We are proud to share that our firm has once again secured a prominent position in the Chambers and Partners Europe Guide 2026, being recognised among the leading firms in the jurisdiction. We are particularly delighted to highlight that our senior consultant and former managing partner, Chris Georghiades, has received the highest individual distinction of Senior Statespeople (General Business Law category), reflecting his longstanding contribution, expertise, and reputation in the legal market. In addition, our partners Demetris Araouzos and Katia Kakoulli have also achieved high rankings, under the Dispute Resolution category.

This achievement reflects our firm’s strong presence in the Cypriot legal market and our ability to provide commercially focused, high-quality advice across a wide range of corporate and business law matters.

We extend our sincere thanks to our clients and our team for their continued trust and collaboration.

After many years of negotiations, the European Union and India have recently reached a preliminary free trade agreement aimed at facilitating trade flows, reducing tariffs, and simplifying customs procedures. The agreement covers markets that together represent around two billion consumers and encompasses goods, services, sustainability, and digital trade, with gradual implementation over an extended period.

For European businesses, the agreement provides for the immediate or phased reduction and elimination of tariffs on a large share of exports to India, particularly industrial products such as machinery, chemicals, and pharmaceuticals. Special arrangements are introduced for the automotive sector, with a significant reduction of the currently high tariffs during a transitional period and the application of quotas. At the same time, access for European companies to selected services sectors is enhanced, while simplified customs rules and stronger protection of intellectual property rights are provided.

From India’s perspective, the EU commits to abolishing tariffs on the vast majority of Indian products from the entry into force of the agreement, with further market opening at a later stage. The tariff reductions cover, among other things, products such as seafood, textiles, clothing, chemicals, base metals, and jewelry, while certain sensitive sectors, such as agriculture and automobiles, are excluded from full liberalization. For steel, specific duty-free quotas are foreseen, without special exemptions regarding the EU’s carbon pricing mechanisms.

The agreement also includes provisions for opening services markets on both sides, as well as rules on digital trade, aimed at facilitating transactions and ensuring data protection and security. Commitments on labor standards, the environment, and sustainability are also included. The next steps involve the publication of the legal texts, technical and legal scrutiny, translations, and approval procedures by the EU institutions, the European Parliament, and India, with an expected timeline of around one year.

---

The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) launched the SME Fund 2026, a grant scheme for small and medium-sized enterprises, on 2 February 2026 with a total budget of €60 million.

The initiative is designed to reduce the cost of obtaining intellectual property (IP) protection for SMEs established in the European Union. It continues a programme first introduced in 2021 and reflects the EU’s broader objective of facilitating access to formal IP rights for smaller businesses.

The fund operates through a voucher-based reimbursement system covering a range of IP-related activities. Eligible SMEs may obtain partial reimbursement for trademark and design applications at EU, national and regional level, as well as for patent-related costs and plant variety protection. The scheme also includes support for IP Scan services, which provide a structured assessment of a company’s intangible assets and IP strategy.

Reimbursement rates vary by category but can reach up to 75% for most registration fees and up to 90% for IP Scan services, subject to defined financial caps. Eligibility is limited to SMEs as defined under EU law, based on staff headcount, turnover and balance sheet thresholds, and applicants must be established in the European Union and engaged in economic activity. Self-employed individuals and certain foundations may also qualify, provided they meet the applicable criteria.

The fund does not apply retroactively, and costs incurred before a voucher is granted are not eligible. Vouchers must be activated and used within specified time limits, failing which they expire. Previous editions of the SME Fund have been characterised by strong demand, with funding allocated on a first-come, first-served basis. A significant proportion of beneficiaries in earlier years accessed formal IP protection for the first time, particularly for trademarks and designs. Against this background, SMEs considering participation in the 2026 edition are expected to benefit from early preparation and timely submission of applications, especially for patent and plant variety vouchers, which have historically been exhausted rapidly.

We are pleased to contribute to the 3rd edition of The Legal Industry Reviews, Saudi Arabia edition, with an article examining Cyprus as a strategic EU gateway for Saudi entrepreneurs and investors, authored by Pavlina Constantinides, Partner and Head of the Corporate Department of our firm.

The article explores Cyprus’s geographic and regulatory advantages, recent reforms, the IP Box regime, EU policy engagement, and developments relevant to market access, technology, IP structuring and cross-border investment. Particular attention is given to Cyprus’s role within evolving Europe–Gulf trade dynamics, including EU institutional developments, Schengen accession prospects and regional connectivity initiatives.

The edition is now available online here: https://thelegalindustry.com/saudi-arabia/

We thank LIR for the opportunity to be part of this edition and to contribute to the broader legal and commercial dialogue between Saudi Arabia and the European Union.

Cyprus has enacted Law 194(I)/2025, establishing a national framework for the screening of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI). The regime is scheduled to enter into force on 2 April 2026 and will introduce an additional regulatory layer for certain investments and transaction structures with relevance to Cyprus.

For investors, corporate groups and deal teams, this may affect transaction planning and execution, including structuring, due diligence, regulatory risk allocation and timelines.

We have prepared a detailed “Questions & Answers Insight” to support businesses and advisors in navigating the new framework. This Q&A summarises the key concepts and mechanics of the regime, the types of investments that may be caught, how screening may be triggered, the role of the competent authority, and practical considerations for timing and transaction documentation.

[Click here to download]

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.