Category: Knowledge

Η έκρηξη του κορωνοϊού – Covid19, σύμφωνα με τους ειδικούς, ξεκίνησε στην πόλη Γιουχάν της Κίνας και πρωτοαναφέρθηκε την 31η Δεκεμβρίου του 2019. Έκτοτε, έχει εξαπλωθεί ραγδαία ανά την υφήλιο με περιστατικά πλέον σε κάθε χώρα. Ο Παγκόσμιος Οργανισμός Υγείας στις 11 Μαρτίου του 2020 κι ως συνέπεια της επίδρασης που έχει η εξάπλωση του κορωνοϊού, προχώρησε να χαρακτηρίσει την κατάσταση ως πανδημία. Σημερινές μάλιστα μετρήσεις δείχνουν ότι περίπου 640.000 άτομα έχουν μολυνθεί και πέραν των 30.000 θανάτων έχουν επίσημα καταγραφεί.

Η επίδραση που έχει σε παγκόσμιο επίπεδο ο κορωνοϊός στον πληθυσμό (δημογραφικά στοιχεία), στην οικονομία, στα ταξίδια και εν τέλει στις επιχειρήσεις είναι ήδη ιδιαίτερα σημαντική και ίσως γίνει ακόμα χειρότερη το προσεχές διάστημα. Οι κυβερνήσεις λαμβάνουν μέτρα για την αποτροπή περαιτέρω εξάπλωσης του ιού, με το πιο σημαντικό ως τώρα, την απαγόρευση άσκοπης κυκλοφορίας των πολιτών (lockdown). Επίσης εκπονούνται σχέδια που θα βοηθήσουν οικονομικά τις επιχειρήσεις και την οικονομία. Είναι επομένως αυτονόητο, υπό τις εξελίξεις αυτές, πως εργοδότες και εργοδοτούμενοι θα πρέπει να ξεκινήσουν να εξετάζουν τα εργασιακά ζητήματα που ανακύπτουν, αλλά και να προγραμματίζουν έναντι των πιθανών επιπτώσεων που θα ανακύψουν.

Ο εργοδότης έχει μια σειρά από υποχρεώσεις προς τους εργοδοτούμενους που πρέπει να συνεκτιμήσει όσον αφορά τον κορωνοϊό. Η γενική αρχή είναι ότι κάθε εργοδότης πρέπει να διασφαλίζει την ασφάλεια, υγεία και ευημερία στην εργασία όλων των εργοδοτούμενών του. Επίσης, πρέπει να διασφαλίζει, καθόσον είναι εύλογα εφικτό, ότι πρόσωπα που δεν εργοδοτούνται από αυτόν, αλλά μπορεί να επηρεαστούν από τις δραστηριότητες της επιχείρησης του (πχ πελάτες) δεν θα εκτίθενται σε κίνδυνο.

Ο εργοδοτούμενος από την άλλη, πρέπει να επισημανθεί, ότι έχει υποχρέωση να προστατεύσει τη δική του προσωπική υγεία αλλά και των συναδέλφων του στην εργασία. Γι’ αυτό το λόγο πρέπει να ακολουθεί και να συμμορφώνεται με τις εύλογες οδηγίες του εργοδότη του για το σκοπό αυτό, αλλά και ο ίδιος να ενεργεί υπεύθυνα για την υγεία του, όχι μόνο εντός του εργασιακού του χώρου, αλλά κι εκτός αυτού. Επιπλέον ο εργοδοτούμενος βρίσκεται κάτω από την υποχρέωση να ενεργεί υπό τέτοιο τρόπο ώστε να μην παραβεί την εμπιστοσύνη προς τον εργοδότη του (trust & confidence), ενώ επίσης υπάρχουν επιπρόσθετες υποχρεώσεις του εργοδοτούμενου που αναφέρονται στις ατομικές συμβάσεις εργασίας τους ή σε πειθαρχικές διαδικασίες ή στη πολιτική της εκάστοτε επιχείρησης για την ασφάλεια και υγεία στον εργασιακό χώρο.

Τι γίνεται όμως στη περίπτωση που η κατάσταση με τον ιό χειροτερεύσει ομοίως και η οικονομική επίδραση αυτού και ο εργοδότης προσανατολίζεται να αναστείλει τη λειτουργία της επιχείρησης του ή ακόμα να κλείσει αυτή ή μέρος της;

Το Υπουργείο Εργασίας, Πρόνοιας και Κοινωνικών ασφαλίσεων (ΥΕΠΚΑ) προχώρησε σε λήψη μέτρων στήριξης σε επιχειρήσεις και εργαζόμενους του ιδιωτικού τομέα (ειδική άδεια γονέων, επιδόματα στήριξης εργαζομένων κτλπ). Ειδικά για τις επιχειρήσεις, το σχέδιο που αυτή τη στιγμή υπάρχει αφορά αυτές που έχουν αποφασίσει όπως αναστείλουν τις εργασίες τους και σε όσες θα συνεχίσουν τη λειτουργία τους και θα υποστούν μείωση κύκλου εργασιών πέραν του ποσοστού το 25%. Στόχος του μέτρου, με βάση το ΥΕΠΚΑ, είναι να αποφευχθούν οι απολύσεις εργαζομένων και ταυτόχρονα οι τελευταίοι να λαμβάνουν ανεργιακό επίδομα για όσο χρονικό διάστημα η επιχείρηση θα βρίσκεται σε αναστολή εργασιών. Προϋπόθεση έγκρισης είναι προφανώς η υποβολή σχετικής αίτησης από τον εργοδότη και ικανοποίησης των πιο πάνω κριτηρίων.

Μέχρις στιγμής δεν έχουν ανακοινωθεί οποιαδήποτε άλλα ή περαιτέρω μέτρα σε εγχώριο επίπεδο,  αν και σε άλλες ευρωπαϊκές χώρες, υπό τη βασική προϋπόθεση ότι ο ιός έχει άμεσα προσβάλει την επιχείρηση και έχει προκαλέσει άρση των εργασιών άνευ ευθύνης του εργοδότη, τότε, παρέχεται η δυνατότητα στον εργοδότη να επιβάλλει στον εργοδοτούμενο να παραμείνει μακριά από την εργασία του χωρίς να υποχρεούται στην καταβολή μισθού. Εξετάζεται επίσης σε αυτή τη περίπτωση και η δυνατότατα στο κατά πόσο μπορεί να προσφερθεί στον εργοδοτούμενο εναλλακτική εργασία σε άλλη θέση στην επιχείρηση.

Στην Ελλάδα για παράδειγμα η κυβέρνηση πολύ πρόσφατα προχώρησε με νομοθετική ρύθμιση δια της οποίας επιτρέπει στον εργοδότη να επιβάλει στην επιχείρηση την εκ περιτροπής εργασία με ταυτόχρονη φυσικά καταβολή έως του ήμισυ των μισθών των υπαλλήλων της επιχείρησης. Μέτρο που ενδεχομένως να εφαρμοσθεί και στην Κύπρο στο εγγύς μέλλον.

Φυσικά υπάρχει και το περιθώριο για τη λήψη διάφορων άλλων μέτρων από τον εργοδότη ως ανταπόκριση στη κατάσταση που έχει διαμορφωθεί από τον ιό. Για παράδειγμα μπορεί να ζητήσει από τους εργοδοτουμένους του να εργάζονται από το σπίτι για την αποφυγή εξάπλωσης του ιού εντός της επιχείρησης. Το μέτρο αυτό για να εφαρμοσθεί ενδεχομένως να χρειάζεται αναθεώρηση της πολιτικής του εργοδότη για εργασία από το σπίτι για να διασφαλιστεί η εφαρμογή του μέτρου αυτού από τους εργαζόμενους. Ενδεχόμενο μέτρο είναι και η αναθεώρηση από το εργοδότη των εργατοωρών και/ή του μισθού των εργαζομένων, ώστε να αντικατοπτρίζει τις ανάγκες τις επιχείρησης. Επιπλέον, μπορεί να ζητηθεί από τους εργοδοτούμενους να λάβουν μέρος της ετήσιας τους άδειας ή να ζητηθεί από αυτούς, σε εθελοντική μορφή, να λάβουν άδεια άνευ πληρωμής ή ακόμα και σαββατική άδεια. Θα μπορούσε επίσης ο εργοδότης να εξετάσει κατά πόσο είναι προς το συμφέρον η αναστολή των ετήσιων αυξήσεων και/ή των μπόνους ή να λάβει μέτρα για την απαγόρευση ταξιδιών και/ή σε μείωση άλλων λειτουργικών εξόδων της επιχείρησης. Σημειώνουμε όμως ότι τα πλείστα από τα πιο πάνω μέτρα που ενδεχομένως ληφθούν από τον εργοδότη στο μέγεθος και βαθμό που επηρεάζουν τους εργοδοτούμενους, χρειάζονται την συγκατάθεση αυτών και είναι πιθανόν να την λάβουν ειδικά όταν τα μέτρα αυτά γίνονται για να περιοριστεί ο κίνδυνος ύπαρξης πλεονάζοντος προσωπικού και πως τα μέτρα αυτά, ειδικά των ενδεχόμενων μειώσεων των μισθών θα τύχουν εφαρμογής τουλάχιστον στον ίδιο μέτρο και κατ’ αναλογία και την διοίκηση του εργοδότη.

«Η Βουλή των Αντιπροσώπων ενέκρινε στις 27.3.2020, νομοσχέδιο που παρέχει τη δυνατότητα στα συλλογικά όργανα της κεντρικής διοίκησης και του ευρύτερου δημόσιου τομέα να συνεδριάζουν και να λαμβάνουν αποφάσεις μέσω τηλεδιάσκεψης ως νόμιμη μέθοδο σύγκλησης διοικητικών οργάνων. Η Ολομέλεια της Βουλής έκρινε αναγκαία την τροποποίηση του βασικού νόμου του περί Γενικών Αρχών του Διοικητικού Δικαίου Νόμου 158(Ι)/1999 μετά τις ραγδαίες επιπτώσεις από την πανδημία του κορωνοϊού. Μέχρι τώρα απαιτείτο η φυσική παρουσία των μελών των διοικητικών οργάνων με αποτέλεσμα να δημιουργείται δυσχέρεια στην νόμιμη σύγκληση των διοικητικών οργάνων και γενικότερα μεγάλη καθυστέρηση στην λήψη αποφάσεων.

Η νέα αυτή τροποποίηση του βασικού νόμου καθιστά την τηλεδιάσκεψη πλέον αποδεκτή μέθοδο συνεδρίασης ενός συλλογικού οργάνου για την λήψη νόμιμων αποφάσεων.

Με τις τροποποιήσεις στα άρθρα 2, 21 και 23 και την προσθήκη των άρθρων 62 και 63 του βασικού νόμου, η ειδοποίηση των μελών με ηλεκτρονικό ταχυδρομείο ή με άλλο ηλεκτρονικό μέσο στην ηλεκτρονική διεύθυνση, θεωρείται ως νόμιμη και οι αποφάσεις για σκοπούς διαπίστωσης  απαρτίας, μέσω τηλεδιασκέψεως λογίζονται ως νόμιμες νοουμένου ότι σε κάθε περίπτωση τηρείται πρακτικό για τους λόγους συμμετοχής του κάθε μέλους στη συνεδρία μέσω τηλεδιάσκεψης.  

Οι σύγχρονες όμως αυτές τροποποιήσεις, δεν πρέπει να αφεθούν να δημιουργήσουν συνθήκες χαλάρωσης στην τήρηση των υπόλοιπων τύπων του πυρήνα της νόμιμης σύγκλησης των συλλογικών οργάνων. Ειδικότερα αλλά όχι αποκλειστικά, θα πρέπει να καταγράφεται από τον Πρόεδρο του κάθε οργάνου η ύπαρξη απαρτίας με την πρόσβαση όλων των παρόντων μελών  στην πλατφόρμα σύνδεσης καθώς και οι λόγοι για τους οποίους δεν μπορεί να γίνει η συνεδρία με την φυσική παρουσία όλων των μελών. Θα πρέπει βέβαια, να δηλώνεται ρητώς, η αιτιολογία των μελών που απουσιάζουν και η αποχώρηση αυτών κατά τη διάρκεια της τηλεδιάσκεψης αν τούτο λάβει χώρα. Για τη διαφύλαξη της νόμιμης σύνθεσης του οργάνου κατά τη συζήτηση και λήψη της απόφασης, θα πρέπει να καταγράφεται επίσης η αποχώρηση των παρευρισκομένων αφού δεν θα πρέπει να παρίστανται αλλά πρόσωπα πλην του πρακτικογράφου. Συνεπώς θα πρέπει να τεκμηριώνεται η «αποχώρηση» αυτών των μη δικαιούχων ατόμων από την τηλεδιάσκεψη. Θα πρέπει πρόσθετα, να υπάρχει τεκμηρίωση στον φυσικό διοικητικό φάκελο, ότι τα μέλη που παρίστανται στην συνεδρία μέσω τηλεδιάσκεψης έχουν λάβει την ημερήσια διάταξη μέσω ηλεκτρονικών μέσων και έχουν ενώπιον τους το πλήρες περιεχόμενο του διοικητικού φακέλου επί του οποίου θα ληφθεί η οποιαδήποτε απόφαση».

Πολύ ενδιαφέρουσα απόφαση εκδόθηκε στις 16.3.2020 από την Πρόεδρο του Διοικητικού Δικαστηρίου, η οποία έκρινε άκυρο ως αντισυνταγματικό τον τρόπο διορισμού του Εφόρου Φορολογίας στα πλαίσια εκδίκασης των Συν. Υπ. 541/2016 κ.α. υπό Μαρίας Ποταμίτου κ.α. ν. Υπουργικού Συμβουλίου.

Ο Έφορος Φορολογίας είχε αρχικά διοριστεί με απόφαση του Υπουργικού Συμβουλίου τον Φεβρουάριο του 2016 δυνάμει των προνοιών του περί Τμήματος Φορολογίας Νόμου του 2014 (Ν. 70 (Ι)/2014). Ως προς τον διορισμό του Εφόρου Φορολογίας, ο βασικός Νόμος όριζε ότι αυτός θα αποφασιζόταν από το Υπουργικό Συμβούλιο, αφού εξασφαλιζόταν η έγκριση της Βουλής. Όπως όμως, ανέφερε η Καθ ΄ ης η Αίτηση – Δημοκρατία κατά την εκδίκαση της υπόθεσης, κρίθηκε αναγκαία η τροποποίηση του περί Τμήματος Φορολογίας Νόμου (Ν.70(Ι)/2014) καθότι αρχικά προέβλεπε ότι ο διορισμός προσώπων στις θέσεις του Εφόρου Φορολογίας και Βοηθού Εφόρου Φορολογίας θα διενεργούνταν από το Υπουργικό Συμβούλιο με τη γραπτή συγκατάθεση της Κοινοβουλευτικής Επιτροπής Οικονομικών και Προϋπολογισμού. Η νομοθετική τροποποίηση προέκυψε κατόπιν γνωμάτευσης του Γενικού Εισαγγελέα αφού η απαίτηση για γραπτή συγκατάθεση της Βουλής των Αντιπροσώπων πριν τον διορισμό από το Υπουργικό Συμβούλιο παραβίαζε την αρχή της διάκρισης των εξουσιών.

Μετά την τροποποίηση του Νόμου, το Υπουργικό Συμβούλιο, προέβηκε στην ανάκληση του αρχικού διορισμού του Εφόρου Φορολογίας και κατόπιν αξιολόγησης των υποψηφίων, τον διόρισε εκ νέου αναδρομικά από 21.2.2016 για περίοδο 5 ετών.

Το Διοικητικό Δικαστήριο απορρίπτοντας προδικαστικές ενστάσεις που εγέρθηκαν από την Δημοκρατία έκρινε ότι οι πρόνοιες του Ν. 70 (Ι)/2014 σε ότι αφορά τη διαδικασία διορισμού προσώπου στη θέση του Εφόρου Φορολογίας έρχονταν σε σύγκρουση με τα άρθρα 122-125 του Συντάγματος τα οποία δίδουν αποκλειστική αρμοδιότητα πλήρωσης θέσεων στη Δημόσια Υπηρεσία στην Επιτροπή Δημόσιας Υπηρεσίας, απορρίπτοντας την θέση της Δημοκρατίας ότι οι εν λόγω πρόνοιες του Συντάγματος έχουν καταστεί ανενεργές δυνάμει του δικαίου της ανάγκης και έχουν υποκατασταθεί στην εφαρμογή τους από τον περί Δημόσιας Υπηρεσίας Νόμο (ν. 1/1990) ο οποίος επιτρέπει, μέσω νέων νομοθετικών ρυθμίσεων τον καταμερισμό μέρους των αρμοδιοτήτων της Επιτροπής Δημόσιας Υπηρεσίας σε άλλα όργανα που ασκούν εξουσία. 

Το Διοικητικό Δικαστήριο αναφερόμενο στο γεγονός ότι η επίδικη θέση Εφόρου Φορολογίας είναι ενταγμένη βάσει του επίδικου Νόμου στο Τμήμα Φορολογίας, Τμήμα του Υπουργείου Οικονομικών της Δημόσιας Υπηρεσίας, ότι η θέση βρίσκεται πρώτη στην ιεραρχία ως η θέση του Προϊσταμένου του Τμήματος του Υπουργείου Οικονομικών, στην Δημόσια Υπηρεσία, κάτω από την διοικητικά ανώτερη θέση του Υπουργείου που είναι η θέση του Γενικού Διευθυντή του Υπουργείο Οικονομικών, και αυτή θέση ανήκουσα στην δημόσια υπηρεσία, και έχουσα τα καθήκοντα που αναφέρονται στο σχέδιο υπηρεσίας της θέσης που καταργήθηκε και επίσης ανήκε στην δημόσια υπηρεσία, κατέληξε ότι ανήκει στη Δημόσια Υπηρεσία, όπως και κάθε άλλη θέση του Τμήματος Φορολογίας και ως θέση δε ανήκουσα στη Δημόσια Υπηρεσία, το Σύνταγμα (άρθρο 125(1)) προβλέπει και επιβάλλει τον διορισμό προσώπου σε αυτή από την Επιτροπή Δημόσιας Υπηρεσίας. 

Μια τέτοια απόφαση οδηγεί και πάλι την διοίκηση και δη, το Τμήμα Φορολογίας σε ανάκληση πράξεων του επίδικου χρόνου είτε αυτές έχουν προσβληθεί είτε όχι.

Δεν παραβλέπονται ωστόσο, οι πρόνοιες του άρθρου 4(17) του Περί Τμήματος Φορολογίας Νόμου του 2014 (70(Ι)/2014) όπου δίδεται η εξουσία στον Υπουργό Οικονομικών και όχι στην Επιτροπή Δημόσιας Υπηρεσίας σε περίπτωση που για οποιοδήποτε λόγο η θέση του Εφόρου Φορολογίας παραμένει κενή, να αναθέσει τις εξουσίες, αρμοδιότητες και καθήκοντα του Εφόρου Φορολογίας για χρονική περίοδο που δεν υπερβαίνει τους τρεις (3) μήνες σε πρόσωπο που πληροί τα κριτήρια του Νόμου.

Europe is now experiencing the full disruptive force of the Coronavirus pandemic. Undoubtedly all business owners are in a state of high anxiety due to the inevitable business interruption that has occurred in which will most likely intensify in the coming weeks and months.

This article contains practical advice that all business owners should be aware of in order to best safeguard their businesses’ interests in light of the Coronavirus pandemic.

A first piece of advice relates to the basic terminology. As it is highly unlikely that the Coronavirus pandemic will be specifically mentioned in a force majeure clause, it is helpful to have in mind that a pandemic is an epidemic that has extended its geographic spread to a larger area of the globe. There is therefore no practical difference, in legal terms, between a pandemic and an epidemic.

The Basic Law

As impractical as it may sound in the current climate, contracts that require ongoing performance are, under law, absolute. Strictly speaking a party that is affected by the Coronavirus outbreak is still required to perform its obligations and will potentially be liable to its counterparty for a failure to do so.

The Exceptions

There are, however, two key exceptions to this rule and these are:

a) the operation of any force majeure clause in a contract and

b) the common law concept of frustration.

Force Majeure:Occurs where a contract contains a force majeure clause, it will usually deal specifically with how the parties’ obligations are affected by an event that affects one of the party’s ability to perform the contract in whole or in part. Not all force majeure clauses are the same. This means you will need to consider the one in the contract in question carefully.  

However, factors that may influence the reliance on a force majeure clause are:

• Whether the incidence of an epidemic or a pandemic is specifically covered as a force majeure event in the contract. Note however that this is not of itself decisive. Even if a pandemic or epidemic is covered, other requirements may still need to be satisfied before a party can rely on the force majeure clause. In any event seeing whether a pandemic or epidemic is covered is a good place to start.

• If a pandemic or epidemic are not specifically covered as a force majeure event, one should look to whether it is the type of event that would fall under general force majeure wording. Sometimes force majeure wording is broad enough to cover a number of instances. In Cyprus current measures taken by the government will undoubtedly have an effect on how force majeure clauses will be interpreted by the Courts in the aftermath of the Coronavirus outbreak. For instance, government regulations, or events beyond the control of the parties.

• In certain contracts a test of foreseeability is also included with wording such as “any unforeseeable event which is beyond the control of the party seeking to rely on the force majeure event”. Where such wording exists the issue of whether the contract itself excludes events that could have reasonably been foreseen is raised. If so, this could require comparison with the situation after the SARS Coronavirus outbreak in 2003. Was it foreseeable that a similar event would occur seven years later? The answer to this question may depend on Geography, for instance many jurisdictions were largely unaffected by the SARS outbreak, others were affected for longer and repeatedly. The advice here is that the word “reasonably” will need to be considered objectively in this regard.

• Another issue is whether causation has to be established. The party that is seeking to rely on a force majeure event must usually establish that the force majeure event has actually prevented or hindered it performing under the contract. This is mostly a factual but generally, force majeure clauses are not drafted so widely as to offer protection where services or goods will simply be more expensive to perform or obtain.

• It is also important to note that even where a force majeure clause does apply a duty to mitigate exists. A party that is attempting to rely on a force majeure clause is normally under a duty to show that it has taken reasonable steps to mitigate or avoid the effects of the force majeure event. This will not be interpreted by a court to be tantamount to a full avoidance but the ability to prove that a party has taken all reasonable steps to mitigate the effects effect of a force majeure event may prove to be very important before the court.

• Whether the contract provides for notice of a force majeure event to be given. In most contract notice is a condition precedent to relief under a force majeure clause. It is therefore important to ascertain whether notices need to be given and if so how and when.

• The consequences of establishing force majeure are also important. Force majeure does not automatically bring the contract to an end. It is not tantamount to frustration. A contract may stipulate consequences or other actions that need to be undertaken once a force majeure event comes about or is established. Issues relating to costs that will probably arise for both parties and need careful consideration. Again, this all depends on the wording of the contract. The likely duration of the force majeure event is also a matter that needs to be addressed. The day after is relevant; when giving notice of a force majeure event a party should consider its true extent and provide for any necessary re-mobilization or preparation for the resumption of compliance with its obligations under the contract. Additionally, some contracts provide that for a termination of the contract if a force majeure event extends beyond a certain period. Therefore, it may well be in the interests of both parties to find an alternative method of alleviating any hardship caused if they both want the contract to continue.

• The impact on the contract changes in the law. In many contracts, decisions or actions taken by governments and public authorities in response to the an epidemic or pandemic may trigger a “change in law” relief clause and give rise to rights to compensation, independently of and in addition to any compensation that may be claimed as a result of the operation of the force majeure clause. Making a claim under the correct contractual mechanism is also therefore a factor that must be taken into account.

Frustration:In the absence of a force majeure clause, parties may have recourse to the common law doctrine of frustration. This means that a party is fully discharged from its contractual obligations if a change in circumstances makes it physically or commercially impossible to perform the contract, or would render performance radically different.

The radical nature of contractual frustration is so pronounced that the bar for proving an event of frustration before a court has been a very high one. Courts have traditionally shown a reluctance in finding that a contract has been frustrated.

A claim of frustration is not one to be made lightly, and an unjustified refusal to perform on the grounds of frustration can be expected to have catastrophic consequences on the party who has made it.

Insurance: A business that suffers a loss as a result of disruption arising from the Coronavirus outbreak should review its insurance to determine if it has cover for such events or for general business disruption. Some broad cover insurances may offer protection while others containing narrower terms will not. Insurance commonly has strict provisions requiring notification to insurers of actual or potential claims within a particular timeframe, together with duties to mitigate loss and to consult with insurers before taking action.

Those with businesses interruption clauses in their insurance contracts should review them immediately so as to ascertain which loses, if any, they have coverage for and more importantly so that they can notify their insures of potential claims.

In light of the pandemic COVID-19 that has seized the world there is no doubt that parties may wish to assess applicability of force majeure clauses in their contractual arrangements to ascertain the possibility of termination or suspension of performance or any other legal consequences.

The question whether COVID-19 may be considered to be a force majeure event, such that it enables parties to temporarily or permanently be excused from performance of their contractual obligations, will depend on the circumstances, the nature and content of the contract in question. 

The term ‘force majeure’ does not have a universally recognised meaning under Cyprus laws and the courts will examine the wording and intention of the parties at the time of entry into the contract. In many instances, contracts will include a specific and “closed” list of events which are said to constitute force majeure such as acts of God, wars, riots, floods, typhoons, governmental or regulatory prohibitions. The COVID-19 pandemic is unique not only due its epidemiological and clinical features but also because it contains both a naturally occurring component which is the virus itself and a government action component such as the quarantines and travel bans put in place in response to the outbreak.

Therefore, there is no simple answer to whether COVID-19 would qualify as a force majeure event. This will necessarily depend on several factors including nature and content of the contract and its governing law.

Additionally, parties may seek relief under the doctrine of frustration as enshrined in section 56 of the Cyprus Contract Law Cap. 149, although this generally applies in cases of impossibility to perform the contract, for example due to destruction of the subject matter, supervening illegality, incapacity or death. Although it is difficult to envisage how the COVID-19 outbreak may justify invocation of the aforesaid provision, it remains to be seen how this will be interpreted and applied by the Cyprus courts.

In conclusion, force majeure scenarios are by nature fact-specific and dependent on the content and context of the contract in issue. Going forward parties may wish to pay more attention in drafting the relevant force majeure provisions by for example incorporating reference to pandemics and regulating the consequences in such eventuality.

You may contact our legal team for further assistance and legal advice.

PRESS_RELEASE_CHAMBERS_GLOBAL_2020

As Tereza May said “Brexit is Brexit” many may not have believed her at the time but now it is a fact.

As of 1^st February 2020, the United Kingdom is no longer a member of the European Union.

The departure of the UK from the EU will have a profound effect on many industries.

The impending effective abolition of the free movement of workers / labour from the EU to the UK and vice versa (one of the two main pillars of the free market that is protected by the Treaty of Rome which established the union of nations now known as the European Union) will take the United Kingdom back to the situation that prevailed before entry into the EU in 1973.

There is no doubt that the membership of the European Union and the effect of the Bosman ruling have changed the face of football in the United Kingdom.

European footballers are by far the largest group of players in the British game. Henry, Ronaldo, KDB players of the past and present who have graced the British game.

Managers too, Wenger, Mourinho, Guardiola and, more recently, Klopp, have all left their mark on the English game and the Premier League in particular.

All Europeans who, with their status and skills, have made the Premier League the best and richest league in the world.

After Brexit and following the end of the transition period, European sportspersons (footballers and managers are no exception) who will not have applied for and received “settled status” (as explained below) will have to apply for a work permit on the same basis of sportspersons from third (non-European and non-European Economic Area [EEA]) countries.

All European citizens currently living and working in the UK may apply for “Settled Status” as explained below:

In a paper titled “The UK’s Future Skills-Based Immigration System Presented to the Parliament in Westminster in December 201,8 by the then Secretary of State for the Home Department, Sajid Javid MP began,” some may say ominously, as follows:

“The ability to control immigration and secure our border was an important part of why many people voted to leave the European Union.”

He then went on to say the following with respect to EU / EEA citizens who are currently living in the UK:

“We have been so clear to those EU citizens who have made their home here that we want them to stay, and we have given them certainty that their, and their family members’, rights will be protected.”

In making such a statement the UK Government was clearly seeking reciprocal treatment for the hundreds of thousands of British expatriates living and working or living as retirees in the EU. “Settled Status” may be obtained by EU and EEA citizens who are currently in the UK by way of an application made during the transition period to 31^st December 2020 and ensures that all pre- Brexit rights enjoyed by EU / EEA citizens will remain indefinitely.

Post 2020, however, the rules, in so far as entry into the UK is concerned, will change. Britain’s immigration policy will be “skills based” or… perhaps more accurately, “Britain First” based, as is evident from the same statement of the Home Secretary which goes on to state the following:

“To ensure we get the most from immigration though we must be able to control it. That’s why, in future, anyone wanting to come to the UK will need to obtain permission – enhancing the security and safety of our people.

This new system will be focused on those with the skills we need, who bring the most benefit to the United Kingdom. Our new route for skilled workers will enable employers – in both the private and public sectors – to access the talent they need. This will help support wage growth, and productivity improvements. But we understand this is the most significant change to the immigration system in more than 40 years, and so employers will need time to adjust.”

The above stated criteria are effectively a reiteration of the requirements for the issue of a “Tier 2” work permit for non-European and non-EEA elite sportspersons including, of course, footballers and coaches.

These are the following:

• The applicant must be an elite sportsperson or qualified coach, who is recognized by the sport’s governing body (in the case of football in England this is the English Football Association [FA]) as being at the highest level of the profession internationally.

• The employment must be of the type that will develop the sport in the UK at the highest level.

• The Football Association must also endorse the application.

The above rules will in all probability not adversely affect the influx of the uppermost tier of European and non-European and non-EEA players, namely players who are already established internationally.

However, the new rules may well stifle the influx of players who may be the stars of the future but are not yet considered ‘elite’ and recognized as ‘being at the highest level of the profession’.

There is a distinct possibility that the new rules may have the effect of taking the UK back to pre- Bosman times.

Given that the Bosman ruling will, of course, continue to apply to Europe, then it is clear that, unless there is a specific relaxation for ‘the national game,’ the new immigration rules as announced by the UK Home Secretary will certainly serve to reduce the competitiveness of English Premier League clubs in Europe.

To make matters worse, it is being heard that the FA, which is an organization with omnipotent powers and effectively answerable to nobody and which befitting its “God-like” status, more often than not moves in mysterious ways, will seek to use the new immigration rules and the resulting fact that European and EEA players will not be granted free access into the UK as an opportunity to seek to generally limit the number of foreign players in league squads. The old argument that the influx of foreign players adversely affects the quality and development of British footballers and British national teams will no doubt be heard again. The FA, depending upon the stance that they will take, may be of the mind that they must take a hard line in interpreting and endorsing a footballer or, for that matter, also a coach as ‘elite’ and ‘at the top of his / her profession’ or as a person ‘who will develop the game at its highest level in the UK.

It is not beyond the realms of possibility that an insular attitude in the FA inspired or in response to a hard Brexit may result in interpretations that may limit the influx of young European coaches as well as players into the UK. Anyone who follows English football will know the frequent calls for English coaches such as Steve Bruce and Eddie Howe to be given a chance with the bigger clubs.

Ask yourselves, for example, would the current Manchester United and Arsenal coaches, Ole Gunnar Solskjaer (Norway – although not an EU member – is part of the European Economic Area) and Mikel Arteta (Spain) have been able to gain a Tier 2 work permit if they were not Europeans or EEA? In reality they are as yet unproven. Would they be considered as being ‘elite’ and ‘recognized as being at the highest level of the profession’?  It is a matter of opinion and conjecture.

We have a no deal Brexit. We have no certainty. The Premier League and the FA must move quickly; the uncertainty must end. Footballers have short careers and increasingly wily and, with some notable exceptions, sophisticated and dedicated agents who will protect and encourage their stars to be prudent, especially at the outset of their careers, and to look for certainty rather than the uncertainty that will almost undoubtedly cast its deep long shadow in the post no-deal Brexit period.

Uncertainty will not only limit the influx of young players and coaches. It will also drive up the transfer fees of both elite British footballers who will now be at an ever increasing premium and the ‘eligible’ foreign players, making both inaccessible to all but the richest clubs.

Spanish, Italian and German clubs, as well as clubs from less popular leagues but in countries with a more liberal immigration policy than that of the UK (Holland for instance), must be rubbing their hands with gleeful anticipation that after 2020 they may well find themselves becoming increasingly attractive propositions for many of the foreign playing and coaching stars of the future than their premiership rivals.

The Immovable Property (Transfer and Mortgage) Law 9/1965 (hereinafter the “Law 9/1965”), was recently amended, introducing a fast track foreclosure process. The introduction of the new section to the Law 9/1965 provides a step by step process for the private sale of a mortgaged property whilst restricting the mortgagor’s capabilities to stop the proceedings of the sale.

Prior to the amendments, there were only two available options for the sale of a mortgaged property: through the department of lands and surveys or through a forced sale (after a judgment had been issued). The new section, i.e. Part VIA of the Law 9/1965, has offered mortgagees a new way of foreclosure: through private sale. The concept behind these new provisions is to offer to mortgagees / bank institutions, a faster way of foreclosure, whilst mortgagors retain the right to file an appeal against the foreclosure proceedings provided that one of the specific grounds of article 44Γ (3) is applicable.

It should be mentioned that despite the efforts of legislators to introduce a fast track foreclosure, Part VIA in its initial form, was effectively a failure.  Mortgagors could file an appeal against the announced foreclosure based on the ground that an action against the mortgaged debt was pending before the court. In essence, this ground of appeal had allowed manipulation of the Law 9/1965 due to mortgagors’ strategy to file claims against the mortgaged debt in order to delay the sale of the mortgaged property or even to suspend the foreclosure proceedings, a strategy which had opened the floodgates to claims in the already burdened legal system and also, once again, led to significant delays in the process of sale.

The latest amendment of the Law 9/1965, has eliminated the aforementioned manipulation of the Law 9/1965 by replacing the “pending action” ground with the “issuance of an interim order” ground. In essence, mortgagors who have legitimate reasons against the mortgaged debt can still challenge the foreclosure proceedings through an application based on the strict provisions of article 32 of the Courts of Justice Law 14/1960.

Today, the Law 9/1965 as amended constitutes the ultimate weapon for mortgage creditors, especially banks, to obtain repayment of borrowed money or to mitigate their losses through the invocation of the provisions of Part VIA of the Law 9/1965. Simple, but strict requirements must be met (especially when mortgagees are banks, due to the additional requirements that apply), the majority of which have to do with the context and the service of the various written notices that must be sent, i.e. notice of type «Ι», «Θ», «ΙΑ» and «ΙΒ». The time periods that must elapse between notices is of the essence as well. Consequently, if a bank fulfils all necessary requirements it is extremely difficult for a mortgagor to successfully challenge the fast track foreclosure proceedings, save where an interim order prohibiting the sale of a mortgaged property has been issued, although it still remains unclear whether such interim order must be issued prior to the filing of an appeal or not.

It is clarified that, in practice, when mortgagors file an appeal against the foreclosure proceedings, they may occasionally put forward other additional legal grounds such as alleged nonconformity with the Constitution, abuse of process etc.

However, based on our experience in handling multiple cases concerning appeals and interim orders that have been brought before the courts against foreclosure proceedings through private sale, the courts are reluctant to issue a judgment in favour of a mortgagor. Despite the above, it is of paramount importance to note that every case is unique and requires careful attention to detail at every step of the way and thus, specialist advice should be sought for every case.

In view of the upcoming changes to the current Trademarks Law in Cyprus, the law itself as well as the registration of trademarks have attracted great interest since their evolution is anticipated to assume great importance in the forthcoming years. A short review of this topic is presented below.

Significance

Under Cyprus laws, a trademark is defined as a sign that can be reproduced in various ways. This can be done graphically, by words that may include the names of persons, by pictures, letters, numbers, shapes of any products or any combination as long as they are distinctive as trademarks or service marks.  Generally, by registering a trademark the owner is granted an exclusive right of use, with specific reference to the class of goods or services for which it is registered.

A trademark is essentially a mark that allows a company to render its services or products distinct from those of other businesses. It also amounts to a highly valuable proprietary asset of the registered business holder. Article 24(1) of the domestic Trademarks Law provides that a trademark can be transferred or assigned either along with the goodwill of the business or remainder of the goodwill of the business or otherwise.

 A trademark is solely protected within the jurisdiction in which it was registered, so in the case of registration outside Cyprus, an additional procedure needs to be adopted. Trademarks cannot be registered if they are devoid of a distinctive or unique character or are the same or similar to previously registered trademarks. The rationale behind this proscription is that such use may bestow an advantage which usurps a pre-existing trademark. A trademark that violates public policy and is also contrary to accepted principles of morality is deemed as ‘scandalous’ by the law and it, too, can not be registered in Cyprus.                                                                    

The current legal framework

The domestic legislation governing trademarks is the Trademark Law Cap 268, as amended from time to time. The domestic law shall soon be replaced with the new law incorporating the EU Directive 2015/2436.

On the international perspective, Cyprus is also a party to, inter alia, the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, the Convention Establishing the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the WIPO Treaty, the  Madrid Agreement for the international registration of marks and its Protocol, the Trademark Law Treaty and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights.

Outline of trademark registration procedure in Cyprus

The designated office for the registration and protection of Trademarks in Cyprus is the Office of the Registrar of Companies and Official Receiver (“the Registrar”). The first step before registration of a national trademark in Cyprus is the undertaking of a search at the Registry of Trademarks which is regulated by the Registrar of Companies. Such an investigation is not mandatory but is highly desirable, in order to check and verify that no similar trademarks had been already registered and it requires approximately three weeks. With the conclusion of the search, an application form for the registration of a trademark along with a Power of Attorney, are filed. Through the said Power of Attorney, the applicant authorises a duly licensed practicing lawyer in Cyprus to proceed with the filing of the application for registration of the trademark on his/her behalf. 

Following the filing of the application and the required fee, the Registrar will appraise the application and examine the proposed trademark as to the extent of its distinctiveness and absence of creation of a sense of confusion or deception to the public.  The Registrar will proceed to publish it in the Official Gazette of the Republic for a period of two months, so that any party opposing the registration may have the chance to file an opposition within this period. If no opposition is filed, the Registrar will then proceed to register the trademark and issue a registration certificate along with a copy of the trademark. 

A landmark case concerning registration, was recourse no. 204/1991 Fournier Innovation et Synergie v The Registrar of Trademarks. It was decided that the word ‘ARPHA’ resembled the Greek alphabet letter ‘Alpha’ which, when used in the context of products implied high quality. The Cyprus Court, however, resolved that if the applicant’s name were to be added to the proposed word ‘Alpha’( i.e. ‘One Alpha Leo’), then this would confer the necessary distinctive character to the trademark. Hence, this decision paved the way for the potential addition of a name which in turn would render many applications to become acceptable to the Registrar.

In a case where an opposition is indeed filed within the aforementioned two months, the parties shall submit their observations and evidence. The Registrar, after hearing both sides,shall then determine whether the trademark is registrable or otherwise will refuse the registration.  The Registrar may also elect to approve the registration under certain conditions or may request the application to be amended. If the Registrar refuses to allow the registration of the trademark, the applicant may file a recourse in the Administrative Court.

On the basis of article 22(1) of the current Trademark Law CAP 268, trademarks in Cyprus have a validity period of seven years commencing after their initial registration. Once these lapse trademarks can then be renewed every fourteen years.

Trademarks can be registered beyond the scope of Cyprus. In order for a trademark to be legally valid and protected within the entirety of the E.U it can be registered as an E.U Trademark on the basis of Regulation 2017/1001, EU Directive 2015/2436 and others. The E.U Trademark has a unified character. It retains its own legal standing while at the same time it co-exists with the domestically registered Trademark. Since the accession of the European Union to the Madrid Protocol, both the European Union Trademark (EUTM) system and the so-called Madrid system have become interlinked. It is possible either to file an international application based on an EU Trademark, or to designate the EU in an international application. Furthermore, if a trademark is intended to be legally valid and protected internationally, it should be registered as an International Mark on the basis of the Madrid Protocol.

Outline of the changes introduced with the new domestic Trademark law

The new trademarks law shall be completely aligned with the EU Directive 2015/2436. The main targets of  the new law are to simplify and expedite the procedures for trademark registration, opposition and invalidation in order to conform with the contemporary commercial trends. Some of the changes that will be introduced are stated below:

a. Renewal and validity:

As mentioned above, after a trademark is registered it remains valid for seven years. After its first renewal it may be renewed every fourteen years. After the replacement of the current legislation and in accordance with the new law, future registration of trademarks will be valid for ten years with their renewal to be made every 10 years.

b. Procedures:

The new law will extend the period during which an opposing party may contest the registration of a trademark.  As noted above, the opposition period is currently set to two months, during which the trademark is published in the Official Gazette. The new law will extend this period to three months. The new law also provides for the initiation of a hearing to be reserved for exceptional situations and focuses on the introduction of amicable settlement of trademark disputes as well as the upholding of the rationale that trademarks will be primarily used as a defense mechanism.

The Power of Attorney at the registration stage will be replaced by a written statement signed by the applicant’s lawyer, thus obviating the need for a distinct Power of Attorney, and a unified levy fee will be introduced for the entirety of the registration procedure of the trademark. A graphic representation of the trademark will no longer be a requirement for its registration. Furthermore, the procedure for the transfer of the trademark will also be simplified.

c. New system of classification:

A system of multi-tiered trademark classification will be introduced. The goods and services in respect of which a trade mark registration is applied for shall be classified in conformity with the system of classification established by the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Mark. The goods and services for which protection is sought shall be identified by the applicant with sufficient clarity and precision in order to enable the competent authorities and economic operators, to determine the extent of the protection sought. Any modification of the classification of products/services can potentially be made at the renewal stage with the new Law.

d. Enhanced protection:

Trademarks related to geographical indications/names of origin will be protected more vigorously by the new legislation as well trademarks relating to natural plant varieties and traditional products of specific character.

A more meticulous regulation of collective marks and certification marks will also be undertaken in compliance with the new law.

What these changes practically mean for trademark law and procedures in Cyprus, and what further legal developments may follow as a consequence, remains to be seen.

Oil__Gas_Publication_Cover_Nov_2019_imh