The Legal 500 (Leagalease) Country Comparative Guide: Insurance & Reinsurance

Country Comparative Guide: Cyprus Insurance & Reinsurance

This country-specific Q&A provides an overview of insurance & reinsurance laws and regulations applicable in Cyprus. Ioannides Demetriou LLC is a contributing firm, where Christina Ioannidou, Partner, and Katerina Hadjichristofi, Partner, provide information about the current issues affecting insurance and reinsurance in Cyprus and address topics such as contract regulationlicensingpenaltiespolicyholder protectionalternative dispute resolution as well as personal insight and opinion as to the future of the insurance market over the next five years.

Read the full Q&A here

Or download the Q&A PDF here

Pitfalls in enforcing foreign arbitral awards before the Cypriot Courts

The successful party to an arbitration often comes to the realisation that an award in their favour does not equate with justice being effectively served. This happens precisely because if the judgment debtor wishes, sometimes for multitude of valid or, more often than not, invalid reasons, to not honour the award they may choose to resist enforcement.

Cyprus ratified the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 1958 through law N.84/1979. Therefore, Cypriot Courts, almost exclusively, register and enforce foreign arbitral awards through the New York Convention (due to the large number of signatory countries to the New York Convention).

In representing a considerable number of both arbitral judgment creditors and arbitral judgment debtors before the Cypriot Courts I can readily state that Cyprus is definitely a “pro – enforcement” jurisdiction. At the same time, however, it is very clear that an applicant to the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award needs to be extremely careful and thorough both in the drafting as well as in the submission of their application to the court for recognition and enforcement.

This meticulousness and caution is required precisely because there are a number of Cypriot Court judgments which have created a precedent of known “pitfalls” in the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards. The pitfalls that I am referring to concern the “formal” requirements, i.e. the requirements as the form of the arbitral award, ancillary documentation and proofs that must submitted with the application as well the form to be followed in the application itself.

Pitfall 1: The applicant not “proving” that the country in which the foreign award was issued is a party to the New York Convention

Whether the country in which the award was issued has ratified the New York Convention is a question of jurisdiction for the Cypriot Courts since an application for recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award will only be successful if the Cypriot Court actually has jurisdiction to hear the application. The starting point for assuming jurisdiction as far as the Cypriot Court is concerned is that both the country in which the award was issued and the Republic of Cyprus have ratified the New York Convention.

In the judgment in Application 32/2012, lntersputnik lnternational Organisation of Space Communications ν Alrena Investments Limited (19.1.2018) the President of the District Court of Limassol rejected an application for recognition and enforcement of a Russian arbitral award on the ground that the Applicant had not proved that the Russian Federation was a party to the New York Convention. The applicant had not mentioned anything about whether the Russian Federation was a party to the New York Convention and the Court decided that it was a matter which had to be specifically proved.

One would have suspected that the question of whether the Russian Federation is or is not a party to the New York Convention (for the record it most definitely is) is something that the court should have had judicial notice of or something that can be ascertained through a quick check on the internet. This was not, however, the opinion of the Court which in turn decided that since no positive proof of the ratification of the New York Convention by the Russian Federation had been presented by the applicant the Court could not assume jurisdiction, even if the respondents had not alleged the contrary.

Another Cypriot Judge which was of the same opinion was the President of the District Court of Nicosia in his judgment in Application 372/2019, Credit Agricole Bank (Ukraine) v Almira Holdings (Cyprus) Limited (16.9.2021). In that case the applicant had attached as an exhibit to their application a copy of the New York Convention website which contained a list of the ratifying countries. Again, the Cypriot Court rejected the application for recognition and enforcement, this time of a Ukrainian foreign arbitral award, and the reason was that, once again, the applicant had failed to provide appropriate and sufficient proof that both Ukraine and the Republic of Cyprus had ratified the New York Convention. The Court further went on the state that in order for a party to prove that the Republic of Cyprus had ratified a convention or bilateral treaty can be done in two ways, the first being the presentation of a certified copy of the Official Gazette of the Republic of Cyprus which states that the said treaty was ratified and the second being by presenting a certification (which is an essence a letter) by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Cyprus certifying the both the country in which the award was issued and the Republic of Cyprus have indeed ratified the New York Convention.

Pitfall 2: Proving proper certification of signatures and seals on the face of the award

Article IV of the New York Convention contains a requirement for a “duly authenticated” original award or copy of the award. It is quite common for applications to be rejected on the grounds that the signature of the arbitral tribunal (whether it is one, three or more arbitrators) and/or the signature and/or seal of the representative of the arbitral forum has not been duly authenticated. Sometimes applicants also fall into the trap of considering the signature and seal of a representative of the arbitral forum or court to be equal in validity of an authentication or certification of the signatures of the arbitrators. In Cyprus this is not the case. In Application 2/2010, OOO Syntez v OOO Systcom (22.3.2013) the President of the District Court of Nicosia rejected the application for recognition and enforcement on the grounds that although it was evident on the face of the award that there were three signatures and a seal, with the applicant attesting that these were the signatures of the arbitral tribunal and the seal of an arbitral forum in Moscow, both the signatures and seal had not been “duly authenticated” with duly authenticated meaning “duly authenticated or duly certified in the manner required by the law of the country in which the award was made”.

It is thus clear that the applicant must have all signatures and seals certified by a person whose office and/or has the legal capacity to certify signatures and seals in the country in which the award has been issued. Who has the legal capacity to certify signatures and seals will of course depend on the jurisdiction in question.  

Pitfall 3: Providing properly certified and attested translations

Another distinct problem area is that of providing translations of the arbitral award and the contract containing the arbitration clause in a manner acceptable to the Cypriot Courts. Although this may sound simple enough applicants may have their application rejected for a number of trivial reasons. The two most common ones are that a part, usually a small part, of a lengthy document has not been translated or that the person who has actually translated the document is not the one attesting to the affidavit of translation. What the applicant must do is employ a Certified “Sworn” Translator from the list kept by the Public Information Office (PIO) of certified by the Republic of Cyprus. This translator must translate all relevant documents into Greek and finally must also swear an affidavit attesting to the translations and attaching both a copy of the original document and the translation as an exhibit to the said affidavit. Then this affidavit is in turn attached to the application itself as an exhibit.

In the judgment in Application 4/2018, RWE Aktiengesellschaft v GBV Siebte Gesellschaft Fur Beteiligungs-verwaltung (14.12.2018), the President of the District Court of Limassol rejected an application for recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award on the grounds that the affidavit attesting to the translation was not sworn by the certified translator herself but by the manager of the translations company, who was in fact also a certified translator who had in fact attested that her employee (who was a certified translator) had conducted the translation and that she (the manager) had verified  it. Despite the above the Cypriot Court decided that the fact that another person other than the person who had actually undertaken the translation had attested to the affidavit fell short of the requirement of providing certified translations.

Therefore, and by way of summary, in order to fulfill the formal requirements of Article IV of the New York Convention in an application for recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award before a Cypriot Court the applicant must submit as exhibits the following:

(a) A Certified True Copy of the relevant arbitral award. It is not enough that the award is signed by the arbitral tribunal and/or signed and sealed by a representative of the arbitral forum (e.g the General Secretary of the LCIA). Both the signatures of the arbitral tribunal and the person signing and sealing on behalf of the arbitral forum must also be duly certified by a person who has the legal capacity to verify the authenticity of signatures and seals in the jurisdiction in which the award was issued. In most jurisdictions this person will be a Public Notary. Thereafter, the documents should be Apostilled. As a final failsafe, the applicant would be wise to include in their application a short expert opinion from a practicing lawyer in the jurisdiction in which the award was rendered, verifying that the person who has certified the signatures has the legal capacity to do so in the jurisdiction concerned.

(b) A True Copy of the agreement to arbitrate. Again, the most surefire way is to have the True Copy verified by a Public Notary and/or a person with the capacity to verify the authenticity of copies. As far as the Cypriot Courts are concerned, Cypriot Ambassadors and/or Consuls have the authority to verify the authenticity of contracts. Therefore, the best modus operandi is for the applicant to take the contract containing the arbitration clause to his nearest Cypriot embassy, High Commission or consular office and have to a copy authenticated by the Ambassador and/or Consul. Thereafter the copy should be sent to Cyprus where the applicants advocates can apply to the Ministry of Foreign affairs who will in turn certify the signature and/or seal of the Ambassador and/or Consul in question.

(c) Certified translations of the above-mentioned documents, including a translation of the wording of the Apostilles, by a certified “sworn” translator of the Republic of Cyprus from the PIO list (see above) who will take the documents, translate them and then swear an affidavit before the Cypriot Court attesting to the fact that he/she has translated the documents. This affidavit is then attached as an exhibit to the application. The applicant should ensure that the actual translator has to be the one attesting the relevant affidavit. It will be problematic for the application if another person, e.g the manager of the company undertaking the translation, swears an affidavit attesting to the fact that an employ of the company (who is a certified translator) undertook the translation as sometimes may occur if the translator is abroad or no longer in the employment of the translation company. In short, he who translates, attests as well.

(d) Certification that both the country in which the arbitral award was issued in and the Republic of Cyprus have ratified the New York Convention. Print-screens of the website of the New York Convention which lists the countries that have ratified it will simply not do. Again, the most certain way to provide this certification for the Cypriot Court is for the applicant’s advocate to apply to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Cyprus which will in turn provide a letter confirming the ratification of the New York Convention for both the country in which the award was issued as well as the Republic of Cyprus and also state the relevant dates on which the New York Convention was ratified for each country. Thereafter this letter from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs should also  be attached as an exhibit to the application.

Above I have detailed some relevant Cypriot caselaw in which many of the requirements of Article IV of the New York Convention were applied in absolute strictness but what the reader should take away from this is that despite the fact that Cyprus is a pro – enforcement jurisdiction it is not uncommon for some Cypriot Courts or judges to employ such strictness in applications for recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.

Have said that, in recent years a number of judges have adopted a far more practical, pragmatic and reasonable approach. There have been a number of examples in which Cypriot Courts have not entertained “empty” objections. For example, it is one thing to allege that the signature of the arbitrator has not been duly certified (an empty objection because it might very well be the actual signature of the arbitrator) and a totally different thing to alleged that the signature of the arbitrator has been forged (a positive objection).

In the judgment in Application 58/2018, The State of Montenegro v Ceac Holdings Ltd (30.4.2020), the District Court of Nicosia accepted a printout of the New York Convention website as proof the Austria had ratified the New York Convention and went on further to state the that it accepts it also because the was no testimony to the contrary from the part of Respondent (i.e. testimony that Austria had not actually ratified the New York Convention). In the same judgment the Court also mentioned that the originality of the award, which was not in the Greek language, had not been disputed by the respondents. In essence the Court in the above application adopted a “if you have evidence to the contrary of what the applicant is alleging then show it me” approach. An important part of the judgment is also the fact that the Court clearly states that if it there were omissions in the translations and the Court had wanted those parts to be translated then it could have asked the applicant to translate them of its own volition. This approach is beginning to take hold with a number of District Court judges in recent years but has yet to be tested in the Supreme Court, of which a number of the judges who have adopted the much stricter approach are now members. With that in mind, the slightly cumbersome and evidentially demanding “better safe than sorry” method I have detailed above is definitely the best way to approach an application for recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award.

ISO 9001 Certified since 2007 for the Provision of services of advocacy, legal advisors, legal consultants in all fields of the legal profession

We are proud to have consistently upheld our certification with ISO 9001 from 2007 until today, initially with NIS ZERT Hellas and, as from 2012, with the Cyprus Certification Company.

We have maintained our Quality certification in the fields of the provision of services of advocacy, legal advisors, and legal consultants, in all fields of the legal profession, since our formation. 

This represents recognition from an accredited independent certification body that we work to the Quality Standards set by the International Certification Network. 

We thank our lawyers and staff for their dedication to quality because, as Aristotle said, “Quality is not an act. It is a habit.”

Ioannides Demetriou LLC enhances its leading firm status in The Legal 500 EMEA 2021 Edition

Top Tier rankings in Commercial, Corporate and M&A; Dispute Resolution; Real Estate and Construction

9 individual nominations, including 3 ‘Hall of Fame’ nominations and 1 ‘Leading Individual’ nomination

ID LAW - THE LEGAL 500

We are very pleased to have once more improved our rankings in The Legal 500 EMEA 2021 edition, where we were ranked as a TOP-TIER FIRM in the practice areas of (i) Commercial, Corporate and M&A, (ii) Real Estate & Construction and (iii) Dispute Resolution, and

We have also been ranked in TIER 2 in the practice areas of (i) Banking and Finance and (ii) EU and Competition.

This recognition cements our position as a leading commercial law firm.

In addition to the firm itself, it is particularly gratifying to note that this year a record number of our fee earners are also ranked as follows:

Pambos Ioannides, Chairman

Hall of Fame in Commercial, Corporate and M&A

Recommended in Banking and Finance; EU and Competition; Real Estate & Construction; Dispute Resolution

Andrew Demetriou, Managing Director

Hall of Fame in Real Estate & Construction

Hall of Fame in Dispute Resolution

Recommended in Commercial, Corporate and M&A; EU and Competition

Christina Ioannidou, Director

Leading Individual in Banking and Finance

Recommended in Commercial, Corporate and M&A; EU and Competition

Christos Frakalas, Director

Recommended in Dispute Resolution

Theo Demetriou, Director

Recommended in Real Estate & Construction

Demetris Kronides, Director

Recommended in Dispute Resolution

Katerina Hadjichristofi, Director

Recommended in the practice areas of Commercial, Corporate and M&A; Banking and Finance

Zoe Christou, Director

Rising Star in Commercial, Corporate and M&A

Recommended in the practice area of Banking and Finance

Savvas Yiordamlis, Director

Next Generation Partners in Dispute Resolution

Recommended in the practice areas of Banking and Finance; Commercial, Corporate and M&A

We would like to thank our valued clients for their recommendations and references, our peers for the recognition and, last but not least, the whole team at Ioannides Demetriou LLC for their hard work and togetherness in these challenging times.

Ranked by Chambers and Partners

Ioannides Demetriou LLC are very pleased to have been ranked by Chambers and Partners in the practice areas relevant to Cyprus, i.e. General Business Law and General Business Law: Dispute Resolution, in both the Chambers Global 2021 and Chambers Europe 2021.

Additionally, our Directors Pambos Ioannides, Andrew Demetriou and Christina Ioannidou were also ranked as individuals.

New ICC Arbitration Rules Aimed at Promoting Efficiency, Flexibility and Transparency

Introduction

It has been said by no lesser authority than Boris Johnson himself that history teaches us that a world wide event such as the Covid-19 pandemic cannot pass without leaving some lasting change.

We have all seen that it has opened our eyes and eased a wide spread reticence about remote working we are now more ready to accept it and do not feel that working from home is akin to “skiving off” school.

The pandemic has also shown us that virtual meetings can be on most occasions be more flexible and more efficient than face to face meetings. They also tend to be shorter.

It is most encouraging that the ICC has incorporated the above “lessons of the pandemic” into its revision of the ICC Arbitration rules. This is however by no means the only step forward that the ICC has made in the context of its arbitration rules. There are further and perhaps more significant changes, these are analyzed below: 

The Objectives and Salient Features of the New 2021 ICC Rules

The ICC lists the following objectives of the new rules:

  • Effective case management.
  • An extended scope for consolidations.
  • Joinder of additional parties after the constitution of arbitral tribunals.
  • Increased opt-out threshold for expedited arbitrations.
  • Closer supervision of party representation

The New ICC Arbitration Rules in Summary

On 1 December 2020, the ICC launched its updated ICC Arbitration Rules 2021.

These rules will apply to cases filed from 1 January 2021.

I have attempted to group the changes into various general headings showing which areas of the arbitral process are affected by the new rules and what each amendment is seeking to achieve.

Jurisdiction

Expedited Arbitrations

It is clear that the introduction of “expedited arbitrations” by the ICC has been a success. Since 2017 when the procedure was introduced the ICC has administered close to 150 “expedited arbitrations”.  Under the previous rules the financial opt-out threshold was US$2 million. In an effort to build on the success of this procedure the threshold has now been raised to US$3 million for arbitration agreements concluded on or after 1 January 2021.

The Arbitration Agreement

Article 12(8): The new rule allows the Court to disregard “unconscionable arbitration agreements”, in disputes involving multiple claimants or multiple respondents, where necessary to avoid “significant risk of unequal treatment and unfairness that may affect the validity of the award”.

Funding of Parties

Article 11(7): The new rule requires party to communicate promptly to the tribunal, the other parties and the ICC Secretariat, the identity of “any non-party which has entered into an arrangement for the funding of claims or defences and under which it has an economic interest in the outcome of the arbitration”.

The Arbitral Tribunal

Article 13(6): The new rule introduces a requirement for neutrality in ICC treaty-based arbitrations by disallowing all arbitrators on the tribunal from holding the same nationality of any of the parties (unless the parties agree otherwise).

Article 29(6)(c): The new rule provides that the ICC “emergency arbitrator” provisions are unavailable for ICC treaty-based arbitrations.

Procedural Measures

Article 10(b): The new rule clarifies that consolidation may be ordered where “all of the claims in the arbitrations are made under the same arbitration agreement or agreements”.

Article 10(c): The new rule supplements the amendment to Article 10 (b) in that it allows consolidation to also be ordered when “the arbitrations are between the same parties, the disputes in the arbitrations arise in connection with the same legal relationship, and the Court finds the arbitration agreements to be compatible”.

Article 17: The new rule requires parties to give the tribunal, the other parties and the ICC Secretariat timely notice of any change in their legal representation. The tribunal is also given the power to refuse a request for a change in representation or to limit the participation new legal representatives. This rule is clearly aimed at minimizing and even avoiding delays to the arbitral process arising from “tactical” changes of representation. Watch this space for challenges to awards where arbitrators have refused changes in representation and have not given sound reasons for doing so.

Article 22(2): The amendment to this rule places a positive duty on the tribunal to adopt such procedural measures it considers appropriate. The amendment contains mandatory language using the words “shall adopt” rather than the former optional or permissive language “may adopt”. The duty for the tribunal to adopt and impose “appropriate procedural measures” rather than permission to do so under the old rule is, in short, an imposition of efficiency. Arbitrators must therefore be wary of the exposure that a failure to act in accordance with this duty will entail.

Article 26: The new rule empowers tribunals to decide “after consultation with the parties and consideration of the relevant circumstances of the particular case” whether to hearings should be conducted physically or virtually. The wording is important. It speaks of consultation with the parties and consideration of relevant circumstances. The tribunal does not require the consent or agreement of the parties but must act judicially when reaching a decision as to whether to hold a virtual or a physical / viva voce hearing.

The Award

Article 36(3): The new rule allows a party to request, within 30 days of receipt of an award, the tribunal to issue an additional award to rule on claims raised in the proceedings but not addressed in the award.

Conclusion

The 2021 revision to the ICC Rules have taken concrete steps both to empower and oblige arbitrators to conduct arbitrations having in mind the requirement for “efficiency, flexibility and transparency”.

It is good to see that the ICC is in touch with not only the times but also the urgent need to make arbitrations as efficient and as transparent as possible in terms of procedure, the conduct of the ICC arbitration and the issue and completion of a valid and meaningful award.

It is also important to note that the ICC has also address concerns raised in the specific field of investment treaty arbitration which were valid. In doing so the ICC can move forward in this increasingly important sector of business with confidence and decisiveness and to establish itself as the major investment treaty arbitral forum.

For the purposes of reading the full text of the 2021 ICC Arbitration Rules see the official ICC link below:
https://iccwbo.org/dispute-resolution-services/arbitration/rules-of-arbitration/rules-of-arbitration-2021/

Brexit and the Insurance Industry in Cyprus

In light of the UK withdrawal from the EU and in the absence of an agreement that allows insurers and brokers to continue to service clients and risks located in EU countries, UK insurance firms shall no longer have passporting rights to European markets including Cyprus.

Passporting rights allow firms registered in the EEA to do business in other EEA states without additional authorisation being given from each country. Without passporting rights, UK intermediaries may not be permitted to place certain European risks with insurers. Many insurers have been restructuring their business, planning the relocation or opening of new branches in EU27 member locations including Cyprus. This will allow them to continue to operate within the EU27 following Brexit as well as in other jurisdictions where the EU has bilateral trade or services agreements.

The European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (“EIOPA”) has published a number of recommendations intended to facilitate an orderly transition of UK insurance business in EU states post Brexit (the “Recommendations”). The Recommendations set out a number of principles that will apply to in respect of the conduct of UK insurance firms which essentially prohibit new business (including renewals) but allows ongoing administration of insurance contracts which were incepted before 31 December 2020 until such time they expire or are terminated on the basis of Recommendation 6 (which effectively states that the location of the risk remains in the UK (on the assumption that the risk was first underwritten by a UK insurance entity).

In response to EIOPA Recommendations the Insurance Companies Control Office (the “Cyprus Insurances Regulator”) has indicated that it intends to follow and apply all the Recommendations and that they will be issuing relevant orders for business written in Cyprus by UK companies with respect to each Recommendations, before the UK withdrawal date.

Whilst, the Cyprus Regulator has yet to issue relevant orders in connection to the Recommendations, Law 19(I)/2020 was published and is effective on the 6th March 2020.  The said law, by amending national relevant law, aims to regulate the services offered by British insurance companies in Cyprus and essentially, the run-off of UK insurance and non-insurance business which was sold in Cyprus to customers before 31st December 2020. The new legislation grants to insurance companies and insurance agents offering insurance products from the United Kingdom to the Republic of Cyprus a two-year grace period by which they may continue managing the affected portfolios as follows:

  • Insurance products already in issued shall continue to have legal effect without requiring any amendment increasing the overall cost,
  • British Insurance Companies in Cyprus can settle any claims arising during the grace period
  • British Insurance Companies in Cyprus can continue to collect premiums settle any undertaken liabilities in a business as usual way.

For the affected insurance companies to continue offering services after the 2-year grace period a relevant license from the Cyprus Insurances Regulator must be obtained.

It is clear from the above that, UK intermediaries and entities which intend to continue or commence distribution activities to EU27 policyholders and for EU27 risks after the UK’s withdrawal are established and registered in the EU27 in line with the relevant provisions of the IDD. Recommendation 9 requires that intermediaries, which are legal persons, demonstrate adequate corporate substance, proportionate to the nature, scale and complexity of their business.  Intermediaries should not display the characteristics of an empty shell.

Our firm provides legal advice and services with respect to the re-domiciliation or new formation of a Cyprus Intermediary (broker, agent etc.) pursuant to the provisions of applicable Cyprus laws which essentially adhere to and adopt the provisions of Directive (EU) 2016/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 January 2016 on insurance distribution (the “IDD”).

Our firm also advises with respect to Cyprus law matters that may arise with respect to the business of a UK firm including in the context of a UK firm executing an insurance business transfer to an EU group entity to ensure continuity of service and to eliminate any potential detriment to those customers, i.e. transferring customers to whom policies were sold under their freedom of services passporting permissions. Such transfer can resolve the issue of having EEA domiciled customers (whose policies were sold under the freedom of services passporting permissions) by transferring them to EU subsidiaries, however, UK insurers may still have customers who have been sold a product or contract in the UK, but who relocate to an EEA country. This will continue to occur post Brexit and it is expected that the Cyprus Insurances Regulator will also address this issue in due course.

Animal-Based VS Plant-Based Products – A Legal Analysis

I. Introduction

Concerns in the European Community were raised by the European Parliament’s (EU) decision of 23 October 2020, rejecting the European breeders’ demand for a ban on the use of the terms “burger”, “steak” and “sausage” in products which consist exclusively of plant ingredients. This decision could be described as unpredictable given the position of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on a similar issue in Case 422/16 TofuTown[i].

Before reviewing the recent decision of the European Parliament, it would be useful to briefly analyze the position of the CJEU in the Case 422/16 TofuTown[ii].

II) Decision in the Case 422/16 TofuTown on the Use of Dairy Names with Purely Plant-based Products

The CJEU in a reference for a preliminary ruling of the German tier regional court of Trier, had to decide whether the practice of a company using the term “milk” and other similar terms referring to dairy products, such as “cream”, “butter”, “cheese”, in order to name purely plant products is allowed[iii]. The CJEU approached this question by invoking Article 78 and the relevant Annexes to Regulation 1308/2013[iv].

Pursuant to Part III of Annex VII to the Regulation 1308/2013, “milk” means exclusively the normal mammary secretion obtained from one or more milkings without either addition thereto or extraction therefrom. Similarly, “dairy products” means products derived exclusively from milk and may be added to substances necessary for their manufacture, provided that such substances are not used for the purpose of wholly or partially replacing any of the constituents of milk.

The CJEU, applying a literal interpretation of the Regulation 1308/2013, ruled that a company may not label purely plant products in their marketing or advertising as “milk”, “cream”, “butter”, “cheese” “Yogurt”, even if those terms are expanded upon by clarifying or descriptive terms indicating the plant-based origin of the products concerned[v]. Special reference was also made to the Decision 2010/791 of the European Commission, which established a list of certain products of plant origin which may exceptionally include in their names, words relating to milk or milk products[vi]. This list includes names such as “coconut milk”, “horse-radish cream”, “cocoa butter”. Therefore, based on the CJEU decision, TofuTown was banned from using names such as “tofu butter” and “veggie cheese” and “vegetable cheese” to describe its plant products.

Based on this approach, the term “soya milk” cannot be used, as soy is a purely plant product, while milk based on the regulation, can only be used for products made from animals. Respectively, the use of terms such as “almond milk” and “oat milk” are not permitted. Although almond milk and oat milk are not on the list of exceptions, they tend to be marketed as “almond drink” and “oat drink”[vii] as the use of term “drink” instead of the term “milk” is allowed.

III) EU rejects proposal to ban labeling plant-based meals as veggie ‘burgers’

At the initiative of the European Farmers’ Union, in October 2020 a campaign called “this is not a steak” was launched in order to achieve a European level ban on the use of the terms “burger”, “steak” and “sausage” when they consist of vegetable ingredients. A typical example is the “veggie burger” or “veggie sausages”, which are considered as alternatives to meat. The main arguments of farmers are the confusion that can be caused by the use of such names to consumers who want to buy animal-based burgers, steaks, or sausages, as well as the economic damage to the agricultural sector. The initiative and expediency for this campaign stems from the significant increase in the consumption of products that are considered as alternatives to meat and dairy products, a fact of particular concern for professionals involved in the livestock sector. However, the European Parliament rejected this position, voting against the proposal to ban the naming of plant products with names such as “burger”, “steak” and “sausage”.

IV) Critical Review

It should be noted that the finding in the judgment of the CJEU in the referred question and the outcome in the recent decision of the European Parliament are conflicting, despite the fact that similar issues are raised in both cases. In particular, the CJEU had the obligation to formulate its judgment by applying the requirements of Regulation 1308/2013 to the facts that framed the reference for a preliminary ruling. The wording of both Article 78 and Part III of Annex VII to the above Regulation is clear. Α different approach from the one adopted would be tantamount to judicial activism as the Regulation 1308/2013 is the political will of the EU Member States on how they want to regulate certain issues in a particular sector of the economy. The ruling of the CJEU Union on the referred question is therefore justified.

On the contrary, the decision of the European Parliament can be characterized as incompatible with the previous EU policy on the common agricultural policy, taking into account the Regulation 1308/2013. The decision created a disparity in the way certain products are regulated in the same sector of the economy, the agricultural sector.

Therefore, taking into account, inter alia, the changes in the dietary habits of European consumers the EU should act immediately at institutional level in order to eliminate the current situation of disparity. In particular, what is proposed is the extension of the Decision 2010/791[viii] by including more products, in order to allow the use of terms such as “soya milk”, “almond milk”, “soy yoghurt”, “tofu butter”, ” rice cream “, in order to comply with the recent decision of the European Parliament. Alternatively, it is proposed to adopt a new piece of legislation through which the use of the above-mentioned descriptions will be regulated uniformly and comprehensively for both cases analyzed. It seems that the debate on the permissibility of the use or not of the above-mentioned names is not yet over.


[i] C-422/16,Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb eV v. TofuTown.com GmbH (2017) ECLI: EU: C: 2017: 458.

[ii] C-422/16,Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb eV v. TofuTown.com GmbH (2017) ECLI: EU: C: 2017: 458.

[iii] C-422/16,Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb eV v. TofuTown.com GmbH (2017) ECLI: EU: C: 2017: 458, para 20.

[iv] Regulation (EU) no. Regulation (EC) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organization of the market in agricultural products and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 2454/93 (EEC) No 922/72 (EC) No 234/79, 1037/2001 and (EC) no. Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 (2013) OJ L 347.

[v] C-422/16,Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb eV v. TofuTown.com GmbH (2017) ECLI: EU: C: 2017: 458.

[vi] C-422/16,Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb eV v. TofuTown.com GmbH (2017) ECLI: EU: C: 2017: 458, paras 9, 10 and 11.

[vii] B. Bolton, ‘Dairy’s Monopoly on Words: The Historical Context and Implications of the TofuTown Decision’ (2017) 12 Eur Food & Feed L Rev 422.

[viii] 2010/791/EU: Commission Decision of 20 December 2010 listing the products referred to in the second subparagraph of point III(1) of Annex XII to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 (notified under document C(2010) 8434), OJ L 336.

Systems of Protected Designation of Origin and Protected Geographical Indications for the protection of traditional cheese “halloumi”

Abstract:

This article attempts to critically examine the legal protection that the traditional cheese of Cyprus named halloumi could receive in the field of intellectual property law in the light of the European Union law and, in particular, under the status of Protected Designation of Origin and the status of Protected Geographical Indication. Crucial to the issue is the Regulation 1151/2012, which establishes the framework and the content of protection that halloumi can receive under the abovementioned schemes.

Keywords:
Protected Designation of Origin – Protected Geographical Indication – Halloumi – Traditional Cheese

I. Introduction

It is undeniable that the European Union (EU) has a common geographical policy, with significant benefits in regards to the quality of European products and to European producers and consumers. These policies derived from the Regulation 2017/1001 on the EU trademark and the Regulation 1151/2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs. The analysis of this article will be based on the abovementioned regulations.

II. Regulation 1151/2012 on quality systems for agricultural products and food 

With the enactment of the Regulation 1151/2012 (hereinafter referred to as the “Regulation”) and taking into account the increased demand of European consumers for agricultural products and high quality food with specific characteristics associated with a certain geographical origin, the European legislator, guided by both the benefit of farmers and producers as well as the benefit of consumers, seeks to establish rules for the disclosure of these specific characteristics. The Regulation, starting with the strongest protection and ending with the least strong, introduces four different systems of protection of agricultural products and food: the system of Protected Designation of Origin (PDO), the system of Protected Geographical Indications (PGI), the system of Traditional speciality guaranteed (TSG) and the system of Optional Quality Terms (OQT). For the purposes of this article, an analysis of the first two systems will follow.

A. Protected Designation of Origin and Protected Geographical Indications Systems

The Regulation establishes an integrated system for the application, registration, use, protection and official control of PDOs and PGIs in the EU in order to prevent misuse, counterfeiting or other false or misleading indication of protected products. The products that fall within the concept of PDO and PGI are occupied by a cultural dimension and are enriched with the idea that they differ from the common products, since their reputation derives from their geographical origin. In other words, they are inextricably linked to their place of origin, as there is an essential link between their characteristics and their geographical origin. 

In particular, the PDO and PGI systems aim to ensure fair performance for farmers and producers in terms of quality data and characteristics of a given product or method of production, and to provide clear information on products with particular characteristics related to geographical origin, so that consumers are better informed when choosing products during the purchase process. The protection of PDOs and PGIs is provided through a registration system.

It is noted that the definitions of PDO and PGI under Article 5 of the Regulation are similar. In particular, both systems have the same function of identifying a product as coming from a specific place. However, there are specific differences that give PDO products more protection than PGI products.

Specifically, products identified as PDOs have stronger links with their place of origin, since all stages of their production must take place there. It is emphasized that PDO products are strongly associated with specific areas, in which there are special natural or human factors. Natural and human factors take the form of a number of variables such as climate, geological and hydrological aspects, processing methods, technical knowledge, traditional skills and local customs. Likewise, the source of inspiration for the PDO system is the need for consumer protection. Therefore, the PDO regime imposes strict requirements, which are stated in the product specifications.

On the contrary, PGI products have a looser connection to a specific location, despite the wording that the products must have a specific quality, reputation or other characteristics attributed to the geographical origin, as to qualify a product as a PGI product, only one phase is enough of its production to be performed in the relevant area. Therefore, the raw materials may not come from this area. At the same time, the reputation factor alone is sufficient to justify protection as a PGI. 

Despite the aforementioned differences in the specifications for the award of a product as a PDO or as a PGI, it is argued that in practical application there are no substantial differences between the mentioned systems regarding their specificity and quality. It is suggested, that the separation of the two should be lifted. 

For the sake of completeness, it should be noted that six hundred forty-two PDOs and seven hundred fifty-six PGI have been registered throughout the EU. Regarding the Cypriot production, the PDO has already been registered “Kolokasi Sotiras / kolokasi- poules sotiras” while as PGI are considered the ” Glyko Triantafyllo Agrou”, the “Paphiko loukaniko”, the “Koufeta amygdalou Geroskipou” and the “loukoumi Geroskipou”.

A.1 Greek feta cheese as a product of PDO

It is a fact that the majority of product names that enjoy PDO protection are related to the geographical name of the region in which they are produced. Indicative examples are the Greek products “Pefkothymaromelo Kritis”, “Galano Metaggitsiou Halkidikis”, “Tomataki Santorinis”, “Prasines Elies Halkidiki”, “Fava Santorinis” and “Stafida Zakynthou”. However, names that are not direct geographical names can also be registered as PDO, such as, the name “feta” as a cheese from Greece.

With regard to the name “feta”, there has been intense controversy and speculation as to whether this name is considered “generic”, ie whether it is a common name for the type of cheese. Pursuant to Article 3 of the prior Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs, the common name was considered to be the name of an agricultural product or a food which, although it refers to the place or area where the agricultural product or food in question was originally produced or marketed, has now become the common name of an agricultural product or food. The outcome of the feta decision was crucial. The Court of Justice of the EU (hereinafter referred to as “CoJ”) has ruled that although “feta” and similar expressions do not in themselves constitute a region, they can be registered as PDOs if consumers associate the product with that region of production. The CoJ has taken into account various data on the consumption of the aforementioned product in the Member States (hereinafter referred to as “MS”), which indicate that the name “feta” does not have a common name and can therefore be treated as a PDO. A key factor taken into account by the CoJ in deciding in favor of PDO protection was the fact that a significant proportion of European consumers, in fact, perceived “feta” as a cheese associated with Greece, even if it was actually produced in another MS. At the same time, the CoJ took into account that in other MS, except Greece, feta is usually available in the trade with labels that refer to Greek cultural traditions and Greek culture.

For this reason, the Attorney General, Dāmaso Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, argued that the memory of the past influences the assessment of whether a name is perceived as common, mainly in order to determine whether that name has always been common. In the present case, the historical background was of great importance since it seems that, already from the Homeric epics, the presence of cheese in Ancient Greece was important.

Furthermore, the CoJ took into account that in Greek legislation the name “feta” is recognized as a PDO for white brine cheese traditionally produced in Greece from sheep’s milk or a mixture of it with goat and exclusively in the regions of Macedonia, Thrace, Epirus, Thessaly, Central Greece, Peloponnese, as well as the Prefecture of Lesvos. There was, therefore, a clearly demarcated area for feta production that includes exclusively the mainland of Greece, as well as the Prefecture of Lesvos. For all the above reasons, the CoJ concluded that the name “feta” is not of a general nature, with the consequence that cheese producers outside the specified area are not allowed to refer to their product as “feta cheese” or “feta”.

A.2 The Cypriot cheese “Halloumi” (“Halloumi) /” Hellim “as a product of Protected Designation of Origin

Regarding the use of the name” Halloumi “(Halloumi) /” Hellim “, it is important to note that since 2014 the process for its establishment as PDO exclusively for cheese produced by Cypriot producers is pending. At the same time, the Republic of Cyprus, as well as other entities such as the Cyprus Dairy Industry Organization and the Foundation for the Protection of Traditional Cypriot Cheese called Halloumi (hereinafter referred to as the “Foundation”) are making efforts to prevent some companies from using the name “halloumi” as a trademark. An example is the Case C-766/18, which shows the Foundation’s attempt (which owns the European collective mark “HALLOUMI”) to prevent a Bulgarian company from registering a figurative mark which also concerns cheece and contains the word “BBQLOUMI”.

It is worth noting that the Secretary-General, Juliane Kokott, defends the position of both the EUIPO (EU Intellectual Property Office) and the EU General Court, arguing that the distinctive character of the term “HALLOUMI” is weak because it describes that cheese. Therefore, despite some similarities between the terms “HALLOUMI” and “BBQLOUMI”, the use of the latter name does not pose a risk of being associated by the public with the producers who are members of the Foundation. However, the decision of the General Court was overturned by the CoJ on 5 March 2020, according to which the fact that the distinctive character of an earlier mark is weak does not preclude the likelihood of confusion. As a result, the decision was referred back to the General Court in order to make a comprehensive assessment of the risk of confusion, which should take into account all the critical factors and their interdependence.

Interesting is the comparison of the collective mark “DARJEELING” with the collective mark “HALLOUMI” by AG Juliane Kokott, who noted that the collective mark “DARJEELING” is an excellent example of the application of the collective European mark because it corresponds to a city name and region of India and at the same time is identified with the famous black tea grown there. In contrast, the mark “HALLOUMI” does not correspond to a specific place name, but can only be associated with one place, ie Cyprus, and this is questionable since it seems that such cheeses are produced in other countries, often under the same or similar names. It is argued that the enjoyment of the PDO system is given to an entire country only “in exceptional cases” and especially when the MS is small. Through this comparison, it could reasonably be said that there would be a better chance of the application being approved for the name “Halloumi” / “Hellim”as PDO, if the product with this name was restricted to specific areas of the Republic of Cyprus and not in its entire territory.  In case of failure to register halloumi as a PDO, the Republic of Cyprus may take the appropriate measures in order to protect the product in question under the PGI regime. However, the provision of protection under this regime will be of less scope, as the product will have a weak connection with the Republic of Cyprus and this will result in the encouragement of foreign producers to reap the reputation of the product with the only obligation to carry out only one stage of the production within the demarcated area. 

III. Summary

It is considered indisputable that the EU has developed an important system for the protection of European products. However, intense controversy is observed, in the effort to secure absolute protection for the benefit of the cheese “Halloumi” from the Republic of Cyprus and from Cypriot organizations and institutions. As a result of the above, the Republic of Cyprus must immediately proceed with actions that ensure the strong protection of halloumi. It has the obligation to intensify the political negotiations and to collect the necessary data that prove the origin of the product in question, in order to be approved as a PDO or as a PGI. At the same time, through political initiatives, it should conclude bilateral agreements with EU Member States and third States, which will recognize the Cypriot origin of Halloumi and will ensure the shielding of its quality and consequently the Cypriot tradition. 

***
The above article can also be found in Greek by clicking here.