In a recent case the Supreme Court decided, among other things, that Law 101/87, which adopted the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, does not apply to contracts to which Cyprus is a party, except with the prior consent and approval of the Council of Ministers.
Cyprus is a contracting party to the New York Convention, which regulates the registration and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Case law reveals that Cypriot courts strictly interpret the provisions of the convention. As a result, numerous applications for the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards have been dismissed on procedural grounds.
Following the Turkish invasion, the state passed a law assigning the management and custody of all Turkish-Cypriot immovable property situated in the free area of Cyprus to the minister of interior. A recent Supreme Court of Cyprus judgment declared all contracts of sale of Turkish-Cypriot immovable property that were made without the custodian’s prior consent as void ab initio and unenforceable.
In a recent decision, a Cypriot district court rejected an application for the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award issued by the Austrian Arbitral Centre due to the applicant's failure to produce the original arbitral agreement or a certified true copy of the arbitral agreement.
Cyprus has adopted the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law(UNCITRAL) Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, with minor amendments. In a recent case the Supreme Court of Cyprus was invited to interpret Articles 25(a) and 34(1) of the UNCITRAL Model Law.
The recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Cyprus is governed by legislation that ratifies the New York Convention. The convention is applied not as a national law, but as an international treaty. As a result, the courts take into account not only Cypriot rulings but also foreign decisions when interpreting the convention, in order to ensure uniform application of the convention around the world.
In two recent cases the Limassol District Court has held that the statutory right of a shareholder to petition for the winding-up of the company in which it is a member cannot be excluded and/or waived by shareholders' agreement. As a result of a deadlock between shareholders, one of the shareholders lodged a petition for the winding-up of the companies.
The Supreme Court recently recognized and established the jurisdiction of the Cypriot courts to issue discovery and disclosure orders - known as Norwich Pharmacal and Bankers Trust orders. These two types of order were established by the English courts in earlier decisions.
Pursuant to the EU Regulation on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, the Cypriot courts now have the power to issue ex parte injunctions that, pursuant to the terms of the regulation, can be registered and enforced in any EU member state.
Following a 2004 ruling by the European Court of Justice, it is clear that anti-suit injunctions may be used only against non-EU member states. In a recent case a Cypriot first-instance court issued an anti-suit injunction preventing a Cypriot company from continuing a legal action filed against a foreign company before the Kazakhstan courts.