As of 3 February 2026, the new national eProcurement System is in operation in Cyprus, under the responsibility of the General Accounting Office of the Republic. The system forms part of the ongoing reform of the public procurement framework and replaces the previous electronic procurement platform.

The new system provides an integrated digital environment covering the full procurement cycle, including procurement planning, tender procedures, contract award, and contract management. It introduces, among other functionalities, a Contract Management module enabling structured monitoring of contract performance, milestones, and payments, as well as an electronic repository (eAttestations) for the submission and management of certificates and declarations relating to selection and exclusion criteria.

Additional features include annual procurement planning, enhanced internal communication and clarification mechanisms, and data analysis and reporting tools supporting oversight and compliance. Existing functionalities, such as electronic catalogues, search tools, and the user interface, have also been updated.

Economic operators and contracting authorities should take note of the procedural and compliance implications arising from the use of the new system, particularly in relation to documentation, deadlines, and contract administration. Access to the platform is available at www.eprocurement.gov.cy.

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

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.

---

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.

Chrysses Demetriades & Co. LLC acted as Cypriot legal counsel to PureHealth Holding PJSC, the largest healthcare group in the Middle East, in connection with its EUR 800 million acquisition of a 60% shareholding in Hellenic Healthcare Group (HHG), the leading private healthcare provider in Greece and Cyprus.

The transaction, which implies a total equity valuation of EUR 1.3 billion for HHG, represents a significant milestone in PureHealth’s ongoing global expansion strategy.

The acquisition, now successfully completed following receipt of all necessary regulatory approvals, marks a major step in PureHealth’s international growth trajectory—following its recent acquisition of Circle Health Group in the UK and strategic investments in the US healthcare market.

HHG maintains a strong presence across Greece and Cyprus through its portfolio of leading hospitals and medical centres. With this acquisition, PureHealth will integrate HHG into its global healthcare platform, further consolidating its position as a preeminent international hub for healthcare excellence and innovation.

The Chrysses Demetriades & Co. LLC team advising PureHealth comprised Constantinos Mavrellis and Chrysses Demetriades (Partners), Christos Heracleous and Andreas Lelekis (Associate Partners), and Nicole Prodromou (Associate).

Our firm worked in close collaboration with Karatzas & Partners (Greece) and Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP (international counsel) to bring the transaction to a successful conclusion.

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.