“The days of the lawyer as ‘Jack of all trades’ – and, dare I say it, ‘master of none’ in many cases – are long gone” Andrew Demetriou, Co-Founder, Managing Director, Ioannides Demetriou LLC
Read more about the evolving legal landscape, the developments in technology and the skillset that lawyers need to master in Mr. Demetriou’s recent interview in Gold Magazine.
An_Evolving_Profession_ADemetriou_GoldMagazine_TheLrgalEdition_Issue137-August2022Download the article here
There are a number of monumental (as far as the Cypriot legal system is concerned) changes afoot in relation to the modus operandi of the courts in Cyprus, with most of them coming into effect in the coming year. These sorely needed changes, some of which are remedies for longstanding ills, are meant to usher the Cypriot legal system into a new age of speedy, effective justice and ultimately enhance Cyprus’ reputation as a regional business centre.
Below I will provide a brief overview of three major changes, which in my opinion are the ones that will have a profoundly positive effect on litigants, lawyers and the country’s economy.
Re-introduction of English as a litigation language
Last month the Cypriot House of Representatives amended the constitution to allow for English to be used as a legal language in the Cypriot Courts. This is actually quite a development. English was used in the Cypriot Courts, due to Cyprus’ colonial heritage, up to the late 80s. Then, based on some misplaced sense of nationalism we ushered it out. Some thirty years later the House of Representatives has, to my mind, seen sense, and has brought back English as a language to litigate in. The benefit of litigating in one of the “world” languages in a common law jurisdiction is plainly evident. It makes Cyprus much more “litigation friendly” for both foreign parties and foreign lawyers.
The newly formed Commercial Court
The re-introduction of English is only part of the plan. The second part of the plan is the formation of a dedicated Commercial Court and a dedicated Admiralty (Maritime) Court. Previously there was no Commercial Court and admiralty actions were dealt with by Supreme Court judges sitting alone. This of course ate in to the time of the Supreme Court and elongated appeal times in both the Criminal and Civil divisions. It was a situation that was in dire need of remedial action.
The newly formed Commercial Court will be a court of first instance and will:
a) hear cases of the highest scale (€2.000.000 and above), which is the highest Court scale in the Cypriot Court system. In short it will try the most important civil cases.
b) hear “Commercial disputes”, which are deemed to be disputes in relation to:
(i) a business document or contract,
(ii) purchase, sale, import and export of goods,
(iii) transport of goods by land, sea and air,
(iv) natural resources,
(v) insurance and reinsurance,
(vi) financial markets, stocks, shares and other financial instruments and investment instruments,
(vii) contracts of service, excluding contracts for the provision of medical services and any contract in which service is rendered through an employment contract,
(viii) automotive production,
(ix) contracts of agency,
(x) Competition law,
(xi) entities regulated by the Republic of Cyprus,
(xii) intellectual property and patents,
(xiii) arbitration.
c) be staffed by the most senior District Court Judges, namely Presidents of the District Courts. Presidents usually have about 20 or so years of experience since it takes about that long to get promoted to the level of President (which is the level before becoming a Supreme Court Judge),
d) try cases in English if a party to an action requests it. This means that the pleadings, testimony and judgment will be in English,
e) allow the parties in an action now before the District Courts to apply to have their case heard by the Commercial Court if the value of the claim is €2.000.000 and above,
f) shorten trial times drastically. Some early statistical speculations suggest that the Commercial Court will have the ability to issue judgments within a year to a year and a half.
New Civil procedure rules
Third on this list is the adoption of a totally new set of civil procedure rules which will come into force on the 1.9.2023. When Cyprus achieved independence in 1960 the newly formed Republic of Cyprus adopted the English civil procedure rules as they had been formulated in the White Book of 1958. Almost 70 years later this antiquated set of rules had remained largely unchanged. They were a cumbersome product of a bygone age with serious deficiencies, primarily because they were drafted at a time when technology was absent from the courts and then subsequently, they were not amended to cater to resolving disputes in the modern age.
About four years ago the Republic of Cyprus set about the task of essentially rewriting the civil procedure rules. Lord Dyson, Cypriot judges and advocates, academics and other experts all contributed to the endeavor through their involvement in the relevant committees and the cumulative result of their efforts is a new set of civil procedure rules which will drastically reduce trial times once they come into force.
The new rules are heavily modelled on the English civil procedure rules and in fact share the same pillar, the so called “overriding objective”. In short, the overriding objective, means that the purpose of the rules and what the Court seeks to achieve in applying them is the fair resolution of a dispute in a timely and cost-efficient manner.
Factors such as ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing, saving costs, trying a case with regard to the value of the claim, the seriousness of the case, the complexity of the issues to be decided and the financial ability of the parties are all factors the Court must now take into account when applying the “overriding objective” to the new rules.
Furthermore, a number of pre-trial protocols will be put in place, whereby a prospective claimant, before lodging an action for a debt will be required to demand payment in writing and at the same time furnish the prospective defendant with proof in relation to the debt itself.
The new rules are also much more detailed. As far as rulemaking in concerned, more detail translates to fewer disputes over how the rules should be applied. This in turn creates a streamlined process, with less interim applications and therefore a case is helped along to trial much faster. Finally, there is a sense of reserved optimism about these “modifications” in the circles of the legal practitioners on the island but I am confident that once this changes take effect the domestic legal landscape will change for the better.
Mental health has been at the forefront of discussions around the world for a while now, particularly because, according to the World Health Organisation, mental health conditions are on the rise, with possible contributing factors being the increasing use of social media and the COVID-19 pandemic.
In recent times, online interaction has been the preferred method of communication, leaving people paying more attention to the virtual world of social media, at the detriment of being present in the real world. People are nowadays constantly seeking stimulation, unable to be “in the moment” and agonizing over their social media presence, in an effort to maintain a picture-perfect life online, overlooking pillars of good mental health such as mindfulness and real connection with other human beings. Add to that the global pandemic which has led to even more social isolation and pushed people to immerse themselves even more in the world of social media, it is no wonder that in 2020 global prevalence of anxiety and depression increased by an immense 25%.
Mental health issues such as depression and anxiety are not as easily noticeable as physical injuries, but can be as limiting and frustrating, as they make it difficult for people to go about their everyday lives. This is especially true for athletes, who are constantly in the public eye and whose career is by nature competitive: since athletes are perceived as modern-day heroes bravely pushing past obstacles, they are expected not to let anything get in the way of their pursuit of victory. For this reason, too often mental health issues in athletes are ignored, with generations of athletes “toughing it out” and stifling their feelings in the name of fame and glory. In the words of soccer player Leeann Passaro, “the stigma is almost increased even further in our sports world because of the idea that weakness is something that you never show, weakness is not a part of being that athlete, of being elite, of being the best”. Indeed, in the eyes of many sports fans professional athletes are idols, but, in the midst of it all, we must remember one thing: athletes are humans.
Up to 35% of elite athletes suffer from mental health issues which may manifest as stress, anxiety, burnout, depression or eating disorders. Back in 2018, Olympian Michael Phelps opened up at a mental health conference in Chicago highlighting his battle against anxiety and depression. In May 2021, in an unprecedented move, tennis superstar Naomi Osaka withdrew from the French Open to protect her mental health adding that “Michael Phelps told me that by speaking up I may have saved a life […] if that’s true, then it was all worth it”. More recently, gymnast Simone Biles sat out several events at the Tokyo Olympics acknowledging the tremendous pressure she had been facing as the “head star of the Olympics” and that she needed to focus on her mental health. Simone Biles stated that she was inspired by Osaka’s recent action, and encouraged people who are struggling to put their own needs first.
Of course, such actions brought about both positive and negative comments, but the more famous people talk about their mental health publicly, the more it will be accepted that this is a real problem. The fact that such high caliber athletes have shared their struggle with the world has sparked a global discussion which is changing the narrative about mental health in sports, increasing awareness on the mental health risks faced by professional athletes: pressure to win, expectations for perfection, constant improvement and uncertain short career spans to name a few. They are also encouraging people to be aware of the connection between mental health and peak performance, and more importantly to talk about mental health and be transparent about it. In the words of Phelps himself “it’s OK not to be OK”.
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 regulation, licensing, penalties, policyholder protection, alternative 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
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.
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.”
The Legal 500: Insurance & Reinsurance Country Comparative Guide.
Contributed by: Christina Ioannidou and Katerina Hadjichristofi.
mpdf
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
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.
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.
Associated with
