that the Court will operate fairly and efficiently.' It also takes into account that, in every case, 'it must interpret and apply the Regulations with the aim of ensuring access to it in a fair and effective manner … the spirit of Part 1 (Primary Purpose) of the new Civil Procedure Rules, guides the Court away from formalistic approaches … bypassing deliberate procedural complexities and delaying tactics." Old CPR cases Yet, this shift in philosophy is not only present with cases under the new CPRs. In Lucy Rebecca Williams,[5] a case governed by the old CPRs, an American woman was hit by a jet ski while on vacation at Nissi Beach. Her expert witness, a doctor, found it difficult to travel from the United States, so it was requested that he provide testimony via video conference. The court, accepting the application, expressed that the primary purpose of the regulations, old or new, must aim at an effective and modern administration of justice. Even in cases governed by the old rules, courts may have regard to the purpose of the new CPRs such as modernisation of justice, as stipulated in rule 60. Therefore, parties should not be concerned that their case will be handled in an outdated manner merely because it falls under the old procedural framework. Pre-action Protocols The new CPRs also introduced the Pre-Action Protocols, templates for letters to be exchanged between parties prior to the commencement of litigation.[6] Their primary aim is to encourage early cooperation, facilitate exchange of information, and promote settlement where possible. Where settlement cannot be reached, compliance with these protocols ensures a smoother transition into formal proceedings, although in practice it is seen mostly as a procedural step for trial, rather than a settlement effort. The courts highlighted that failure to comply with the pre-action protocols may lead to the issuance of orders as to costs against the non-complying party or order a stay of proceedings for the proper observance of pre-action protocols.[7] Nonetheless, in Georgios Roditis v. Grand Masonic Lodge of Cyprus Ltd et al, the defendants sought to dismiss the claim over alleged non-compliance with the pre-action protocol, but the court held that such failure does not, in principle, justify striking out a claim. The timetable Active case management includes setting timetables.[8] The key stage is the case management hearing, where the Court issues a timetable outlining steps up to trial. The dates for the presentation of evidence, witness list, expert witnesses, exchange of documents, inspection and disclosure, and submissions are predetermined in the timetable. In LAKON A.T.E. v. Municipality of Paphos,[9] where one party sought to submit supplementary written evidence on the timetable, the court allowed the inclusion of filing supplementary written evidence within the timetable, even if in the end it is not used. This ensures the court is not caught off guard by unexpected filings, thereby changing the timetable itself. The ruling reaffirmed that courts may reject pleadings or evidence not submitted in line with the set timetable. However, this does not mean that leniency will not be shown. In Neofytos Polyviou v. Georgia Kyprianou,[10] the claimant failed to file the statement of claim within the timeframe and sought an extension. The court granted the extension acknowledging the claimant’s difficulty in arranging a meeting with his lawyers. While noting that the claimant could have acted with more diligence the court concluded that this should not lead to the dismissal of the application and the deprivation of the claimant’s right to pursue his claim. Conclusion In conclusion, it could be argued that there is a clear shift in approach that is evident under the new CPRs. A more organized and just system is now in place. Given the significant change brought by this new legal framework courts are showing leniency while all parties and lawyers become familiar with the new CPRs. Nevertheless, it is still the beginning and Cypriot courts must adopt a bold stance in interpreting the new CPRs, and, at the same time, a culture of compliance with the vision of the new CPRs is also expected from all people involved. [1] Civil Procedure Rules of 2023, Rule 1.2. [2] Civil Procedure Rules of 2023, Rule 1.5. [3] Konstantis Kantounas v. Christos Iliadis et al., Civil Appeal No. 54/2024, 18/10/2024. [4] Markos Kouzalis (deceased, through the administrator of his estate, Giovanni Kouzalis) v. Gordian Holdings Limited, application no. 5/2023. [5] Lucy Rebecca Williams v. Nissi Boat Water Sports limited, Action No. 534/2016, dated 9/4/2024. [6] Civil Procedure Rules of 2023, Rule 3.9. [7] Georgios Roditis v. Grand Masonic Lodge of Cyprus Ltd et al., Claim No. 3416/2023, dated 13/2/2025, and see under English case law, Olatawura v. Abilove [2002] 4 All ER 903, CA; Cundall-Johnson & Partners v. Whipps Cross University Hospital NHS Trust [2007] EWHC 2178. [8] Civil Procedure Rules of 2023, Rule 23. [9] LAKON A.T.E. v. Municipality of Paphos, Action No. 1186/23, 2/11/2023. [10] Neofytos Polyviou v. Georgia Kyprianou otherwise Georgia Klimi et al., Claim No: 143/2024, 11/12/2024.
21 October 2025
Press Releases

Elias Neocleous & Co LLC advises on Cyprus law aspects of MHA’s strategic expansion into Southeast Europe

Elias Neocleous & Co LLC (“ENC”) is pleased to have acted as Cyprus legal counsel to Macintyre Hudson Ireland Limited, a subsidiary of MHA plc, in connection with its €24 million acquisition of Baker Tilly South East Europe. The transaction brings together over 800 professionals across Cyprus, Greece, Bulgaria, Moldova, and Romania, further strengthening MHA’s regional presence and marking a key milestone in its post-listing growth strategy. Working alongside the client’s UK counsel Freeths LLP, ENC advised on all Cyprus law matters relating to the acquisition, including review and negotiation of the corporate and transactional documents, preparation of Cyprus legal due diligence, regulatory and merger control advice, employment matters, and coordination of all jurisdictions to support the transaction through to completion. The firm also secured merger control clearance in Cyprus for the acquisition. Notably, ENC collaborated with all regional counsel in the relevant jurisdictions of the operations of the target, Dinova Rusev & Partners for Bulgaria, Kyriakides Georgopoulos (KG) Law Firm for Greece, Cerha Hempel for Romania, and Schoenherr for Moldova, to coordinate the multi-jurisdictional due diligence exercise and regulatory aspects of the transaction. The Elias Neocleous & Co LLC team comprised Andrea Kallis Parparinou, Xenia Kalogirou, Ramona Livera, Katia Papadopoulou, Demetris Gregoriou, and George Tsardellis (litigation matters). #Elias Neocleous #Mergersandacquisitions #Cyprus #EmploymentLawAlliance
21 October 2025
Banking and Finance

The Future of Banking Compliance Lawyers: Embracing Innovation and AI to Better Serve Banks and Customers in Cyprus and Beyond.

What does it mean to run a business in a financial world that never stands still? The world of banking and finance is undergoing rapid transformation. From the rise of digital platforms and alternative payment systems to the expanding scope of regulatory oversight, today’s financial environment is more complex and fast-paced than ever. At the center of this change lies a crucial relationship between financial institutions, their clients, and the legal professionals who support them. At Elias Neocleous & Co LLC, we are seeing that the old-school way of doing legal work doesn’t always work anymore. It is not just about knowing the rules. It is about helping clients apply them in a way that fits how their business actually operates. Whether we are supporting a bank with its compliance framework or assisting a company with cross-border financing, our focus is on making legal processes practical and effective. As regulations grow stricter in areas such as anti-money laundering, data protection, and international financial conduct, financial institutions are under increasing pressure. These measures are vital for maintaining trust in the financial system, but they can also lead to delays, friction, and added stress for organisations and their clients. When compliance is handled poorly, the consequences go beyond fines or delays. It can result in another frustrated client and sometimes even a broken relationship with a bank, not because of wrongdoing but because of misinterpretation, rigid processes, or a failure to truly understand the client. In the past, ‘Know Your Customer’ was treated as more like a box-ticking exercise and, if we are honest, in some places it still is. Yet there is a growing recognition that today it must mean something deeper. Effective KYC is not exclusively about suspicion or endless investigation; it is about understanding. It is about knowing not only a client’s immediate needs, but also their ambitions for the future, and aligning those ambitions with the realities and opportunities of the financial system. When approached this way, KYC becomes far more than compliance, it becomes a foundation for trust, a guide for better decision-making, and a bridge to stronger, lasting partnership. This is where the right legal advice proves its true value. We work closely with clients to develop compliance policies that are not only legally sound but also realistic and efficient. This might involve advising on onboarding and know-your-customer procedures, helping a business restructure or reorganise, or even addressing GDPR and cybersecurity through the Tech Law Department of our Law Firm. Our Tech Law Department assists clients to comply with technology-related laws such as GDPR, DORA, NIS2, the Cyber Resilience Act (CRA), the AI Act, and the Cybersecurity Act. For us, every policy, every procedure, is ultimately about people, understanding their goals, easing their burdens, and creating space for them to grow. Too often, good businesses suffer not because they lack substance, but because they fail to present themselves in the way banks expect. It is a little like a CV: not everyone with great talent knows how to showcase it on paper. Beneath the surface, a company may have a strong record and a compelling story, but if that story is not expressed clearly, opportunities can be lost. Banks, for their part, excel at enforcing rules and ensuring that every regulation is observed. But sometimes, in focusing on the checklist, they miss the deeper picture, the essence of the client, the reasons behind a missing document, or the real strengths that lie just out of view. This is where we see our role: to connect the unseen dots, to help clients present their reality in its best light, and to ensure that valuable relationships are built on understanding rather than misunderstanding. We also support clients in their dealings with banks by ensuring that all the necessary paperwork is completed correctly. This includes forms such as UBO (Ultimate Beneficial Owner) declarations and providing clear explanations of the source of funds. By guiding clients through these steps, we aim to minimise errors or delays and keep the process moving smoothly. Supporting clients goes beyond compliance checklists, it means standing with them when questions, conflicts, or cross-border complexities arise. That is why we provide legal opinions on regulatory interpretation, assist in resolving disputes, and advise on structuring transactions across multiple jurisdictions. Our approach is designed to simplify complex processes and manage legal risks, helping clients move forward with greater clarity and confidence. We are also closely following developments in technology, particularly artificial intelligence, and how they are beginning to influence the legal and compliance landscape. In the financial sector, AI is increasingly used to assist with tasks such as document review and regulatory tracking. While we do not currently use AI tools for client-facing work, we are actively exploring how such technologies might be introduced safely and responsibly in the future. Confidentiality, accuracy, and compliance with regulatory standards remain key considerations, especially in a highly regulated environment like Cyprus. Internally, we are developing NeoLaw.ai, a platform designed to support our legal teams with research, document analysis, and the study of Cyprus case law. Although not a client-facing tool, NeoLaw.ai reflects our commitment to innovation and efficiency. By reducing time spent on repetitive tasks, it allows our lawyers to focus more on complex legal matters where expert judgement is essential. Whether you are a business expanding into new markets, an investor navigating regulatory risk, or an individual applying for finance, the way legal and compliance issues are handled can significantly affect your experience and may even define the entire journey of a business.  Clear and responsive legal support helps to avoid delays and uncertainty, and we believe this is key to getting things done properly. The legal profession continues to evolve, and in banking and finance the role of the lawyer is no longer confined to citing regulations or drafting documents. That world is gone. Our role has become something more human and more essential: protecting trust, uncovering what lies beneath the paperwork, and giving clients a voice in a system that often has little patience for nuance. Yet its core purpose remains unchanged: to serve people and support the systems that enable business and finance to operate fairly and transparently. What is changing is how we deliver that service, through smarter tools, stronger collaboration, and a clearer understanding of our clients’ real-world challenges. The financial world will only grow faster, more digital, and more demanding. That is a fact. What matters is how we respond to it. At Elias Neocleous & Co LLC we are proud to be part of this transformation. We choose to meet that future head-on, with sharper tools, broader vision, and the determination to make law serve people, not slow them down. As a Cyprus based firm, advising clients both locally and internationally, we are committed to providing legal support that is technically strong, commercially aware, and designed to help our clients move forward with clarity and confidence in an increasingly digital financial world. It means a legal partner who keeps pace with change and helps them stay one step ahead of it. Because in the end, true clarity is born where strict rules meet human understanding, and that is the space we choose to work in.    
29 August 2025

The EU's Comprehensive Anti-Money Laundering Framework: An In-Depth Analysis

Curious about how we can protect our financial system from illicit activities? The European Union has stepped up to the challenge with a robust and comprehensive anti-money laundering (AML) framework.This article explores the complex web of regulations, directives, and authorities that are the backbone of the EU’s defense against money laundering and terrorist financing. Businesses and financial institutions within the EU are gearing up to navigate this intricate landscape more effectively. Embracing these AML regulations isn't just about compliance – it's about establishing a culture of integrity and responsibility. By staying ahead of these stringent measures, companies not only protect themselves from financial crime but also build stronger trust and credibility in the global market. This framework is not just a requirement; it’s a strategic advantage that ensures sustainable growth and resilience in today's interconnected world. The Pillars of EU's AML Framework The EU's AML framework is built on three crucial pillars: the Anti-Money Laundering Regulation (AMLR), the Anti-Money Laundering Authority (AMLA), and the Anti-Money Laundering Directive (AMLD). Each pillar plays a vital role in preventing the misuse of the financial system for money laundering by corporate entities and through financial transactions. We have  discussed this in previous articles which can be found on Mondaq here and here. Anti-Money Laundering Regulation (AMLR) The AMLR stands as a testament to the EU’s commitment to standardising anti-money laundering measures across its member states. What are the key provisions that make this regulation so pivotal? Risk-Based Approach: Financial institutions must adopt a risk-based approach to identify, assess, and mitigate risks related to money laundering and terrorist financing. This ensures that resources are allocated efficiently, focusing on areas with higher risks. Customer Due Diligence (CDD): Enhanced CDD measures require verifying customer identities, understanding business relationships, and continuously monitoring transactions. Special attention is given to politically exposed persons (PEPs) and high-risk third countries. Beneficial Ownership Transparency: Central registers for beneficial ownership information are mandated, accessible to competent authorities and financial intelligence units (FIUs). This transparency aims to prevent the misuse of corporate structures for illicit purposes. Reporting Obligations: Obliged entities must promptly report any suspicious transactions to FIUs, including transactions that appear unusual or inconsistent with a customer's known profile or business activities. Sanctions and Penalties: Stringent sanctions and penalties for non-compliance underscore the importance of adherence to AML regulations, including administrative fines and potential license withdrawals for severe breaches. Anti-Money Laundering Authority (AMLA) Is it enough to have regulations without effective oversight? The establishment of the AMLA represents a significant leap forward in ensuring the consistent and effective application of AML rules across the EU. Supervisory Role: The AMLA oversees national supervisory authorities, conducting assessments, providing guidance, and coordinating joint supervisory actions. Direct Supervision: For certain high-risk financial institutions, the AMLA has direct supervision and on-site inspection authority, mitigating risks associated with cross-border operations and complex financial structures. Technical Standards and Guidelines: Developing technical standards, guidelines, and recommendations, the AMLA facilitates uniform implementation of AML measures covering CDD, risk assessment, and reporting obligations. Coordination and Cooperation: Enhancing cooperation among national FIUs and relevant authorities, the AMLA promotes information sharing and joint investigations to improve the overall effectiveness of the EU's AML framework. Advisory Role: Advising the European Commission on legislative and policy initiatives, the AMLA ensures that the AML framework remains dynamic and responsive to emerging threats and challenges. Anti-Money Laundering Directive (AMLD) The AMLD complements the AMLR by setting out detailed requirements for member states to implement in their national legislation. How do these directives adapt to the diverse and dynamic nature of financial crimes? Scope of Application: The AMLD applies to a wide range of entities, including financial institutions, legal professionals, real estate agents, and virtual asset service providers (VASPs), ensuring comprehensive coverage of sectors vulnerable to money laundering and terrorist financing. Enhanced Due Diligence (EDD): Mandating EDD measures for high-risk situations, such as transactions involving PEPs or countries with weak AML controls, the directive includes obtaining additional information about customers and the source of funds. Third-Party Reliance: Allowing obliged entities to rely on third parties for CDD measures under certain conditions, the AMLD aims to reduce duplication of efforts and streamline compliance processes. Training and Awareness: Member states must ensure that obliged entities provide regular training on AML obligations and emerging trends, maintaining a high level of vigilance and expertise within the industry. Whistleblower Protection: Provisions to protect individuals who report suspicions of money laundering or terrorist financing encourage whistleblowing and support the detection of illicit activities. Record Keeping: Obliged entities must maintain records of CDD information, transaction data, and internal reports for a specified period, crucial for audits, investigations, and compliance reviews. Cooperation with Third Countries: Emphasising cooperation with non-EU countries to combat money laundering and terrorist financing globally, the AMLD includes sharing information, conducting joint investigations, and providing technical assistance. Beneficial Ownership and the 25% Threshold How do we identify the true owners behind complex corporate structures? Beneficial ownership transparency is a critical component of AML regulations, aimed at preventing the misuse of corporate entities for illicit activities. Key Aspects of the 25% Ownership Threshold: Direct and Indirect Ownership: The 25% threshold applies to both direct and indirect ownership, including shares held through intermediaries or complex ownership structures. Transparency and Disclosure: Legal entities must maintain accurate and up-to-date information on their beneficial owners, recorded in central registers accessible to competent authorities and FIUs. Reporting Obligations: Obliged entities must conduct due diligence to identify beneficial owners when establishing business relationships or conducting transactions. Enhanced Due Diligence (EDD): For beneficial owners who are PEPs or from high-risk countries, enhanced due diligence measures must be applied. Legal and Regulatory Implications: Non-compliance with beneficial ownership disclosure requirements can result in significant legal and regulatory consequences, including administrative fines, sanctions, and potential criminal liability. AML in the World of Football What about the world of sports, where enormous financial transactions occur frequently? The AML framework has specific implications for football, where vast sums of money flow through transfers, sponsorships, and other financial activities. Transfer Market Scrutiny: Football clubs are required to conduct thorough due diligence during player transfers to ensure compliance with AML regulations. Sponsorship and Endorsements: Clubs must verify the legitimacy of sponsors and endorsees to prevent money laundering through these channels. Financial Fair Play: The AML regulations support UEFA’s Financial Fair Play regulations, ensuring that clubs operate within their financial means and maintain transparency in their financial dealings. A recent article by our firm’s Tax Consultant & Manager – Compliance Officer, Michael Loizou, analyses this topic in more depth. You can read it on Mondaq here. Although Cyprus has not still officially adopted 6th AMLD, here is a graphic representation of the evolution of the EU Anti-Money Laundering Directives. It illustrates the timeline and progression from the First AMLD in 1991 to the Sixth AMLD in 2021. How do we continue to evolve in the face of new threats? As obliged entities, service providers within the European Union play a crucial role in upholding the robust anti-money laundering (AML) framework set forth by EU regulations. To maintain compliance and better serve their clients, these entities must implement rigorous due diligence procedures, including thorough customer identification, risk assessment, and ongoing monitoring of transactions. By staying informed about the latest directives and regulatory updates, service providers can adapt swiftly to evolving threats and regulatory expectations. This proactive approach not only safeguards against financial crime but also strengthens client relationships by demonstrating a commitment to transparency and security. Moreover, maintaining a high standard of professionalism and ethical conduct not only enhances trust but also positions service providers as reliable partners in the global marketplace. What more can be done to fortify our financial systems? The answer lies in continued innovation, cooperation, and a relentless pursuit of transparency and accountability. Elias Neocleous & Co LLC is dedicated to helping businesses and financial institutions navigate and implement these crucial AML measures within the EU. Our expertise ensures clients remain compliant and well-prepared for evolving regulations, safeguarding their operations and enhancing their market reputation. Authors: Dorina Mastora, Deputy Compliance Officer, and Kyriaki Stinga, Senior Associate
29 August 2025

From Open Banking to Open Finance: The Framework for Financial Data Access (FiDA)

Xenia Kalogirou of Elias Neocleous & Co discusses the rise of the concept of Open Finance as incorporated in the Framework for Financial Data Access I) Overview On 28 June 2023, the European Commission (EC) published a set of legislative proposals on payment services; on the much anticipated introduction of a digital euro; and on the sharing of financial data. These proposals aim to modernise the financial sector, align with the ongoing digital transformation, cultivate data-driven innovation and promote a competitive digital ecosystem. Simultaneously, they also seek to safeguard consumers’ interests, ensure fair competition, and bolster security and trust. Apart from the third Payment Services Directive (PSD3) and the Payment Services Regulation (PSR), the legislative proposals included a Framework for Financial Data Access (FiDA), also commonly referred to as the Open Finance Framework (OFF). FiDA is a flagship initiative of the EU Digital Finance strategy, built upon the concept of customers’ permission to share their data. The concept was nurtured under the second Payment Services Directive (PSD2) through the ‘Open Banking’ framework and now incorporated in FiDA. While the current PSD2 has enabled customers to allow Payment Services Providers (PSPs) to access their payment accounts’ data for payment initiation and account information services, FIDA now goes even further and extends the ‘Open Banking’ concept by introducing ‘Open Finance’.  Under this broader perspective, customers will be able to exercise control over their data across all facets of financial services. This is expected to result in the introduction of new types of services, business models and operations while leveraging technology and external data sources. II) Scope In-scope customer data: The scope of customer data (Customer Data) under FiDA includes: mortgage credit agreements, loans and all other accounts which are not yet covered by PSD2 including balance, conditions and transaction details; creditworthiness assessments performed during a loan application process or a request for a credit rating; savings, investments in financial instruments, insurance-based investment products, crypto-assets, real estate and other related financial assets as well as the economic benefits derived from such assets; suitability and appropriateness assessment data under Markets in Financial Instruments Directive 2014/65/EU (MiFID) and Insurance Distribution Directive (EU) 2016/97 (IDD); non-life insurance products, with the exception of sickness and health insurance products; pension rights in occupational pension schemes and pan-European personal pension products. In-scope entities: FiDA applies to the following entities, with only limited exclusions, when acting as data holders or data users (DA Institutions): Credit institutions Payment institutions, including account information service providers (AISP) and exempted payment institutions under PSD2 Electronic money institutions, including exempted e-money institutions MiFID investment firms MiCA crypto-asset service providers Issuers of asset-referenced tokens Alternative investment fund managers (AIFMs) UCITS management companies Insurance and reinsurance undertakings Insurance intermediaries and ancillary insurance intermediaries Institutions for occupational retirement provision Credit rating agencies Crowdfunding service providers PEPP providers Financial information service providers (FISPs) III) Data Holders Data holders are the financial institutions listed in points (a) to (n) above (Financial Institutions), other than an AISP that collect, store and otherwise process Customer Data and must make available such data to the customer on request or from the data user (i.e. other financial institution) on the customer’s request. This access must be granted based on generally recognised standards. Data holders must provide customers with a permission dashboard to monitor and manage the permissions they provide to data users. The dashboard must provide the customer with an overview of each ongoing permission given to data users such as the name of the data user, the customer account, the purpose of the permission, the categories of data being shared and the period of validity of permission. In addition, the dashboard must allow the customer to withdraw and re-establish permissions given to data users and include a relevant record of withdrawn or expired permissions.  Finally, the dashboard must be “easy to find” in its user interface and provide clear, accurate and easily understandable information. The processing of Customer Data that constitutes personal data must be limited to what is necessary and for retention periods in accordance with the General Data Protection Regulation 2016/679 (GDPR). IV) Data Users and FISP Authorisation Data users are any of the DA Institutions which, following the permission of a customer, have lawful access to Customer Data. This means that only Financial Institutions and authorised FISPs are eligible for data access. The regulation describes the authorisation process for FISPs. FISPs must either be established in an EU Member State or designate a legal representative in the EU. This means that overseas firms that require access to Customer Data in the EU must have a written agreement designating a person based in the EU to act on their behalf. Similar to Open Banking, data users can only access the data with their customers’ permission, and only for the purposes and under the conditions specifically agreed to by the customers. For the purposes of effective management of Customer Data, a data user shall: not process any customer data for purposes other than for performing the service explicitly requested by the customer; respect the confidentiality of trade secrets and intellectual property rights; put in place adequate technical, legal and organisational measures in order to prevent the transfer of or access to non-personal customer data that is unlawful; take necessary measures to ensure an appropriate level of security for the storage, processing and transmission of non-personal customer data; not process customer data for advertising purposes, except for direct marketing; where the data user is part of a group of companies, Customer Data shall only be accessed and processed by the entity of the group that acts as a data user. V) Financial Data Sharing Schemes Data holders and data users will be required to join one or more Financial Data Sharing Scheme (FDSS) which will govern data access to Customer Data in line with FIDA and other EU rules. In addition, those schemes will be mandated to develop common standards for both data and technical interfaces to facilitate customer requests for data sharing. Unlike PSD2 open banking rules, FDSS introduces an important element: the establishment of a model to determine the maximum compensation that a data holder is entitled to charge. This compensation pertains to making data available through an appropriate technical interface for sharing with data users in accordance with common standards. Schemes must also set the contractual liability of its members and establish a dispute resolution regime to resolve disputes among scheme members and membership issues. The European Commission is tasked with setting rules to cover the event that a FDSS is not developed for a category of customer data. In this case, delegated acts would specify the common standards for the data and the technical interfaces allowing customers to request data sharing, the model for determining the maximum compensation that a data holder is entitled to charge for making the data available, and the liability of the entities involved. VI) Industry’s Position In recent years, while some financial institutions opted to merely comply with PSD2, others seized the opportunity to generate additional value for their customers by providing access to financial products and services other than payments using application programming interfaces (APIs). For instance, there are financial institutions developing APIs that allow their “clients across all segments to integrate them in their preferred applications and internal processes to improve financial decision-making and efficiency, but also in consumer applications to offer seamless experiences to their clients and generate new revenue streams for the business” (see The Paypers, Open Finance Report 2023, ING, The Open Banking Ecosystem in Action). Other use cases include the formation of partnerships between banks and data aggregators, as well as the emergence of consortiums with the aim to standardise the data exchange protocols. Consultancy firms have also developed various models to help financial institutions assess their Open Finance maturity. These models aim to highlight both strengths and weaknesses in capabilities, providing insights for exploring new income streams via Open Finance-related APIs. Additionally, they assist in ensuring compliance with FiDA requirements. Due to this evolving landscape, we are witnessing the emergence of advanced payment options like Buy Now, Pay Later and payment request API. Concurrently, new services such as comprehensive financial management, improved personalised services and e-invoicing for insurance, telecommunication, and utility bills, are unlocking and delivering added value to consumers. The continuous growth of Open Finance is largely inevitable. However, the velocity of that growth in individual countries depends on the extent that Open Finance is tailored to specific market considerations. VII) Implementation of FiDA Provisions of the FiDA will apply 24 months after FiDA enters into force, except for those relating to the FDSS and authorisation requirements for FISPs which will apply 6 months earlier. The timeline laid down by the European Commission is very ambitious. Establishing data-sharing agreements, developing and establishing data-sharing schemes and relevant standards, developing the governance structures of schemes, etc., will likely take significantly longer, as demonstrated by the implementation of the PSD2 framework. In order to ensure successful implementation across the financial sector, a more incremental approach would be both realistic and effective taking into consideration the technical complexities, the number of players involved and the significant implementation costs of implementing FIDA. The proposals of the European Commission will be reviewed by the European Parliament and Counsel. The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) was appointed as the lead Committee to deal with the FiDA proposal. On 13 December 2023, ECON has published a draft report on FiDA by proposing certain amendments related to enhancement of customer trust, promotion of innovation and improvement of interoperability and supervision. This review constitutes only a starting point for ECON’s work on FiDA. Assuming that the texts are agreed upon by the end of 2024 or early 2025, the new regime is anticipated to go into effect in 2026. Author: Xenia Kalogirou, Senior Associate at Elias Neocleous & Co LLC
29 August 2025
Civil Procedure Law

Injunctive relief and the Audi Alteram Partem principle

The Latin maxim audi alteram partem, meaning “listen to the other side,” is a fundamental principle of natural justice. It safeguards access to justice and ensures a fair hearing for all parties—not only those formally joined in legal proceedings but also third parties whose rights may be affected. Its origins can arguably be traced back to ancient Greece. The renowned orator Demosthenes noted that the Athenian judicial oath—attributed by some, albeit uncertainly, to Solon—required judges to listen equally to both the prosecutor and the defendant (καὶ ἀκροάσομαι τε καὶ τοῦ κατηγόρου καὶ τοῦ ἀπολογουμένου ὁμοίως ἀμφοῖν). Although the audi alteram partem principle is widely applied in judicial systems worldwide, limited exceptions exist. These usually involve circumstances of urgency, public safety, or national security. Such exceptions must, however, be reasonable, proportionate, and justified in context. Natural justice and procedural fairness demand that parties directly or indirectly affected by legal proceedings are given the opportunity to be heard and to challenge decisions or procedures taken in their absence. The Audi Alteram Partem Principle in Cyprus under the Old Civil Procedure Rules Under the former Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), specifically Order 48, Rule 8(4), it was stated: “Any person (other than the applicant) affected by an order made ex parte may apply by summons to have it set aside or varied and the Court or Judge may set aside or vary such order on such terms as may seem just.” In Ktoridis Giannakis v. Alpha Bank Cyprus Ltd (2014) 1 C.L.R. 1173, the Supreme Court of Cyprus affirmed: “It is a well-established principle in our legal system, expressed by the Latin maxim audi alteram partem, that the court does not issue an order without first hearing the other party. However, by way of exception, the legislator, in certain cases, allows the granting of ex parte relief… Order 48(8)(4), which follows O.48(8)(1), concerns every order that is issued ex parte. Its objective is evidently to provide the possibility of reconsidering a matter that was decided ex parte, when the person affected wishes to exercise their fundamental right to be heard…” Although this rule affirmed the principle of audi alteram partem, the interpretation of “any person” under Rule 8(4) was restrictive. In Heli-Air v. Drescher (1988) 1 AAΔ 234, the Court held that this phrase did not extend to third parties unless they had applied to be formally joined in the proceedings: “We agree with the learned trial Judge that paragraph 4 of rule 8 of Order 48 does not in general give the right to a third person to apply by summons for the discharge or variation of an interim order issued in proceedings in which such a person is not a party. We do not accept the argument that a reference to ‘any person’ covers a person in the circumstances of this case where no application to be joined as a party was made and where the very ownership and right of possession of the subject property were in issue and were sought to be determined by the Court in the course of determining an application for the discharge or variation of an interim order”. Similarly, in Koui v. Christodoulou (2010) 1 Α.Α.Δ. 401, citing Heli Air,  the Supreme Court reaffirmed: “The words ‘any person’ in O.48, r.8(4) do not extend to persons in respect of whom no application for joinder has been filed, in proceedings where the substantive issues remain open”. These aforementioned rulings were received by legal practitioners with skepticism as they created confusion and also complicated the procedure unnecessarily.[1] This is because, in practice, third parties affected by an ex parte injunction often had no real connection to the main dispute or were not directly (or even indirectly) targeted by any claims. To remedy this, several judges in the interests of natural justice and fairness did not follow the strict letter of Heli Air and permitted such third parties to intervene for the limited purpose of challenging the ex parte order, without needing to be joined to the main action.[2] For example, In Gerd Jakob v. Ivan Ivanovich Mazur (2015), the Court held: “Since the interlocutory injunction may directly affect the applicants’ property interests… it would be unfair not to allow them to intervene… solely for the purposes of the interlocutory injunction.” The Approach under the New Civil Procedure Rules of 2023 The new Civil Procedure Rules  which came into force in September 2023 have provided much-needed clarity in this respect and remedied what could be described as unsatisfactory situation. Today, a third party individual or corporate entity affected by an ex parte order can challenge it without first being joined as a party to the main action. The Court of Appeal recently confirmed this position whilst reviewing a decision where the first instance court had (falsely) rejected an application by an affected party to intervene in the proceedings. On appeal, the Court addressed both the old and new CPR regimes. It particularly referred to New Rule 23.14, which reads: “23.14. Application to set aside or vary an order issued without notice (1) Any party or person affected by an order issued on an application which was not served on them before the order was issued may apply to set aside or vary the order. (2) A person who is not already a party to the action does not need to become a party solely for the purpose of submitting an application under Rule 23.14(1)…” The Appeal Court emphasized that neither the law nor the new rules require a person affected by an order to become a party to the action in order to challenge it. This interpretation is consistent with the decision in the English case of Cretanor Maritime Co. Ltd v. Irish Marine Ltd [1978] 1 WLR 966 and also aligns with New Rule 23.1, which allows such persons to be appointed by the court as “respondents” to the application rather than formal parties.   Conclusion The new Civil Procedure Rules represent a major advancement in ensuring access to justice and correcting procedural ambiguities. By affirming that those affected by court orders—regardless of party status—have the right to be heard, the Rules reinforce the fundamental value of audi alteram partem principle. This development replaces a previously rigid and overly formalistic approach with one grounded in fairness, clarity, practicality and, of course, natural justice.   By Chrysanthos Christoforou (Partner) and Maria Keliri (Associate) Elias Neocleous & Co LLC   [1] It is the opinion of the authors that reading between the lines of Harazim Richard (2016) 1 AAΔ 2850 one could argue that the judgments of Heli Air and Koui (above) received also judicial criticism. [2] See 1. Chivas Holdings (IP) Ltd v. Γενικού Εισαγγελέα κ.ά  (2011), 2. Nikolas Koumenidis a.o. v. Gerrard Culbert a.o. (2009,) 3. Gerd Jakob v. Ivan Ivanovich Mazur  (2015),
29 August 2025
Press Releases

Navigating DORA: ENC Drives Discussion at Legal 500 GC Summit Cyprus 2025

Elias Neocleous & Co LLC(ENC) was once again at the forefront of the 2025 CG Summit Cyprus, a notable gathering hosted by the Legal500, which saw the participation of legal professionals, industry experts, and key decision-makers from across the country.  The panel discussion of ENC focused on the newly implemented Digital Resilience Operational Act (DORA), its applicability and technical specifications, alongside the potential impact of such technological compliance regulations. Moderated by ENC partner, Andrea Kallis Parparinou, the panel discussion featured Michael Ioannou, Chief Information Officer at ENC, Emilios Charalambous – Associate at ENC, and Sofia Savva, Head of Legal & Corporate Governance at Societe Generale Bank Cyprus. Kicking things off by pinpointing the increase in digitalization and cyber threats, Andrea remarked that “The ever-increasing reliance on tech is directly connected to the increasing risk of exposure to technology and the EU wants to regulate these ICT related risks”, before Emilios Charalambous provided the audience of 100+ legal professionals with the background rationale of DORA coming into play, its current scope and the potential penalties, explaining that “by taking a wide view, we are looking at an act that’s been implemented in an attempt to address the growing cybersecurity risks and operational challenges faced by the financial sector due to digital transformation”. Michael Ioannou’s technical expertise showcased the key pillars of the act and the considerations that should be kept in mind when dealing with its compliance requirements, and set out the preexisting compliance standards that would support a company’s operations regardless of whether they fall within the scope of the act or not. The experience of Sofia Savva in the banking industry was a vital addition to the panel, as her perspectives provided insights into the internal thinking process and approach of an established financial entity, remarking that “While banks are making progress, some key challenges remain such as the high implementation costs (investing in new cybersecurity and compliance tools), managing compliance across multiple ICT service providers and regulatory uncertainty.” Overall, all panelists in combination provided valuable insights and practical advise necessary for the rapidly growing technological regulation industry. Moving forward, ENC continues to prioritise legal excellence, focusing on delivering strategic advice and innovative solutions. The Summit once again highlighted our commitment to a forward-thinking approach, helping our clients navigate the changing legal landscape whilst planning proactive actions rather just reactive compliance. For further information or inquiries, please contact Andrea Kallis Parparinou at [email protected]
02 May 2025
Employment Law

Groundbreaking Labour Disputes Court Ruling in Cyprus on Pension Rights of Employees on Indefinite Contracts

In a groundbreaking decision issued by the Cyprus Labour Disputes Court on 27/3/2025, application 260/2018, it was recognized for the first time that employees on indefinite contracts fall within the scope of European Directive 1999/70/EC and can invoke unfair discrimination concerning their pension benefits. As the courts of an EU member state, Cypriot courts respect and apply European law, ensuring the protection of citizens’ rights and compliance with the obligations arising from EU directives. This ruling reaffirms the importance of aligning national legislation with European law and guaranteeing equal treatment for employees. The case was handled by the firm’s partner/lawyer George Tsardellis and associate/lawyer Kriton Dionysiou. For a more in-depth analysis of this topic, please reach out to George Tsardellis or Kriton Dionysiou
25 April 2025
Press Releases

Recognising Excellence: Celebrating our newly promoted Senior Team

At Elias Neocleous & Co LLC, we are dedicated to recognising and advancing talent based on innovation, expertise, and leadership. We are very proud to announce the well-earned promotions of the following individuals to senior positions within our firm. Each of these professionals has demonstrated exceptional skill, acumen, mentorship, and guidance, making significant contributions to our firm's success and growth. Promotion to Advocate / Partner Kyriaki Stinga Since joining the firm in 2012, Kyriaki has demonstrated exceptional leadership in managing the Corporate & Commercial department, one of the firm’s largest practice areas, while mentoring team members. She brings extensive experience in corporate and commercial law, with a particular focus on cross-border transactions, including acquisitions, mergers, divisions, and re-domiciliations. Throughout her tenure, she has advised on numerous high-value, multi-million-dollar transactions. Promotion to Advocate / Counsel Marina Joud Marina has extensive experience in civil, corporate, commercial, and banking litigation, as well as international trade, torts, company liquidation, and forex litigation. A member of the firm since 2007, she has successfully represented the special administrator of a major financial institution in numerous litigation cases filed by depositors across Cyprus and has acted on behalf of one of the country’s largest forex trading companies in complex disputes. Marina has also represented international banks in asset recovery cases, achieving full recovery of stolen funds. Additionally, she represents the Limassol Municipality in their various cases. Christiana Pyrkotou A member of the firm since 2010, Christiana specialises in civil, corporate, and commercial litigation, with a focus on contract law, shareholder and joint-venture disputes, derivative actions, international trade, torts, and company liquidation. She has advised and represented national and international clients in complex court proceedings, including Mareva injunctions, disclosure orders, and multi-jurisdictional disputes. Christiana also has extensive experience in asset recovery, enforcement of foreign judgments, and advising creditors on liquidation and debt collection procedures. Vassilis Psyrras Vassilis Psyrras has extensive experience in admiralty claims, ship and project finance, debt restructuring, yacht leasing, and corporate and commercial matters. His background in commercial roles with Piraeus-based shipping companies, including seagoing experience as a cadet officer, gives him unique insight into the operational and commercial needs of the shipping industry. With the firm since 2016, Vassilis has advised major banks, shipowners, and financial institutions on complex transactions and disputes, representing clients in high-value litigation and arbitration proceedings. Elena Christodoulou Elena Christodoulou is a specialist in corporate and tax law, with a strong focus on international and European tax law, EU regulatory compliance, and private client advisory. With extensive experience in cross-border tax structuring and complex transactions, she provides strategic counsel to blue-chip corporations and high-net-worth individuals. Her expertise spans corporate tax planning, trust law, and wealth management, making her a trusted advisor in the field. A sought-after speaker at international tax and regulatory panels, Elena also contributes to leading industry publications. Her deep knowledge, strategic acumen, and ability to navigate intricate legal matters make her an invaluable asset to the firm. Promotion to Advocate / Senior Associate Aimilia Efstathiou Aimilia Efstathiou has established herself as a pivotal member of the litigation team, since joining the firm in 2016, consistently demonstrating exceptional legal expertise and a strategic approach to complex disputes. Recognized for her proficiency in high-value commercial litigation, she provides strategic legal counsel across a broad spectrum of commercial law matters, including contract and tort law, shareholders’ disputes, trust law, and jurisdictional issues. Her deep understanding of commercial litigation, sharp analytical skills, and unwavering commitment to excellence make her an indispensable asset to the firm. Promotion to Senior Legal Counsel / Head of India Desk Motaher Chowdhury Motaher Chowdhury has extensive expertise advising international clients, multinational corporations, and private clients on a broad spectrum of corporate and commercial matters. Since joining in 2009, he has been involved in corporate structuring, tax-efficient planning, and cross-border transactions. His strategic counsel has been key in navigating complex legal frameworks, ensuring strong corporate governance, and facilitating seamless operations. Recognized as a leading India specialist, Motaher heads the firm’s India Desk, advising businesses and investors on cross-border structuring, compliance, and market entry. His expertise and strong connections with top Indian firms has contributed to the firm’s continued growth and recognition in this area. Advancing diversity in leadership roles These promotions are a testament to merit, excellence, and dedication. Each of these individuals has demonstrated outstanding commitment to our firm, our clients, and the legal profession, earning their place in senior roles through their expertise and hard work. At Elias Neocleous & Co LLC, we are committed to fostering a strong, diverse and dynamic leadership team where talent thrives, enhances our ability to deliver excellence and strengthens our capacity to serve our clients at the highest level. Join us in congratulating these individuals on their well-deserved promotions! Their success is an inspiration, and we look forward to their continued impact on our firm’s future.
25 April 2025
Press Releases

Elias Neocleous & Co LLC honoured as Mediterranean Law Firm of the year at 2025 Citywealth IFC Awards

Elias Neocleous & Co LLC is delighted to announce its recognition as Mediterranean Law Firm of the Year 2025 at the prestigious Citywealth International Financial Centre (IFC) Awards. The awards ceremony took place on January 28th at One Moorgate Place in the City of London, bringing together over 120 of the world’s leading wealth advisors and private client experts. Now in their fourteenth year, the Citywealth IFC Awards celebrate excellence in the private wealth sector across major international financial centres. The event was hosted by The Rt Hon. The Lord Brady of Altrincham, with a distinctive Scottish touch added by a kilted bagpiper in honour of Burns Night. The awards, established by Citywealth CEO Karen Jones in 2010, recognise the highest standards of service and expertise within the industry. An international panel of distinguished practitioners from various sectors rigorously assessed this year’s nominees, ensuring that winners represent the very best in the field. The accolade reaffirms Elias Neocleous & Co LLC’s position as a leading force in the Mediterranean legal landscape, known for its exceptional expertise and delivery of innovative solutions to its clients. Managing Partner Elias Neocleous, who attended the event in person, expressed his pride in receiving this esteemed award: “It is an immense honour to be recognized as Mediterranean Law Firm of the Year by Citywealth. This award highlights the hard work, dedication, and excellence of our entire Private Wealth team. We remain committed to delivering world-class legal services to our clients and to driving innovation in the private wealth sector.” We extend our sincere gratitude to Citywealth, the esteemed panel of judges, and our clients for their trust and support. This recognition strengthens our resolve to continue setting new benchmarks in legal excellence.  
31 January 2025
Press Releases

Elias Neocleous & Co LLC retains distinguished ranking in Global Restructuring Review’s Top 100 for the 6th Year!

We are honored to announce that Elias Neocleous & Co LLC (ENC) has been recognized for the 6th consecutive year in the prestigious GRR100 list, as published in the 2024 edition of Global Restructuring Review (GRR). This guide highlights the world’s leading law firms in cross-border restructuring and insolvency matters. GRR is a highly regarded resource for global news and analysis on restructuring and insolvency law, offering valuable insights into trends, key players, growth opportunities, and emerging challenges. We are proud to represent Cyprus in this distinguished ranking of top firms worldwide that demonstrate exceptional expertise and experience in these critical areas. ENC Managing Partner Elias Neocleous commented, “Earning a place on the GRR100 list for the sixth consecutive year reflects our firm’s unwavering commitment to excellence and innovation in cross-border restructuring and insolvency. It is a recognition of the hard work and dedication of our exceptional team, whose achievements continue to set a high standard in the industry. This accolade motivates us to further enhance our capabilities as we look forward to continued success in 2025 and beyond. For further details about our restructuring and insolvency services or the GRR100 listing, please reach out to ENC Partner Demetris Roti or your usual contact at Elias Neocleous & Co LLC.  
11 December 2024
Press Releases

Elias Neocleous & Co LLC Attains ISO 27001 Certification: Upholding the Highest Standards in Information Security!

Elias Neocleous & Co LLC is pleased to announce its achievement of ISO/IEC 27001:2022 certification for Information Security Management.This significant accomplishment reflects the firm’s dedication to maintaining rigorous standards for data protection, client confidentiality, and resilience against emerging cyber threats. It is worth noting that this achievement was accomplished entirely through the internal resources and functions of the firm. Its dedicated team worked diligently to ensure the Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability of the firm's digital infrastructure and data. This approach highlights the firm's strong commitment to leveraging its internal expertise and capabilities to achieve the highest standards of security. In today’s digital landscape, where the prevalence and sophistication of cyber threats continue to rise, the importance of safeguarding sensitive information cannot be overstated. The legal profession, entrusted with highly confidential and critical data, must uphold the highest levels of security to mitigate risks and ensure the trust of its clients. This milestone solidifies Elias Neocleous & Co LLC’s reputation not only as a leader in the legal sector but also as an innovator in integrating advanced compliance and security protocols into our operations. The ISO 27001 certification confirms that the firm’s information security management system has been independently assessed and meets globally recognized best practices. This structured approach ensures that all data, particularly client information, is handled with the utmost care, minimizing vulnerabilities while enabling swift and effective responses to potential risks. Cybersecurity is no longer an ancillary concern, it is integral to ensuring privacy and protecting the integrity of both client information and professional operations. Through the adoption of ISO 27001 standards, Elias Neocleous & Co LLC underscores its commitment to managing risks proactively, implementing robust measures to detect and mitigate threats, and fostering a culture of vigilance across all areas of its operations. This certification is more than an accreditation, it is a reflection of the firm’s core principles of integrity, accountability, and confidentiality. In an environment where the legal and regulatory frameworks surrounding data privacy are increasingly stringent, compliance with these standards further demonstrates the firm’s alignment with international best practices and its responsibility to its clients and stakeholders. Elias Neocleous & Co LLC views this achievement as part of its ongoing commitment to continuous improvement, particularly in adapting to the challenges of a rapidly evolving digital and regulatory environment. By prioritizing information security and privacy, the firm reinforces its role as a trusted partner in safeguarding not only legal interests but also the sensitive information entrusted to its care.  
04 December 2024
Press Releases

Elias Neocleous & Co LLC Achieves Tier 1 Status in IFLR1000 2024, Four Lawyers Recognised for Excellence

Elias Neocleous & Co LLC proudly announces its outstanding achievement in the IFLR1000 2024 rankings.The firm has been awarded a Tier 1 ranking in the field of financial and corporate law, affirming its status as a leader in Cyprus’ legal sector. This recognition reinforces our dedication to delivering exceptional legal services and maintaining excellence in an increasingly competitive and dynamic legal environment. Notably, four of our lawyers have also been honoured with distinguished recognition from IFLR1000 for their professional expertise and contributions. Managing Partner Elias Neocleous has earned the prestigious ‘Market Leader’ rating, while Partner Costas Stamatiou has been acknowledged as a ‘Highly Regarded’ lawyer. Additionally, Partner Demetris Roti and Senior Legal Counsel Michael Pelosi have both been recognised as ‘Notable Practitioners’. IFLR1000, a leading international legal market research brand, annually ranks the top law firms and lawyers in financial and corporate law globally, based on transactional evidence and client feedback. The accolades received by Elias Neocleous & Co LLC reflect the firm’s ongoing commitment to providing the highest standards of service and achieving client satisfaction, even in the most complex legal matters. We extend our sincere thanks to our clients for their ongoing support and positive feedback, which has undoubtedly played a key role in this recognition of our firm as a premier provider of strategic legal solutions. For more information, please contact your usual contact at Elias Neocleous & Co LLC.  
19 September 2024
Press Releases

Triple achievement for Elias Neocleous & Co LLC in 2025 ITR World Tax Rankings

We are excited to share that Elias Neocleous & Co LLC (ENC) has once again earned a Tier 1 Ranking in three distinguished categories, Tax, Tax Controversy and Transfer Pricing in ITR World Tax Rankings 2025, a leading global guide to top-tier tax firms. Significantly, ENC continues to be the sole firm among Cyprus’ law firms and Big Four accounting firms to achieve recognition across all three categories. In addition, Elias Neocleous, ENC Managing Partner, and Kyriacos Xenophontos, Partner, have received Highly Regarded recognition, while Senior Associate Elena Christodoulou, Associate Alexis Christodoulou, and Legal Consultant Fabian Cabeza have been awarded Rising Stars in Cyprus status, reflecting the firm’s dedication to nurturing top talent and maintaining excellence in legal and tax services across all levels. ITR World Tax is a distinguished industry publication, providing rankings and profiles of the most effective tax practitioners worldwide, covering 155 jurisdictions located on every continent. The rankings also include law firms, consultancies, and advisory groups in which many tax practitioners work, to ensure the broadest reach of any guide covering the global tax market. As part of its independent analysis, ITR World Tax secured feedback from more than 29k clients and 5,3k practitioners from countries across the globe. ITR World Tax’s recognition emphasises the remarkable skill and dedication of ENC’s Tax Planning and Advanced Business Structuring team in resolving complex tax and legal matters, and in setting new benchmarks within their domain. The ITR World Tax Rankings 2025 may be viewed here.  
29 August 2024
Content supplied by Elias Neocleous & Co LLC