ECONOMOU & CO LLC

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

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

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

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

The Limassol District Court has issued a Norwich Pharmacal and freezing order in proceedings initiated by a major insolvent bank. The Applicant alleged massive misappropriations through Cypriot and other foreign companies controlled by the Respondent’s corporate group, with losses amounting to approximately €1 billion. Economou & Co LLC acted for the successful Applicant. Key Findings: Enables the applicant to trace and recover assets allegedly misappropriated through a complex international fraud scheme. Reaffirms that third-party institutions, such as banks, may be ordered to disclose information crucial for pursuing claims. The order was granted despite the bank’s extensive objections, including arguments based on delay, banking secrecy, and data protection. The Court emphasized that public interest overrides bank–client confidentiality and data protection concerns, particularly in serious fraud cases: “…just as in the case of the bank–client confidential relationship, the public interest overrides the protection of personal data, particularly in cases such as the present one, where allegations are made of the misappropriation of funds through a fraudulent scheme.” The Court found a real risk of dissipation in issuing a freezing order, particularly given the ease of cross-border transfers through corporate vehicles, by stating the following: “The ease with which funds can be transferred today from one account to another, even outside the jurisdiction, with a simple electronic instruction, makes the risk of dissipation a real one” The decision strengthens Cypriot jurisprudence supporting interim relief in complex, multi-jurisdictional fraud and asset recovery cases. Conclusion: This judgment reinforces the ability of claimants in complex fraud cases to obtain meaningful interim relief before Cypriot courts, even against third-party financial institutions. It highlights the Cypriot judiciary’s commitment to transparency, effective asset protection, and cross-border cooperation in combating financial misappropriation.

Purpose and Legal Framework Law 150(I)/2025 establishes the National Sanctions Implementation Unit (NSIU) within the Ministry of Finance to ensure the effective application of: Restrictive measures of the EU (based on Article 215 TFEU), UN Security Council sanctions (under Chapter VII of the UN Charter), National Sanctions (see Part VI of the Law). It responds to Cyprus's obligations under international and EU law to implement sanctions regimes in a structured and coordinated manner. Definitions of Key Concepts (Article 2) Understanding the definitions is essential to applying the law. Among the most critical terms: Sanctions: Encompass restrictive measures of the EU, national sanctions, and UN sanctions. Funds: Broadly defined to include cash, bank deposits, financial instruments (including shares, bonds, derivatives), guarantees, letters of credit, and crypto-assets (see point (η) under the definition of “funds” and Article 3(1)(5) of Regulation (EU) 2023/1114). Freezing of funds: Refers to the prohibition of any action, such as movement, transfer, alteration, use, or access, that could change the volume, amount, location, ownership, possession, nature, or purpose of funds, or otherwise make them available for use. This includes not only direct transactions but also indirect dealings, such as portfolio management or actions that could enable the funds to be utilised in any way. Designated persons/entities: Natural or legal persons subject to sanctions. Competent Authority: Any public body or authority with a legal mandate to enforce sanctions in its sector. Obliged entity: means the same as the term is defined in the The Prevention and Suppression of Money Laundering Activities Law. Structure and Role of NSIU / EMEK (Articles 3–5) NSIU is the central national authority for the enforcement and coordination of sanctions. Its key responsibilities include: Implementation & supervision of EU restrictive measures and UN sanctions, Coordination of all relevant state authorities and services, Processing of licensing and derogation requests related to sanctions, Exchange of information with both domestic and foreign authorities, including for strategic purposes, Issuance of guidance and directives to facilitate compliance, Monitoring, evaluating and reporting on implementation efforts and possible violations), Imposing administrative fines and maintaining necessary data records. Internationally, ΕΜΕΚ is referred to as the National Sanctions Implementation Unit (NSIU). Cooperation & Exchange of Information The law emphasises mandatory cooperation between NSIU and: Supervisory and Competent Authorities – who must enforce sanctions within their legal domains (Art. 6). Other public authorities and MOKAS (the FIU) (Art. 13–16). NSIU is empowered to: Request information from any entity or person (except where legal professional privilege applies) and impose fines of up to €100,000 for non-compliance (Art. 13). Access all national beneficial ownership registers and banking databases without notice to the entity concerned (Art. 18). Key provision: Article 13(5) – Failure to provide requested information may result in substantial administrative fines. Licensing, Derogations & Appeals Under the NSIU Law, any person or entity seeking a licence or derogation in relation to economic sanctions - or any other sanctions for which the NSIU is designated as the competent authority - must follow a formal application process set out in the Law. Submission of the Request – Article 9 Before any licence or exemption can be granted, the applicant must submit a written request to NSIU, clearly stating the legal basis for the request and enclosing all relevant supporting documents. Applications must be submitted using the standard form issued by NSIU and may only be filed in Greek or English. NSIU has the authority to request additional clarifications or documentation during the evaluation process and may regulate the submission procedure in more detail through the issuance of official guidelines or instructions. Assessment and Decision – Article 10 Once the request is submitted, NSIU assesses whether the conditions and criteria set out in the relevant EU legal instruments, UN Resolutions, or national sanctions framework are met. Where appropriate, NSIU may grant or deny the request, and it retains the discretion to attach conditions or limitations to any licence or derogation issued. In accordance with the law, NSIU may issue either: Specific licences General licences All decisions must be notified to the applicant. If the request is denied, the applicant is informed in writing, with reasons, and advised of their right to file a hierarchical appeal to the Minister of Finance under Article 12. Right to Appeal (Article 12) The NSIU Law provides applicants with a clear administrative remedy in the event that a licensing or derogation request is rejected, or where an existing licence is modified, suspended, or revoked. Under Article 12, affected parties have the right to file a hierarchical appeal before the Minister of Finance. Filing an Appeal The appeal must be submitted within 20 days of notification of NSIU’s decision. It must be in writing and include a concise explanation of the reasons for contesting the decision, supported by any relevant documents or arguments. Examination of the Appeal The Minister examines the appeal on its merits and, where deemed necessary or appropriate, may allow the applicant to present further representations or clarifications. Importantly, to ensure procedural fairness, the Minister may assign the review to senior officials who were not involved in the original decision. Possible Outcomes The Minister must issue a decision within 30 days of receiving the appeal. The options available include: Upholding NSIU’s original decision, Cancelling the decision entirely, Amending the decision, or Replacing it with a new decision. Further Judicial Review If the applicant remains dissatisfied, the decision of the Minister may be challenged before the Administrative Court, in accordance with Article 146 of the Constitution. Reporting Obligations (Article 19) Article 19 of the NSIU Law establishes reporting duties for individuals, companies, and institutions that become aware of assets connected to persons or entities subject to sanctions. Any natural or legal person who becomes aware of funds or economic resources located within the European Union, which are owned, held, or controlled by a designated individual or entity but have not been frozen as required, must report this to NSIU within two weeks of becoming aware of the information. Similarly, if any such assets were moved, transferred, altered, accessed, or otherwise dealt with during the two weeks immediately prior to the imposition of sanctions, this too must be reported. In both cases, the reporting party is also required to cooperate with NSIU in the verification and assessment of the relevant information. Designated individuals or entities themselves have a further obligation to self-report within 6 weeks of being listed. Importantly, the Law expressly protects legal professional privilege. Lawyers acting in the course of their profession are not required to report information that is covered by attorney–client confidentiality. This ensures that the duty to report does not compromise fundamental rights relating to legal representation and confidentiality. In substance, Article 19 reinforces NSIU’s role as the central national point for monitoring the implementation of sanctions and places time-sensitive duties on both public and private actors to disclose relevant financial information. Administrative Fines (Articles 28 to 30) Articles 28 to 30 of the NSIU Law set out the framework for administrative sanctions, including the imposition of administrative fines by NSIU, and the mechanisms available to affected persons to challenge such decisions through administrative recourse. Article 30 establishes the right of a person who is potentially subject to an administrative fine by NSIU to a prior hearing before the decision is finalised. Specifically, before imposing a fine, NSIU must inform the affected individual or entity of their rights and provide a clear opportunity to respond. The person has the right to submit written representations within a time frame set by NSIU, which may range from three (3) to twenty-one (21) days following notification. NSIU is legally required to consider these representations before reaching a final decision on whether a violation occurred, whether a fine should be imposed, and, if so, the amount. Importantly, Article 30(6) expressly provides that the issuance of an administrative fine by NSIU can be the subject of a recourse before the Administrative Court. Concluding Remarks The National Sanctions Implementation Unit Law (Law 150(I)/2025) represents a significant development in the Republic of Cyprus’s legal and institutional framework for the implementation of international sanctions. It introduces a structured and centralised mechanism through the establishment of ΕΜΕΚ (NSIU) and reflects a policy shift from fragmented enforcement to coordinated application. NSIU is empowered not only to implement sanctions but also to act as a gatekeeper for licensing, oversight, and guidance in all matters related to economic sanctions and restrictive measures. It must be emphasised that the information provided above is not exhaustive. The law contains additional obligations not analysed in this guide, including provisions on criminal offences, further reporting duties, data protection compliance, and detailed procedures for cooperation with both domestic and international authorities. Certain breaches of the sanctions regime may give rise not only to administrative penalties but also to criminal liability, particularly in cases of intentional non-compliance or circumvention. Given the complexity involved in the practical application of the sanctions framework, legal advice should be sought on a case-by-case basis. Tailored guidance is especially important when considering whether a licence or derogation may be required, assessing potential exposure to enforcement action, or clarifying reporting obligations. The evolving nature of EU and UN sanctions frameworks also makes ongoing legal monitoring essential for ensuring continued compliance.

Obtaining Interim Relief in Cyprus Cyprus is a premier jurisdiction for obtaining interim relief, with a robust legal framework that caters to both domestic and international disputes. This guide explores the extensive array of interim orders available in Cyprus, including their legal foundations, procedural requirements, and practical applications. Whether you are a foreign lawyer or part of a multinational legal team, this detailed overview will help you understand the scope of interim measures in Cyprus, making it a go-to jurisdiction for enforcing rights, preserving assets, and ensuring justice in cross-border cases Understanding Interim Orders in Cyprus Interim orders are vital court-issued measures that protect parties' rights and interests while legal proceedings are pending. These orders ensure the status quo is maintained, prevent irreparable harm, and secure assets or evidence that may otherwise be lost. Cypriot courts derive their authority to issue such orders from Section 32 of the Courts of Justice Law (14/60), which allows them to act when it is "just and convenient." Key Principles for Granting Interim Orders To obtain an interim order, the applicant must convince the court of the following: A Serious Issue to Be Tried. Likelihood of Success: There is a probability (visible prospects of success) that the applicant is entitled to relief. Risk of Irreparable Harm: The applicant must prove that the harm they face cannot be adequately compensated by damages. Balance of Convenience: Courts evaluate whether the harm caused to the respondent by granting the order is outweighed by the harm to the applicant if the order is denied. Prohibitory Orders (Injunctions) Prohibitory orders, or injunctions, are vital legal tools under Cypriot law used to prevent a party from taking actions that could harm the rights or interests of another during litigation. These orders are issued to maintain the status quo and ensure that the outcome of a case is not undermined by actions such as asset dissipation or breach of contractual obligations. Main types of Prohibitory Orders Freezing Orders (Mareva Injunctions): Designed to prevent the respondent from transferring, concealing, or dissipating assets. These orders ensure that the defendant’s assets remain available to satisfy a potential judgment. Assets subject to freezing orders include bank accounts, shares, real estate, and even cryptocurrencies. Freezing orders can be domestic or worldwide, allowing claimants to preserve assets located outside Cyprus. Asset-Specific Injunctions: Target specific assets or properties, such as land or shares in a company, ensuring they remain intact while a dispute is resolved. Procedure Prohibitory orders are often sought through ex parte applications in urgent cases where prior notice to the respondent could defeat the purpose of the order. For ex parte orders, the applicant must provide full and frank disclosure of all material facts. Practical Applications Cross-Border Asset Protection: Freezing orders can secure offshore or hidden assets in complex international disputes. Fraud Cases: Prevent defendants from dissipating stolen funds or misappropriated assets. Corporate Disputes: Ensure shareholders or directors do not undermine company interests during litigation. Disclosure Orders (Norwich Pharmacal Orders) Disclosure orders, also known as Norwich Pharmacal orders, are powerful legal tools used under Cypriot law to compel third parties to disclose information crucial to the pursuit of justice. These orders are instrumental in identifying wrongdoers, tracing misappropriated assets, and gathering evidence necessary for legal proceedings. Purpose of Disclosure Orders Disclosure orders are primarily sought when a third party, often uninvolved in the wrongdoing, possesses information or documents critical to uncovering the truth in a dispute. These orders are most commonly used in cases involving fraud, conspiracy, or breaches of fiduciary duty, where tracing and identifying assets or beneficiaries is essential. Legal Framework The legal foundation for disclosure orders in Cyprus stems from the Norwich Pharmacal principle, established in English law and adopted by Cypriot courts, which allows courts to order disclosure even when the third party is innocently "mixed up" in wrongdoing and holds information vital to the applicant’s claim. Additional Requirements for Granting a Disclosure Order Evidence of Wrongdoing: The applicant must provide credible evidence that wrongdoing has occurred. Third Party’s Involvement: The respondent must hold information or evidence, even if they were innocently involved in the wrongdoing. Common third parties include banks, financial intermediaries, or corporate agents. Necessity of Disclosure: The information sought must be essential to enable an action against the ultimate wrongdoer. Practical Applications Fraud Cases: Disclosure orders help identify the flow of misappropriated funds by compelling banks or financial institutions to disclose transaction records. Tracing Hidden Assets: These orders are invaluable in locating assets that have been concealed through offshore accounts or corporate structures. Intellectual Property Disputes: They can identify distributors or manufacturers involved in infringement cases. Corporate Misconduct: Disclosure orders can reveal the identities of beneficial owners or individuals orchestrating corporate wrongdoing. Examples of Information That Can Be Disclosed Bank account details and transaction records. 0Identities of beneficial owners or key stakeholders in companies. Communications, including emails or contract documentation, relevant to the dispute. Receivership Orders Receivership orders are powerful legal remedies under Cypriot law, enabling courts to appoint independent third parties (receivers) to manage, safeguard, or preserve disputed assets during litigation. These orders are particularly valuable in cases involving financial mismanagement, corporate disputes, and fraud, ensuring that assets are protected and professionally managed while legal proceedings are underway. When Are They Granted? Receivership orders are rightfully considered to be an intrusive, costly and not easily reversible remedy. A court may be unwilling to appoint a receiver over the property of a defendant if a less drastic remedy (such as a prohibitory order) can adequately safeguard the applicant’s rights. A receivership order may also be appropriate if the assets need to be managed so that their value is preserved, e.g., a portfolio of share or commodity options, or where the assets need to be exploited to realize their true worth, e.g., a patent. Key Features Neutrality: The Receiver, albeit chosen by the applicant, is still an officer of the court. Thus, he/she should act for the benefit of all parties in the action. Following the implementation of the Insolvency Counsels Law (64(I)/2015), the appointed receiver must now also be a duly licenced Insolvency Counsel. Management Authority: They can be empowered to manage and maintain assets. Practical Applications Corporate Disputes: Ensuring operational continuity of businesses embroiled in shareholder disputes or ownership challenges. Fraud Cases: Securing and managing assets linked to misappropriation or embezzlement. Insolvency Proceedings: Protecting creditors’ interests Chabra Order Chabra orders are a specialized form of freezing injunction under Cypriot law that extend to assets held by third parties. These orders are particularly effective in complex multi-jurisdictional cases involving offshore trusts, nominee arrangements, or other indirect ownership structures. Chabra orders derive their name from the landmark English case TSB Private Bank International SA v Chabra. These orders target third parties who, while not directly involved in wrongdoing, hold assets beneficially owned by the primary defendant. By extending freezing orders to such third parties, Chabra orders prevent the circumvention of justice in cases where assets are deliberately concealed or shielded behind complex ownership structures. When are they granted? Ownership or Control: The third party against whom there is no cause of action is in possession of assets beneficially owned by the main defendant. The latter can be shown to control or have the power to dispose the assets. Relevance to Judgment: There is good reason to suppose that the assets would be amenable to some process, ultimately enforceable by the courts, by which the assets would be available to satisfy a judgment against the main defendant. Connection between the third party and the main defendant: The affairs of the third party against whom the injunction is sought are intermingled with the affairs of the main defendant. Risk of Dissipation: There must be a credible risk that the assets will be transferred, hidden, or dissipated. Practical Applications Trust Structures: Where assets are held in offshore or domestic trusts, and the defendant is the ultimate beneficiary. Nominee Arrangements: Where third parties act as legal owners of assets that are in reality controlled by the defendant. Corporate Vehicles: In cases where the defendant uses shell companies or corporate structures to hide ownership of significant assets. Anton Piller Orders (Search Orders) Anton Piller orders, commonly referred to as search orders, are a highly intrusive yet effective legal remedy available under Cypriot law. These orders allow an applicant to enter a respondent’s premises to search for, inspect, and secure evidence critical to a legal dispute. They are particularly valuable in cases involving intellectual property theft, fraud, or the concealment of vital documents. By preserving evidence that might otherwise be destroyed, Anton Piller orders play a pivotal role in ensuring justice. When are they granted? Due to their exceptional nature, applicants seeking an Anton Piller order must satisfy strict legal requirements, including: Very Strong Prima Facie Case: The applicant must present compelling evidence of wrongdoing by the respondent. Risk of Severe Damage: A credible risk must exist that the respondent will destroy or conceal evidence if the order is not granted. Proportionality: The benefit of preserving the evidence must outweigh the intrusion caused to the respondent. Full and Frank Disclosure: The applicant must provide the court with all relevant facts, including potential weaknesses in their case. Key Features Strict Oversight: Courts impose stringent conditions to prevent abuse and protect the respondent’s rights. Costs: Due to their complexity, these orders can be costly to obtain and execute. Expedited Justice: Allows immediate access to evidence, reducing delays in litigation. Practical Applications Intellectual Property Disputes: To prevent the destruction of infringing products or unauthorized reproductions, such as counterfeit goods or illegally copied software. Fraud Cases: To preserve documents, transaction records, or other evidence proving financial misconduct or conspiracy. Breach of Confidentiality: To secure proprietary information or trade secrets that are being misused or unlawfully disclosed. Corporate Mismanagement: To recover records or communications that demonstrate breaches of fiduciary duty. Expanded Jurisdiction of Interim Relief in Cyprus Recent amendments to Cypriot interlocutory proceedings have radically expanded the jurisdiction of Cypriot courts, particularly in issuing interim relief. Cypriot courts now have the authority to issue interim orders, such as freezing and disclosure orders, in aid of litigation taking place outside Cyprus. These changes reinforce Cyprus as a strategic jurisdiction for resolving multi-jurisdictional disputes, particularly those involving offshore assets or international fraud.

Economou & Co LLC, together with leading counsel Marcos Dracos KC, successfully represented eight defendants in the first major case before the Cypriot Courts involving crypto tokenization in commodity trading. The claimants had obtained an ex-parte freezing order against several defendants. Following full adjudication, the District Court of Limassol dismissed the application and discharged the freezing order, concluding that no prima facie cause of action had been established. In its judgment, the Court accepted the defendants’ submissions in that the claimants’ allegations were mostly unsubstantiated and, among others, based on multiple layers of hearsay. The judgment stands out for several reasons: It arose from a pioneering dispute concerning the tokenization of commodities in a multi-million-dollar crypto-finance context. It addressed the complex interaction between commercial arrangements and the UK Sanctions regime. It offered valuable insight into how force majeure clauses operate in the face of geopolitical and regulatory disruption. Ultimately, the Court concluded that no cause of action was presented which was neither frivolous nor vexatious. The judgment constitutes a noteworthy development in the Cypriot courts’ treatment of emerging financial technologies, while it highlights the necessity of adequate evidential substance in Mareva applications. The Court’s detailed analysis of both factual and legal issues offers valuable guidance for future disputes involving crypto-finance structures.

We are pleased to announce a significant victory in our international arbitration and enforcement practice. In a judgment issued on 14 July 2025, the District Court of Nicosia recognized and declared enforceable a foreign arbitral award of approximately USD 19 million against a sovereign state. This case is of particular legal significance, marking the first time a Cypriot court has substantively examined the doctrine of state immunity in the arbitration context. The Court held that a state acting in a commercial capacity and having agreed to arbitration cannot later rely on immunity to avoid recognition of the award. In its analysis, the Court drew on the guidance of the Supreme Court in Intersputnik International Organization of Space Communications v. Alrena Investments (Civil Appeal 298/2013), emphasizing that: “The philosophy underlying the international conventions governing international commercial arbitration is the provision of a swift mechanism for the administration of justice and resolution of disputes at an international level.” This judgment marks a critical milestone in the development of cross-border enforcement in Cyprus. It sends a clear message of judicial support for award creditors and reflects the Cypriot judiciary’s firm commitment to maintaining Cyprus as an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction - one that respects ADR, embraces legal certainty, and consistently upholds its international obligations.

In a notable recent success, our arbitration team obtained a Mareva injunction (prohibitory order) against a state, marking a significant victory in a multi-million-dollar dispute. This achievement followed an intense litigation battle, demonstrating the team's strategic skill. The Mareva injunction is a potent legal instrument, freezing the defendant's assets to prevent dissipation before the final judgment. Securing such an order against a state is an exceptional feat globally, underscoring our team’s capability to handle intricate legal challenges. This success also highlights the willingness of Cyprus courts to support arbitration and protect arbitration awards, reflecting their commitment to the international arbitration process. The case has introduced complex issues of state immunity, which will be addressed in later stages, further emphasizing the intricacy and importance of our work. This accomplishment attests to the high standards of Economou & Co LLC’s legal practice and is an illustration of our dedication to exceptional legal practice. We excel in managing and resolving disputes that require a deep understanding of both international arbitration and domestic enforcement procedures. Economou & Co LLC stands out for its arbitration team, known for managing high-stakes arbitral award recognition proceedings from prestigious institutions such as the LCIA, SCC, and ICSID. Our team’s proficiency spans various sectors, consistently securing judgments amounting to hundreds of millions. Economou & Co LLC’s arbitration team maintains the highest standards of legal practice, continually broadening our expertise to meet the evolving challenges in arbitration and dispute resolution. Our recent achievements reflect our commitment to securing the best outcomes for our clients, regardless of the complexity or scale of the dispute.

Economou & Co LLC is pleased to announce a significant victory achieved by our Corporate Litigation team in a high-stakes case involving our client, a prominent investment firm, supervised by the Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission. The claim brought against our client alleged an omission to carry out the claimant’s trading orders, with the claimant seeking various remedies, including: i. Special Damages totalling over USD 1 million, corresponding to the value of shares in international companies. ii. General damages for claims of breach of contract, negligence, fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence, and loss of revenue. iii. Court orders in relation to the claimant’s investment portfolio. Our client's primary line of defence was that the non-execution of the claimant's orders was due to factors beyond our client's control. This week, the District Court of Limassol dismissed the court action in its entirety. This case highlights Economou & Co LLC’s commitment to delivering top-tier legal support in complex corporate litigation and further solidifies our position as a leading law firm in Cyprus.

Economou & Co LLC has successfully represented a renowned financial institution in a pivotal insolvency case, securing validation of a claim exceeding EUR 40 million. This landmark judgment, has introduced significant legal clarifications with broad implications for insolvency proceedings and cross-border debt enforcement. A Landmark Legal Decision The Court addressed unprecedented legal questions, many of which had never been tested before in Cyprus. Drawing on influential Commonwealth case law, including UK and Australian precedents, the Court delivered key rulings that could reshape the legal landscape of insolvency proceedings in Cyprus. Key Legal Takeaways: Challenging a Liquidator: The Court clarified that entities with a financial interest in the liquidation have the standing to challenge and seek the replacement of a liquidator. Recognition of Foreign Judgment Debts: In a significant shift, the Court ruled that foreign judgment debts do not require prior recognition in Cyprus to be verified in insolvency proceedings. This aligns with Section 298 of Cyprus insolvency law, which broadly defines admissible claims. Limits on Liquidator’s Power to Reject Debts: A liquidator may reject a debt only if it is disputed bona fide—both subjectively and objectively. Debts Supported by a Judgment: If a debt is supported by a court judgment, a liquidator can reject it only in cases of fraud, misconduct, or collusion. The Role of Liquidators: The judgment reaffirmed that liquidators act in a quasi-judicial capacity when verifying debts, ensuring greater accountability and legal clarity. Shaping the Future of Insolvency Law This decision provides critical guidance for creditors, liquidators, and cross-border enforcement of claims, strengthening the legal framework governing insolvency proceedings in Cyprus. Economou & Co LLC is proud to have played a role in shaping the future of insolvency law, reinforcing legal certainty in complex, high-stakes cases.

Legal practitioners often face the challenging task of distinguishing between civil and criminal law—a distinction that is not always clear-cut. The Criminal Court of Nicosia recently confronted this issue in a case involving an alleged breach of a loan agreement. The court's decision drew heavily on the reasoning from the House of Lords in the case of R. v. Preddy [1996] W.L.R. 255. Essentially, the court agreed with the defendant's lawyers, concluding that transferring money from the claimant's bank account to another does not constitute the transfer of property belonging to the claimant. This is because a bank deposit is legally considered a "chose in action," which only creates a right for the depositor to demand payment from the bank. Ultimately, the court endorsed the defence’s view and dismissed the case at the prima facie stage. This landmark decision has profound implications, extending from straightforward loan disputes to intricate financial litigation. The successful defence was spearheaded by Theodoros Economou, Eleftherios Economou, and Ioannis Economou — a brilliant victory that underscores the nuanced nature of law.

In a notable judgment issued by the District Court of Nicosia last Monday, the Court granted a payment order in support of the enforcement of an Austrian judgment debt. Facts A judgment debtor initiated garnishee proceedings in Cyprus seeking to enforce an Austrian judgment debt. The judgment creditor, a Maltese online gaming provider, raised several arguments, including the claim that the judgment debtor had already pursued unsuccessful enforcement measures in both the Netherlands and Malta. The creditor also contended that any funds held in Cyprus were protected client funds, which were held for the benefit of the players and, therefore, not subject to execution. Outcome The District Court of Nicosia agreed with the positions of the judgment debtor and issued the payment order. Among the key points made by the Court were: The fact that additional enforcement proceedings had been initiated in other jurisdictions was not material to the case. As such the judgment debtor had not misled the Court by not referring to such proceedings. In fact, citing case law from the Supreme Court, the Court emphasized that "The enforcement of court judgments is an element directly linked to the authority of the judicial process. The credibility of justice depends on its effectiveness; otherwise, distrust in its purpose arises, leading to corresponding corrosive effects." Notably, the Court further concurred with the judgment debtor's argument that the burden of proof to demonstrate that the ultimate owner of the funds differed from the registered owner lay with the online gaming provider, not with the judgment debtor. The judgment illustrates the willingness of Cypriot Courts to uphold the execution of EU judgments, thereby contributing to acquis Communautaire. Eleftherios Economou and Ioannis Economou represented the successful party in this case.

On June 28, 2024, the District Court of Nicosia delivered a landmark decision in a multi-million-dollar conspiracy case involving eight individuals and corporations. The case addressed several crucial jurisdictional issues, such as whether Cypriot Courts retained jurisdiction under the given circumstances, whether they could permit substitute service out of jurisdiction, and whether the Russo-Ukrainian war constituted exceptional circumstances to justify such service. The Court determined that Cypriot Courts had jurisdiction to adjudicate the case, that substitute service out of jurisdiction could be ordered if exceptional circumstances existed, and that the Russo-Ukrainian war indeed created such circumstances: “The military conflict between Russia and Ukraine (...) with all due respect to the Defendants' opposing position, easily justified a finding that the case was surrounded by exceptional circumstances which allowed the exercise, by way of derogation, of the discretionary discretion of the Court to allow service of judicial documents in a substitute manner.” Moreover, the court made a very interesting remark with potentially significant implications, concluding that service via email does not necessarily constitute service within Russia: “...substituted service of judicial documents by means of email, is completely unconnected with any geographical limitation, in view of the uninterrupted access to the relevant electronic medium (email) and consequently, also the receipt of any message sent by means of the use of a computer or a smartphone or other device providing access to email wherever the recipient is located. Therefore, even if I accept the relevant Defendants' submission that the Court is not granted authority to allow substituted service of judicial documents when it will be effected by serving them on a Russian national within the territory of Russia, on the basis of the fact that the particular substituted method approved does not require, by default, service within the territory of Russia, the relevant Defendants' argument is unjustified.” The claimants were represented by Ioannis Economou and Eleftherios Economou, advocates of Economou & Co LLC.

Economou & Co LLC is delighted to welcome Dr Michalis Zivanaris as a new partner. With a strong commitment to integrity, professionalism, and academic excellence, Michalis is a perfect fit for our growing firm. His extensive experience in various legal sectors will enhance our ability to provide innovative and effective solutions to clients, further solidifying our reputation as leaders in the legal industry. At Economou & Co LLC, we pride ourselves on our unwavering dedication to legal excellence, client satisfaction, and success. Michalis’s addition reflects our continued efforts to attract top legal talent who share our values and vision for the future. Together, we will continue to build on the firm’s success and achieve new milestones in our journey. We look forward to all that we will accomplish with Michalis on board and are excited for the bright future ahead.

We are pleased to announce that our team successfully represented a prominent financial institution in obtaining a liquidation order against its debtor, involving a debt exceeding EUR 2 billion. This order, one of the highest value cases ever presented before the Cypriot Courts, marks a significant achievement in the realm of insolvency law and reinforces our firm's expertise in handling complex financial disputes. Understanding the Liquidation Process in Cyprus Liquidation, or "winding up" by the court, is a legal procedure undertaken to bring a company's existence to an end. This process is generally initiated when a company is unable to meet its financial obligations. In Cyprus, the Companies Law, Cap. 113 provides the statutory framework governing the liquidation process, which can be either voluntary or compulsory. A compulsory liquidation is initiated by the court following a petition, usually filed by a creditor. The most common ground for a creditor to seek liquidation is the company's inability to pay its debts as they fall due. Under Cypriot law, a company is presumed to be unable to pay its debts if a creditor, to whom the company owes more than EUR 5,000, has served a demand for payment, and the company has failed to comply within 21 days. Click here for our guide Liquidation & Insolvency in Cyprus to learn more. The Role of the Cypriot Court in Liquidation Proceedings For a successful liquidation petition, the Court must be satisfied that the debt in question is not bona fide disputed - meaning the debtor does not have a genuine or substantial argument against the validity of the debt. The Court carefully examines the financial situation of the debtor company, including its assets, liabilities, and overall solvency. In this landmark case, Eleftherios Economou, a senior partner at Economou & Co LLC, led the proceedings. His strategic approach and in-depth understanding of insolvency laws were pivotal in persuading the Court to issue a liquidation order. Implications of the Liquidation Order The successful liquidation order obtained by our firm not only allows our client to recover the outstanding debt but also sends a clear message to the market about the robustness of legal recourse available in Cyprus for financial institutions dealing with insolvent debtors. It highlights the strength of our legal team in addressing complex insolvency cases and reinforces our commitment to delivering outstanding results for our clients.

Economou & Co LLC is proud to announce its significant role in securing exclusive distribution rights on behalf of its client, Padeland by Etheras Group of Companies, with Adidas Padel. The sports of padel is gaining global popularity, and Padeland by Etheras Group of Companies is leading padel’s expansion in Cyprus. Our firm provided comprehensive legal services, including the review of the official distribution agreement with Adidas Padel, ensuring it met all legal standards and aligned with Padeland Group’s strategic business goals. Padeland by Etheras Group now exclusively distributes Adidas Padel’s top-tier sports equipment and AFP padel courts throughout Cyprus under the brand name “All For Padel Cyprus”. In addition, our firm assisted in the incorporation of the companies that form the PADELAND by Etheras Group of Companies. This foundational work was essential in structuring the group for operational success and future growth, enabling them to establish a robust presence in the local and European markets. Furthermore, our firm has successfully secured European Trademarks, on behalf of our clients, vital in safeguarding the brand's identity and facilitating our clients’ expansion across Europe. Padeland by Etheras Group of Companies is set to open an expansive Adidas Padel 360° Club in the city of Larnaca very soon. The club will feature a Padel Academy, state-of-the-art Adidas Padel courts and a Clubhouse which will incorporate an Adidas Padel Pro Shop and a modern cafeteria, making it a premier destination not only for padel enthusiasts but also for people who want to get into the sport. We are proud to have been a cornerstone in these substantial legal and strategic developments for our clients.We extend our best wishes for their continued success and are eager to witness the positive impact their new club will have on the community and the broader sports industry. With a track record of facilitating major partnerships and securing critical intellectual property rights, our firm continues to demonstrate its expertise in sports law and intellectual property law, ensuring our clients achieve their business objectives while maintaining legal integrity in their market expansions.

Economou & Co LLC is pleased to announce its appointment by a leading financial institution to lead a comprehensive investigation into a matter involving alleged wrongdoing, with an estimated value exceeding USD 250 million. This complex case, which spans multiple jurisdictions, highlights our firm’s deep expertise in addressing sophisticated cross-border legal challenges and commercial disputes. Our role in this investigation reflects the trust placed in by global financial institutions to navigate intricate legal issues involving high-value matters. With a proven ability to manage the complexities of fraud schemes and illicit transactions, our team remains at the forefront of high-stakes dispute resolution.