Global business depends on the expectation that Court judgments and Arbitration awards will be respected beyond national borders. Yet, enforcing foreign judgments remains one of international law’s most fragmented areas. With instruments such as the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters (the “2019 Hague Convention”) gaining traction, and long-standing regimes like the EU Regulation 1215/2012 (commonly known as the “Brussels I Regulation”) setting the standard within the European Union, attention turns to how jurisdictions like Cyprus navigate this complex legal landscape.

Table of contents

1. The growing role of International Conventions
2. Enforcement within the European Union
3. Recognition of judgments from Non-EU States
4. The position on the United States
5. Arbitral Awards
6. Interim Relief and Protective Measures

1. The growing role of International Conventions

The 2019 Hague Convention represents a major step toward harmonising the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in civil and commercial matters. By creating a global framework for mutual enforcement, it aims to reduce procedural barriers, costs, and delays that have long complicated cross-border litigation.

While not yet universal, the Convention’s expanding membership, now including the European Union and the United Kingdom, marks an important step toward a more predictable international enforcement regime. It extends coverage beyond exclusive jurisdiction clauses, allowing recognition of judgments under non-exclusive and asymmetric jurisdiction agreements; arrangements commonly used in finance and international trade.

For smaller but globally integrated jurisdictions like Cyprus, such instruments complement existing regional and bilateral frameworks, ensuring smoother cooperation with trading partners and reinforcing legal certainty for cross-border investors.

2. Enforcement within the European Union

As a member of the European Union, Cyprus applies the regime under Brussels I Regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. Under this framework, judgments issued by courts in other EU member states are directly enforceable in Cyprus without any separate declaration of enforceability. This “automatic recognition” regime is one of the EU’s most advanced legal integrations, streamlining cross-border justice across the bloc.

For businesses and individuals, the Regulation ensures that once a valid judgment is issued within the EU, enforcement in Cyprus follows almost mechanically, limited only by narrow procedural checks. This system eliminates duplicative proceedings and encourages confidence in the single market’s judicial cooperation.

By comparison, the 2019 Hague Convention extends similar principles on a global scale, seeking to replicate this level of procedural simplicity beyond Europe’s borders.

3. Recognition of judgments from Non-EU States

For non-EU jurisdictions, enforcement in Cyprus depends primarily on international or bilateral treaties. The Cypriot courts will recognise and enforce foreign judgments where reciprocal arrangements exist under such treaties.

If no treaty applies, the process becomes more complex. A foreign judgment may still be recognised in Cyprus, but only through the filing of a fresh legal action before the Cypriot courts. In this case, the foreign judgment is treated not as directly enforceable, but a fresh legal action is required and the foreign judgment serves as evidence of the debt owed by the judgment debtor. The Cypriot court must then issue its own judgment based on that debt before enforcement can proceed.

This dual approach underscores the importance of international cooperation: where treaties are in place, enforcement is procedural and straightforward; where none exist, it reverts to a slower, case-by-case process. Instruments such as the 2019 Hague Convention aim precisely to fill these gaps by creating a uniform and reciprocal legal basis for recognition worldwide.

4. The position on the United States

Cyprus does not currently have a treaty with the United States for the mutual recognition or enforcement of civil or commercial judgments. Although the US has signed the 2019 Hague Convention, it has not yet ratified it.

Therefore, US Court judgments must follow the “debt action” route: a new claim should be filed in Cyprus using the US judgment as evidence of the debt. Once the Cypriot court issues its own ruling, standard enforcement can proceed.

5. Arbitral Awards

The situation is more straightforward when it comes to awards issued in arbitration proceedings. Cyprus is a party to the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the “New York Convention”), which provides for near-automatic recognition of such awards from other contracting states, including the United States. This makes arbitration a far more efficient and predictable route for cross-border dispute resolution between Cypriot and American parties.

6. Interim Relief and Protective Measures

The Cypriot courts also possess broad powers to grant interim relief in support of both domestic and foreign proceedings. These protective measures, including freezing orders, injunctions, or asset preservation orders, can be issued before, during, or after the main proceedings, even where the underlying dispute is being litigated or arbitrated abroad.

This procedural flexibility enhances Cyprus’s role as a regional litigation hub, particularly for cases involving international assets. It also complements global frameworks such as the 2019 Hague and New York Conventions, ensuring that foreign proceedings can be effectively supported or enforced through Cypriot courts when needed.

Conclusion

The mosaic of international, regional, and bilateral enforcement frameworks reflects both the complexity and the progress of modern cross-border justice. Within the European Union, the Brussels I Regulation offers seamless enforcement. Outside it, treaties and conventions, like the 2019 Hague Convention, seek to replicate that certainty on a global scale.

For jurisdictions like Cyprus, this layered approach provides versatility: EU integration ensures intra-European efficiency, while international conventions extend reach beyond it.

Each new accession strengthens the principle of reciprocity that underpins international cooperation. As more states join instruments like the 2019 Hague Convention, the global legal order moves closer to a system where court judgments can cross borders as easily as commerce itself.

For more information please contact Thomas Christodoulou (thomas.christodoulou@demetriades.com) or your usual contact at Chrysses Demetriades & Co LLC.

The House of Representatives has enacted the 2025 Law Amending the Procedures for Review in the Field of Public Procurement Contracts, which introduces substantial changes to the main Law of 2010 (Law 104(I)/2010).

Increase of the financial threshold
With the amendment of Article 3(d) of the existing provisions, the value threshold of contracts is increased from €500,000 to €1,000,000. According to the explanatory memorandum of the law, this change readjusts the scope of the provisions relating to the jurisdiction of the Tenders Review Authority, aligning it with current economic conditions and the value of contracts awarded in the context of public procurement.

New framework for interim measures
The second significant amendment is found in Article 24, where a new paragraph (1A) has been added. According to this provision, any applicant requesting an interim measure is required to submit, together with the appeal form, a solemn declaration stating that they will provide a personal guarantee if the request is granted. If the Tenders Review Authority decides to grant an interim measure, the applicant must deposit the guarantee within five working days of the issuance of the decision.

The amount of the guarantee is set at 1% of the estimated value of the contract, with a maximum limit of €50,000, and where no estimated value is determined, at €10,000. Failure to deposit the guarantee within the prescribed time limit leads to the automatic cancellation of the interim measure. If the contracting authority’s decision is upheld, the guarantee becomes payable, while failure to pay constitutes a professional misconduct by the issuer of the guarantee. Conversely, when the appeal is upheld or withdrawn, the guarantee is returned within ten working days.

According to the explanatory memorandum, this addition aims to ensure the seriousness of requests for interim measures, avoiding the submission of appeals without sufficient legal basis or legitimate interest.

However, the intent to discourage tenderers from filing administrative appeals before the Tenders Review Authority is evident, which raises legitimate concerns: proceedings before the Tenders Review Authority are swift. Delays occur only when the award decision is annulled by the Authority. Since annulment means errors occurred during evaluation and award decision-making, discouraging tenderers from challenging awards seems unjustified.

On the contrary, appealing to the Administrative Court is particularly time-consuming, yet does not involve comparable financial burdens for the tenderer. Before the Administrative Court, if an interim order is issued prohibiting the signing of the contract (a measure granted very rarely by the Court, whereas it is generally granted by the Tenders Review Authority), the guarantee submitted by the tenderer is not automatically forfeited if the appeal fails. For the public authority to collect the amount of the guarantee, it must prove the damage suffered.

Absence of provision for successful appeals
Despite stricter requirements being introduced, the amendment does not include a provision for the case of a successful appeal. Specifically, it does not provide for the refund of appeal fees or for the coverage of the applicant’s legal costs where the Tenders Review Authority annuls the contracting authority’s decision. This omission creates a regulatory gap, as there is no provision for the recovery of expenses incurred by a successful appellant while exercising their rights. It also reveals that the legislator’s intent is to favor public authorities conducting tenders and to disadvantage tenderers, whereas the principle of equal treatment of the parties requires respect from the legislator as well.

The absence of such a provision differentiates the Cypriot framework from other European legal systems, where similar procedures provide for the possibility of fee reimbursement or cost awards in order to safeguard full and effective legal protection for economic operators.

Conclusion
According to the explanatory memorandum, the 2025 Amending Law aims to ensure procedural discipline and prevent unfounded or abusive appeals by introducing clear financial obligations for obtaining interim measures. However, the automatic forfeiture of the guarantee in case of an unsuccessful appeal and the lack of provisions for returning fees or costs in successful appeals highlight the need for further balancing of the institutional framework, so that the exercise of the right of appeal remains substantive and effective, in accordance with the principles of EU public procurement law and the principle that compensation is awarded where damage is proven.

For  more information, please contact Katia Kakoulli (katia.kakoulli@demetriades.com) or your usual contact at Chrysses Demetriades & Co LLC.

---

In a long-anticipated move aligning Cyprus with European Foreign Investment Control standards, the Law on the Establishment of a Framework for Screening Foreign Direct Investments of 2025 [Law 194(I)/2025] has been published in the Official Gazette and will enter into force on 2 April 2026.

The new regime introduces a structured screening process for foreign direct investments (FDI), in line with Regulation (EU) 2019/452, targeting transactions that may raise concerns for national security or public order in strategic and sensitive sectors.

Under the new framework, non-EU/EEA/Swiss investors and third-country undertakings must notify and obtain prior approval from the Ministry of Finance before completing certain investments in strategic undertakings.

The obligation to notify applies where an investment crosses defined legal thresholds, which include both transaction value and the level of control or influence acquired over the target enterprise, whether directly or indirectly.

The competent authority may impose conditions, prohibit, unwind, or otherwise restrict transactions deemed to pose a risk to security or public order.  Failure to comply with the notification and approval requirements may lead to financial or other sanctions.

For investors, financial institutions and corporates, FDI screening will become a key consideration in transactional planning, particularly in cross-border deals and joint ventures involving sensitive sectors, often in parallel with Merger Control compliance.

Early legal assessment will be essential to determine whether a transaction falls within the scope of the framework and to ensure timely compliance with regulatory requirements.

For further information or tailored guidance, please contact Polyvios Panayides (polyvios.panayides@demetriades.com) at Chrysses Demetriades & Co LLC.

We are delighted to have advised the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens (NKUA/ΕΚΠΑ) on the establishment of its first international branch in Cyprus – a milestone in higher education and academic cooperation between Greece and Cyprus.

The official inauguration took place on 3 November 2025, marking the launch of a historic initiative. Based in Nicosia and Larnaca, the branch comprises four faculties and eight departments, including the renowned Medical School, the Faculty of Economics and Political Sciences, and the innovative BA Program in Archaeology, History, and Literature of Ancient Greece. Academic activity begins this year with the Medical School, with the remaining academic units to follow in 2026.

Our firm provided comprehensive legal support throughout the process, covering accreditation, corporate matters, and institutional structuring. The engagement was led by Partners Michalis Moushouttas and Pavlina Constantinides, and Associate Spyroulla Iasonos, alongside Ioannis Sidiropoulos, Legal Analysis Executive for our firm.

This development represents a lasting investment in education, research, and innovation, reflecting our firm’s commitment to supporting transformative initiatives of institutional and cross-border significance.

For more information please contact our partners Michalis Moushouttas and/or Pavlina Constantinides.

In February 2025 the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered its decision in Case C-537/23 SIL v. Agora, reshaping how jurisdiction clauses under the Brussels I Recast Regulation are interpreted and enforced. For Cyprus (Europe’s shipping hub and a regional centre for cross-border trade) the ruling has immediate implications. One-way (asymmetric) forum clauses feature routinely in charterparties, bills of lading, supply agreements, distribution deals and finance contracts. After this judgment, these clauses can still deliver commercial flexibility, but only if drafted and invoked with precision.

Table of contents

1. The CJEU Case C-537/23 explained
2. Why the ruling matters for Cyprus shipping and cross-border commerce
3. Drafting predictable jurisdiction clauses post-2025

1. The CJEU Case C-537/23 explained

The February 2025 judgment clarified Article 25 of the Brussels I Recast Regulation (EU 1215/2012). The Court examined an asymmetric jurisdiction clause obliging one party to litigate exclusively in Brescia while giving the other a free choice of forum.

Key takeaways:

• Autonomous EU standards prevail. Ambiguity or imbalance is assessed against clarity, predictability and transparency, not national “substantive validity.”
• Only classic vitiating factors (fraud, duress, mistake, lack of capacity) remain subject to the chosen forum’s national law.
• The same approach extends to the Lugano Convention (Switzerland, Norway, Iceland), which mirrors Brussels I on jurisdiction and enforcement.

For Cypriot companies and shipowners contracting with parties in the EU or Lugano states, well-drafted one-way clauses naming EU or Lugano courts will generally be upheld and judgments recognised, provided the clause is sufficiently clear and does not conflict with Articles 15, 19 or 23 (protected parties) or Article 24 (exclusive jurisdictions).

2. Why the ruling matters for Cyprus shipping and cross-border commerce

Shipping contracts

Bills of lading and charterparties issued in Limassol may cover cargo from Asia to Europe and designate a foreign court. Under SIL v. Agora, a Cypriot court asked to enforce or disregard such a clause must apply the CJEU’s clarity and foreseeability test.

Shipowners, charterers and P&I Clubs often rely on asymmetric clauses to gain flexibility. After SIL v. Agora, these clauses survive only if the “escape” options are objectively defined (port of loading, port of discharge, domicile of counterparty). Vague wording such as “any competent court abroad” risks unenforceability in Cyprus or Lugano states.

Commercial contracts

The same reasoning applies to supply, distribution and finance agreements. Cypriot exporters may have contracts in several languages naming foreign courts. Asymmetric clauses must now specify objective triggers (domicile, place of performance, delivery points) to be enforceable.

Procedural backdrop – Cyprus Civil Procedure Rules

Under the CPR, jurisdiction objections must be raised promptly and supported with evidence at an early case-management stage. Missing that window may result in Cyprus hearing the case even where a valid foreign forum clause exists. The Rules do not change Brussels I or Lugano but they reinforce discipline around how and when such clauses are invoked.

Bottom line: forum selection is no longer a back-end dispute issue. It must be built into contract negotiation, evidence gathering and early procedural steps from day one.

3. Drafting predictable jurisdiction clauses post-2025

To take full advantage of SIL v. Agora, Cypriot shipowners, cargo interests and businesses engaged in cross-border trade should revisit how they draft and invoke forum clauses:

• Name EU or Lugano courts explicitly. Specify a Cypriot court (“Admiralty jurisdiction of the District Court of Limassol” or “District Court of Nicosia”) or another EU/Lugano court (“Commercial Court of Oslo”). This maximises Brussels I and Lugano benefits.
• Define “escape” rights. If using a one-way clause, spell out the objective conditions under which the stronger party may sue elsewhere (port of discharge, domicile of counterparty, place of damage). The more concrete the trigger, the more likely it passes the CJEU’s clarity test.
• Align procedure with substance. Incorporate the CPR’s pre-action and early-objection requirements into your internal playbook. Even a perfect clause can be undermined by procedural default.
• Harmonise with other clauses. Check that arbitration, governing law and service provisions in your charterparty, bill of lading or commercial contract are consistent with the jurisdiction clause. Conflicting clauses are a common reason for Cypriot courts to find a forum clause unclear.

By combining EU-level clarity with Cyprus-level procedural readiness, companies can secure predictable dispute resolution and faster enforcement of judgments across Europe; a decisive advantage in both time-critical shipping and competitive international commerce.

Conclusion

Cyprus remains a pivotal gateway for Europe’s maritime and cross-border trade. The CJEU’s 2025 Article 25 judgment has shifted the legal tide: asymmetric jurisdiction clauses are no longer routine boilerplate but strategic tools demanding careful drafting and disciplined procedural handling.

For shipowners, P&I Clubs and exporters alike, this creates both opportunity and pressure. Well-structured clauses reduce forum disputes and give all parties clearer visibility of legal risk, but they also impose a higher standard of precision. Weaker counterparties must push for balanced terms, while parties seeking flexibility must articulate their “escape” options in concrete, objective terms.

The Cyprus Civil Procedure Rules form the procedural backdrop. They do not rewrite Brussels I or the Lugano Convention but they set the timetable and evidential standards within which jurisdiction issues are litigated before Cypriot courts. By integrating forum selection into corporate governance, risk registers and contract templates, rather than treating it as a last-minute add-on, businesses can enhance compliance, reduce litigation costs and accelerate enforcement outcomes across Europe. This proactive approach strengthens relationships with customers, suppliers and financial partners, signalling that the company is both sophisticated and reliable in its cross-border dealings.

Looking ahead, companies that audit their contracts, train teams on procedural deadlines and build coordinated dispute-management strategies will stand out as reliable partners.

Our firm combines deep knowledge of EU and Lugano frameworks with decades of hands-on shipping and cross-border dispute resolution experience to help clients move beyond compliance and turn jurisdiction planning into a genuine commercial advantage. For more information please contact Nikoleta Kleovoulou or your usual contact at Chrysses Demetriades & Co LLC.

In today’s competitive business environment, safeguarding your intellectual property is just as critical as building it. A strong trademark is important for inspiring greater connection with consumers and leading to better performance over time. For businesses active in or connected with Cyprus, trademark registration is more than a formality; it is a key investment in brand security, reputation, and growth.

Table of contents

1. Legal framework and protection
2. Trademark registration process
3. Benefits
4. Why legal expertise matters

Legal framework and protection

The protection of trademarks in Cyprus is based on two main pieces of legislation: the Trademarks Law, last amended in 2006, and the Law on the Control of Goods Infringing Intellectual Property Rights of 2018. These provide a comprehensive legal framework allowing businesses to safeguard their commercial identity.

A trademark in Cyprus can consist of a wide range of elements, including business names, logos, letters, product packaging, colours, sound signatures, and even holograms. Once registered, the trademark gives its owner exclusive rights to use and control that mark in the Cypriot market. Owners can license, assign, or even sell these rights, making trademarks not only a protective tool but also a commercial asset. The duration of protection is long-term. A trademark is initially secured for a period of ten years from the date of registration, and it can be extended in additional ten-year cycles as long as renewal fees are paid.

For broader protection, businesses often extend their filings to the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) or the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).

For a trademark application to be accepted, the mark must be distinctive, and must not be generic, deceptive, merely descriptive, or likely to cause confusion with earlier rights.

Trademark registration process

Filing for trademark registration in Cyprus is handled through the Intellectual and Industrial Property Office. The application must include a description of the proposed mark, the list of goods or services it will represent, and payment of the relevant fees. As of 2025, the cost for an electronic submission starts at €129, with €94 for every additional class of goods or services. Collective or certification marks require a higher fee, starting at €415.

Once the application is submitted, it undergoes an initial review to confirm that all required details have been provided. It then proceeds to a more detailed assessment, where examiners consider whether the trademark is distinctive and whether it conflicts with existing rights.

If the Office raises concerns, the applicant has an opportunity to respond, adjust the application, or challenge the decision. In some cases, appeals can be taken to the Administrative Court. Once accepted, the trademark is published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Cyprus and becomes enforceable against third parties provided that during the “cooling off period” no oppositions have been traced against the trademark application. The estimation of the “cooling off period” is three months from the publication of the trademark in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Cyprus

Benefits

Trademark registration offers businesses a range of advantages. It grants the exclusive right to use the mark in commerce, effectively blocking competitors from using similar signs. This exclusivity creates a competitive advantage, strengthens consumer trust, and adds value to the brand. Because trademarks can be sold, franchised, or licensed, they also become income-generating assets.

Why legal expertise matters

Although it is technically possible for a business to attempt the process alone, trademark law in Cyprus can be complex. Partnering with an experienced intellectual property lawyer helps ensure the application is filed correctly and that any objections or oppositions are handled strategically.

For foreign businesses, having local representation is not only beneficial but also required. A Cypriot lawyer must act as the official representative before the Intellectual and Industrial Property Office.

Conclusion

A well-protected brand may become the business’s most valuable asset, and in an increasingly globalised market, taking proactive steps in Cyprus can set the stage for expansion and success far beyond its borders.

The Cypriot legal framework is robust, offering ten-year protection that can be renewed indefinitely, but the process does require careful preparation and expert navigation.

Our team of experienced intellectual property lawyers in Cyprus provides end-to-end support with trademark searches, applications, oppositions, renewals, and enforcement, ensuring your brand is fully protected at every stage.

In addition to handling trademarks, experienced lawyers can advise on complementary areas such as patents, industrial designs, and copyright.

For more information please contact Nicole Prodromou (nicole.prodromou@demetriades.com) or your usual contact at Chrysses Demetriades & Co LLC.

Fintech is booming in Europe, projected to surpass €171 billion by 2030, and Cyprus is making a bold name for itself. From e-money to crypto licensing, it offers the perfect balance of EU compliance, low bureaucracy and innovation support. Here’s why more fintech startups are calling Cyprus home.

Table of contents

1. Why Cyprus attracts fintechs
2. Fintech licensing: Clear, fast, flexible
3. Compliance made practical
4. Innovation support
5. Conclusion: Cyprus, A fintech gateway

Why Cyprus attracts fintechs

Cyprus has steadily positioned itself as one of the most accessible, innovation-ready fintech jurisdictions in the EU. Its regulatory model is fully aligned with the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive II (MiFID II), the Payment Services Directive 2 (PSD2), and the Electronic Money Directive (EMD), allowing licensed fintechs, payment or e-money providers to passport services across the entire European Union and European Economic Area (EU/EEA). For entrepreneurs looking for a stable, pro-business environment with global reach, Cyprus is a strategic gem.

Key benefits include:

• EU-wide licensing: Set up in Cyprus and operate seamlessly across all EU/EEA states.
• Business-friendly setup: Competitive tax regime, English-speaking professionals, and transparent legal infrastructure.
• Regulatory clarity: Cyprus has prepared for and is implementing all key EU digital finance laws: the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA), the Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA) and the EU Crowdfunding Regulation. In this respect, the key regulators in Cyprus, being the Central Bank of Cyprus (CBC) and the Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission (CySEC) are transitioning to and putting in place an effective supervisory framework to assist the practical application of this legislation in Cyprus.
• Crypto & digital assets: The country’s jurisdiction allows registration of Crypto-Asset Service Providers (CASPs) under Anti-Money Laundering (AML) rules. MiCA is expected to roll out smoothly thanks to this proactive stance. CySEC is closely following and adopting ESMA’s guidelines on these matters and has already issued circulars to provide clarity on the applicable procedures.

Cyprus’s geographical location at the crossroads of Europe, the Middle East, and Africa also strengthens its appeal as a hub for cross-border fintechs. Moreover, the jurisdiction offers access to top talent, strong infrastructure, and a digital finance culture that encourages growth.

Fintech licensing: Clear, fast, flexible

In Cyprus, fintech regulation is segmented into clear categories. This means you can identify exactly what kind of license you need based on your model, and begin operations with confidence.

Electronic Money Institutions (EMIs): These are entities that offer products like prepaid cards and mobile wallets. They are licensed by the Central Bank of Cyprus (CBC) under the Electronic Money Law of 2012, as amended. The latter is based on two EU directives: one that regulates electronic money (Directive 2009/110/EC – EMD), and another that sets rules for payment services (Directive (EU) 2015/2366, known as PSD2). Because EMIs often offer both types of services (electronic money and payment services) they are subject to compliance with both sets of rules. To get licensed, applicants must submit a strong business plan, provide governance documents and organisational charts, and hold at least €350,000 in initial capital.

Payment Institutions (PIs): These are entities that offer payment services, such as money transfers, online payment processing, execution of payment transactions and merchant payment gateways. In Cyprus, they are regulated by the Payment Services Law of 2018, as amended, which brings the relevant EU PSD2 rules into local law. PIs are also licensed by the CBC and must show that they have strong AML systems, adequate safeguards for protecting client money, reliable technical infrastructure, and enough capital based on the services they offer.

Cyprus Investment Firms (CIFs): Trading platforms and asset managers must be authorized as CIFs by Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission (CySEC), under the Investment Services and Activities and Regulated Markets Law of 2017, as amended. This process includes detailed applications, fit-and-proper checks on directors, and compliance with MiFID II. Licensing process may take around 6 to 9 months.

Crypto-Asset Service Providers (CASPs): Crypto exchanges, custody wallet providers, and digital asset platforms must register with CySEC under AML rules. While this is a registration focusing on AML, customer due diligence, risk assessment, and transaction monitoring, rather than a full crypto license, Cyprus is aligning this regime with the incoming MiCA regulation that is expected to reshape the crypto licensing landscape across Europe.

Crowdfunding platforms: Licensed under the EU Crowdfunding Regulation (EU 2020/1503 -introduced in the Cyprus legal order through the Provision of Crowdfunding Services for Businesses Law of 2024), platforms facilitating peer-to-peer lending or equity crowdfunding must apply through CySEC. Licensing involves investor protection measures, risk disclosures, and platform security protocols.

Each license has well-defined requirements and regulators (CBC or CySEC) who provide guidance through Innovation Hubs, reducing friction for startups entering the market.

Compliance made practical

Running a fintech in Cyprus means embracing regulatory excellence, but with flexibility and support that’s hard to find in larger EU jurisdictions.

AML & KYC: Under Law 188(I)/2007, as amended, all regulated entities must have strong AML and terrorist financing frameworks. Know-Your-Customer (KYC) procedures, suspicious transaction reporting, and real-time monitoring are all standard.

Data protection – General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): Cyprus fully enforces the EU GDPR and supplements it with Law 125(I)/2018, as amended. Fintechs handling personal or financial data must have lawful processing policies, clear consent mechanisms, and security safeguards including the appointment of Data Protection Officers (DPOs) where applicable.

MiFID II / PSD2 / EMD compliance: All licensed PIs, EMIs, and CIFs must comply with conduct of business rules, capital adequacy standards, and client asset protection regulations. These create a framework that protects users while giving businesses the operational freedom to grow.

Cybersecurity & operational resilience  – DORA: Coming into force in early 2025, DORA requires all fintechs to manage Information and Communication Technology (ICT) risks, monitor service provider security, and report serious cyber incidents. Cyprus regulators are already helping firms prepare through workshops and guidance.

What sets Cyprus apart is the practical approach to enforcement. CySEC and CBC are proactive but collaborative, preferring dialogue and improvement over unnecessary penalties, especially for well-intentioned, early-stage fintechs. This makes compliance a competitive edge, not a roadblock.

Innovation support

Cyprus isn’t just focused on regulation; it’s also very supportive of innovation. In 2024, CySEC launched a Regulatory Sandbox to let fintech companies test new ideas in a controlled environment without immediately meeting full licensing requirements. This includes pilots for AI-powered financial tools and blockchain settlement platforms. CBC also operates its Innovation Hub, which offers early-stage fintechs informal guidance on licensing routes, risk models, and compliance setup. These initiatives de-risk early product launches, accelerate licensing readiness, provide constructive regulator feedback and improve investor and consumer confidence.

Conclusion: Cyprus, a fintech gateway

Cyprus is no longer just a financial services hub; it’s becoming Europe’s front door for fintech innovation. With access to the EU market, forward-thinking regulators, and a streamlined licensing process, Cyprus provides the strategic legal clarity fintechs need, without the red tape of larger jurisdictions. Whether you’re building a crypto exchange, digital bank, payment app, or next-gen trading platform, our jurisdiction offers both the regulatory structure and innovation support to help you succeed. As fintech continues to mature, the real differentiator for sustainable growth will be the ability to scale with foresight and full regulatory confidence.

At Chrysses Demetriades & Co. LLC, we support fintech founders, investors, and operators in turning complex regulation into a clear competitive advantage. Whether you’re entering the EU market or expanding your footprint, our team is here to help you structure, license, and grow, securely and efficiently – from Cyprus.

Our associates, Iphigenia Fisentzou and Christina Lougkridou, have contributed to the first comprehensive legal textbook dedicated to the New Civil Procedure Rules of Cyprus, introduced in 2023; a milestone reform in the country’s civil justice system.

The book, Κυπριακή Πολιτική Δικονομία, is the product of a collaborative effort by a team of distinguished legal practitioners and academics. It offers in-depth analysis of key aspects of civil procedure, including the structure of the courts, the right to a fair trial, procedural steps before the courts, and alternative dispute resolution methods. Special emphasis is given to the 2023 Rules, which replaced the long-standing previous regime and aim to modernise and streamline civil proceedings.

Iphigenia served also as a member of the editorial team and authored the chapter on “The Overriding Objective”, co-authored the chapter on “The Court’s Powers”, and, together with Christina, co-authored the chapter on “Costs”.

Designed as a practical guide for judges, lawyers, students, and all those involved in the Cypriot civil justice system, this publication provides essential insights into the updated procedural framework and serves as a valuable resource for navigating the new legal landscape.

More information about Κυπριακή Πολιτική Δικονομία, including details on its content and availability, can be found on the publisher’s website.

We congratulate all contributors on this significant achievement and look forward to the positive impact this work will have on legal practice in Cyprus.