The issue of jurisdiction was at the centre of a recent action in the Limassol District Court. The decision clarifies the case law relating to the interpretation of Article 7(2) of the recast EU Brussels Regulation and reaffirms the general principle that civil actions are to be brought against individuals and companies in the courts of the place where they are domiciled, except in specific instances where derogations from the general rule apply.
In a recent appeal case, the Supreme Court overturned a first-instance judgment regarding the timing of the completion of the pleadings and, consequently, the deadline for filing a summons for directions under Order 30 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Although the judgment in question examined the previous version of Order 30, it is useful for litigation lawyers as it clarifies when pleadings are deemed to have been completed, which remains the starting point for the deadline to file a summons for directions.
A recent administrative court case concerned the legality of a tender for the development of a new €200 million-plus marina in Paphos. The court decision was based on the well-established principle that the decision-making process of any collective body regarding a specific matter must be consistent from beginning to end and requires the presence of the same members of the body in order to ensure that all members are aware of and able to evaluate all factors which come to light during the process.
A recent administrative court case examined an allegation that an Electricity Authority of Cyprus (EAC) committee established to determine staff promotions had been invalidly constituted. The meeting under review had not been chaired by the EAC chair, as required by the relevant regulations, and no reason for this absence was provided. The court found that the absence of any record of the reasons for the chair's non-attendance at the meeting was sufficient grounds to invalidate the decisions made.
A recent case has affirmed that only completed actions can be subject to administrative review, and that an applicant must possess a legitimate interest at three crucial stages in order to pursue an action in the Administrative Court. The case concerned a complaint that a third party had been promoted unfairly in preference to other applicants. However, the applicant had filed his action before the third party accepted the promotion, so that when the action was filed there was no promotion to complain about.