Update (25/3/13): Deal reached in early morning hours today in Brussels, approved by the Eurogroup, removes the possibility of Cyprus withdrawing from the eurozone. As per our below update, this has always been and now is an even more remote and extreme scenario. The deal agreed in Brussels, which would facilitate the conclusion of the terms of Cyprus’ financing, involves the resolution of Laiki Bank (Cyprus Popular Bank), splitting it into a “good bank” and a “bad bank” (which effectively means Laiki is essentially shut down). The legislative framework to achieve this has been in place since last week, following the entry into force of the relevant statutes by the Cypriot Parliament. Deposits below 100.000 euros in Laiki will be transferred to Bank of Cyprus. Deposits above 100.000 euros in Laiki, which under EU law are not insured, will be frozen and will be used to resolve debt. The Bank of Cyprus will take over a large portion of Laiki’s debt to ELA.

Update (23/3/13): Parliament voted to restructure the island’s banks, set up a national solidarity fund, and establish capital controls. But it has yet to vote on other key measures, including a bank levy.

Main update revised to reflect current situation:

Cyprus has found itself in an unprecedented economic crisis, which admittedly combines many elements of what can go wrong in a Member State of the EU and the Eurozone from a political, economic and legal perspective.

On 25 June 2012, the Cypriot government filed an official request for financial assistance to the Eurogroup. Based on a needs assessment, the financial assistance would be provided in the framework of a comprehensive adjustment programme. The programme, including the financing needs, will have to be agreed by the Commission, in liaison with the European Central Bank and the Cypriot government.

The present crisis, largely revolving around the country’s banking sector, commenced by a Eurogroup decision that publicly emerged on 16 March 2013. The Eurogroup decision, which constituted an apparent agreement over a levy being imposed on Cypriot bank deposits, was intensely criticized and a bill implementing its spirit was eventually rejected by the Cypriot Parliament. The levy was described as a means for the Cypriot Government to quickly obtain an amount of EUR5.8 billion that was required at the time, in light of its failing banks. Our Managing Advocate’s view, as expressed in the below article on Matrix Chambers’ eutopialaw.com blog, is that the Eurogroup made a grave mistake in facilitating such a political decision. At the same time, the Cypriot Government should not have accepted the burden of legislating on its own initiative to that effect, particularly in a manner that could be construed as being contrary to EU norms (at least not without a crystallization of circumstances that would justify such an extreme measure):

Read Anastasios Antoniou’s note on the deposits levy (which however does not constitute legal opinion and should not be relied on as legal advice by our Firm but is rather a general comment on the developments): ‘Original Sin: the EU tampering with the right to property in Cyprus is an unprecedented departure from EU norms and shared constitutional rights‘

The situation may seem complex at the moment, but legislative initiates have been undertaken at the time of writing and it is expected that Cyprus will take all necessary measures within this week that will allow a normalization of the situation and the bail-out to proceed. We urge all of our Clients and the general public interested in the developments on Cyprus to monitor closely official Government announcements and disregard any discussions taking place on televised broadcasts, the social networks or elsewhere. There are three Eurgroup statements and the Cypriot Government will soon be making an announcement on the developments.

Although a discussion of Cyprus leaving the euro is currently developing, no official authority at either an EU level or a national level has expressed such an option as plausible or possible. We do not see Cyprus’ exit from the eurozone as a possible scenario and consider this discussion futile in the same manner that the ‘Grexit’ saga climaxed throughout 2012. The only possibility of Cyprus switching currencies is for its’ Government to voluntarily abandon the euro as the State’s currency, but we express our confidence that the Cypriot Government is not interested in any such discussion and is committed to the country’s future in the Eurozone and the European Union, as has been officially expressed on a number of occasions. Therefore, our view as things currently stand is that the possibility of Cyprus abandoning the euro is an extreme, highly remote and unrealistic scenario.

Nevertheless, in light of some very strong opinions internationally regarding the exit of Cyprus from the eurozone, which we reiterate have no relationship to the official position of the Cypriot government, we have prepared, upon the request of some of our Clients, a brief note discussing the legal consequences of such a remote and extreme scenario (which under no circumstances prevails over our expressed view above, nor does it constitute specific or general legal advice or legal opinion and cannot be relied by any party as such). Prior to noting the below comments, we must say that our Firm’s view and position is that Cyprus belongs in the European Union, in the Eurozone and any different development will cause a political, social and financial isolation that should be avoided. It is unfortunately the case that the European Union itself has diverged from its founding principles and it is undergoing an identity crisis, which must not be to the sacrifice of the people of Cyprus, Greece or any other member state in financial hardship.

The extreme and remote scenario of a Eurozone exit

The EU treaties do not provide for the unilateral withdrawal of a member state from the eurozone (without first withdrawing from the European Union entirely). No provision exists for the forced ejection of a member state from the eurozone. Nevertheless, we deem it possible for a eurozone member state, in this case Cyprus, to withdraw from the eurozone on a consensual basis as a result of a political agreement amongst other member states (including Cyprus) for Cyprus to withdraw, which should be expected to lead to a primary legislative instrument that would govern this withdrawal, conversion of obligations into a new currency and other measures, such as capital controls and bank withdrawal caps (the latter being already part of the legislative package before the Cypriot Parliament). The challenge therefore will be for the Cypriot Government, should it decide that its’ future lies outside the eurozone, to facilitate an agreement that will lead to a carefully drafted treaty or an amendment to the EU Treaties (the latter being more remote but potentially necessary so as to avoid breach of the EU Treaties as they currently stand).

The risks of redenomination and how contracts are affected

The lex monetae principle would come into play in the case where withdrawal from the euro manifests itself as explained above. This would mean that where an amount is expressed in one currency in the context of a contractual obligation, the law of the country of the currency in which this amount is expressed will be the governing law as to the determination of what the currency is. For example, if a French borrower takes out a USD loan facility which is governed by English law, only US law can determine what “USD” is for the purpose of payment obligations by the French borrower under such loan facility.

However, the euro being a single currency shared by various sovereign states, causes some problems for the application of lex monetae. In the scenario where Cyprus abandons the euro, the question will arise in which currency payments under a contract will be made and the conversion rate that will apply. Although the case is more clear where the contract is purely Cypriot (eg between two Cypriot limited liability companies, performance governed under Cyprus law and in Cyprus), in which case the lex monetae is highly likely to be Cypriot, some issues may arise where one of the parties is not Cypriot. These complications can in any case be addressed by proper legislation at an EU (provided that Cyprus remains in the European Union in the case of a withdrawal from the eurozone) and at a national level (upon withdrawal). In the absence of such legislation, there are various factors to be taken into account under the lex monetae principle to determine whether payment obligations shall be in euro or in a potential new currency of Cyprus, these factors being:

• the intentions of the parties
• whether the debtors is a sovereign
• which is the place of performance

The above constitute a general brief and in the unfortunate case where an exit of Cyprus from the eurozone is facilitated, which is once again a remote scenario, regulated legal advice should be sought regarding Cyprus law implications.

Developments are of course constantly unfolding. Following fierce reactions to the Decision, the Eurogroup held an urgent teleconference on 18/3/13, resulting in a statement by its president, Jeroen Dijsselbloem. The statement sought to assure that deposits under EUR100.000 would be fully guaranteed in what is presented as an upholding of the Eurogroup’s ‘view’ that ‘small depositors should be treated differently from large depositors’. The issue is that the Eurogroup never expressed such a view in the first place. Nor did it bother itself with revisiting the various legal anomalies emanating from what it wants to present as a political decision enjoying the consensus of all Eurozone member states, but has in fact been a catastrophic step, irrespective of whether it is eventually passed into law by the Cypriot Parliament.

Reactions from economists, politicians, the media and analysts, but most importantly the outrage of the Cypriot people against the levy, could likely ostracize the intended levy from Cyprus’ bailout package. This note will not concern itself with the legal aspects of how the levy is being presented as a tax so as to evade the EU’s own deposit guarantee rules (Professor Lindseth’s post accurately illustrates such issues).

Nor does this note discuss any of the political aspects of the situation, despite the fact that being based in Cyprus I have been distressed to watch an utterly incompetent former government allowing public debt to grow even more and a failing nationalized bank turn into a ‘zombie’ over the past year. That Cyprus needs a bail-out today is not just due to public debt spiraling out of control, but also due to the fact that, according to a recent confession of the former Government’s own finance minister, it adhered to the Greek PSI without requesting a recapitalization of Cypriot banks. Cypriot banks, heavily exposed to Greek bonds, suffered immense losses from the Greek ‘haircut’ and it has been admitted by the former Cypriot government that they did not ‘comprehend’ what they were agreeing to at the time.

Deplorable as political incompetence of Cypriot’s former Government may be and distressing as the incumbent Government’s lack of political initiative may be, it is the legal rationale – or the lack of it to be precise – employed in the Eurogroup Decision that should be of concern. The Eurogroup Decision is widely understood as having been imposed on the Cypriot Government. But the Decision itself has no legal effect, Protocol 14 to the Lisbon Treaty may have formalized the Eurorgoup but this body remains devoid of any power to issue binding decisions having legal effects.

For a decision to facilitate the levy on bank deposits to be binding at an EU level, it should have been taken by the Council under its ECOFIN configuration. In such a case, namely where an ECOFIN decision had been in place as to how the Cyprus bailout would have materialized, the Cypriot Parliament would in fact be implementing EU law when legislating the levy on deposits.

What this note argues is that the Eurogroup, whether intentionally or not, in fact rolled over to Cyprus the responsibility for the legislative manifestation of the levy. In this manner, Cyprus remained hostage to the Eurogroup’s political Decision as a condition to its bailout by the ECB/EC/IMF troika. The ransom in this ‘hostage’ crisis was for Cyprus to burden itself with the responsibility of legislating contrary to one of the most fundamental rights protected under its own and the EU’s legal order: the right to property.

The right to property is a fundamental right common to all national constitutions. As far as the Cypriot legal order is concerned, the right to property is protected under the Constitution of Cyprus (Article 23). Despite its omission in the original European Convention of Human Rights (‘ECHR’) the right to property is enshrined as ‘the right to peaceful enjoyment of possession’ in Article 1 of Protocol I to the ECHR.

On an EU level, even prior to the enactment of the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights (‘Charter’), the right has been recognised on numerous occasions by the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (then ECJ) starting with the Hauer Judgment. Article 17(1) of the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights, essentially based on Article 1 of Protocol I to the ECHR, reads:

“Everyone has the right to own, use, dispose of and bequeath his or her lawfully acquired possessions. No one may be deprived of his or her possessions, except in the public interest and in the cases and under the conditions provided for by law, subject to fair compensation being paid in good time for their loss. The use of property may be regulated by law insofar as is necessary for the general interest.”

In accordance with Article 52(3) of the Charter the scope of the right is the same as that of the right guaranteed under the ECHR.

It is therefore the case that Cyprus legislation enforcing the levy emanates from a purely political decision that enjoys no legal basis. The Eurogroup has in the way achieved the apparent ‘inapplicability’ of the Charter as Cyprus could not be held to be implementing EU law in imposing the levy on its depositors. The astonishing result is that Cyprus is in fact called upon to transpose into its legal order the Eurogroup Decision, but as this Decision enjoys no legal force Cyprus ends up absorbing all liability for any infringement of the right to property under its own Constitution by enforcing a levy on its ‘own’ initiative.

Thereofore, where the levy becomes law, a judicial battle as to whether the levy infringes the right to property or not (on the basis of the ‘public interest’ exception), would be confined to Cyprus law and the Charter’s provisions would not be invoked. Moreover, the only recourse would be before Cyprus courts, in an effort to offend purely national statutory provisions that do not transpose any EU legal instrument.

There can be little doubt that had an ECOFIN decision been in place as preceding any national legislation on behalf of Cyprus, such national legislation would in fact fall within the scope of Article 51 of the Charter and the situation would have been quite different. Regarding the field of application of rights protected under the Charter, it is most useful to visit the CJEU’s very recent Judgment of 26/2/2013 in C-617/10 Åkerberg Fransson:

“20 That definition of the field of application of the fundamental rights of the European Union is borne out by the explanations relating to Article 51 of the Charter, which, in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 6(1) TEU and Article 52(7) of the Charter, have to be taken into consideration for the purpose of interpreting it (see, to this effect, Case C-279/09 DEB [2010] ECR I‑13849, paragraph 32). According to those explanations, ‘the requirement to respect fundamental rights defined in the context of the Union is only binding on the Member States when they act in the scope of Union law’.
21 Since the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter must therefore be complied with where national legislation falls within the scope of European Union law, situations cannot exist which are covered in that way by European Union law without those fundamental rights being applicable. The applicability of European Union law entails applicability of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter.”

For yet another time, law has fallen foul of politics. The Eurogroup ministers have committed an unprecedented departure from the protection of an inviolable right and they are asking Cyprus to carry the burden of legislating to that effect.

Anastasios A. Antoniou
Advocate (Cyprus)
Member of European Competition Lawyers Forum

How does Cyprus protect foreign investors?

Cyprus is a jurisdiction actively protecting foreign investment. Broadly speaking, Cyprus adheres to and its legal order has seamlessly transposed all four established types of mechanisms offered by states to foreign investors towards investment protection:

• Multilateral investment treaties
• Bilateral investment treaties
• Investment contracts
• Domestic investment legislation

Cyprus, an established business center and an aspiring financial hub, has ensured that adequate legal protection for foreign investors is afforded. Investment protection in Cyprus stems from international law, European Union (‘EU’) Law and Cyprus law itself. Cyprus’ accession to the EU has catalytically elevated the efficiency with which foreign investment must be treated. At an EU level, a comprehensive EU investment policy is implemented, allowing the EU to negotiate investment protection agreements itself. Article 207(1) of the TFEU explicitly mentions foreign direct investment as forming part of the common commercial policy, while the TFEU itself establishes the EU’s exclusive competence on foreign direct investment. Cyprus has a comprehensive, investment-friendly legal and regulatory framework. It employs a common law legal system that is widely recognized as particularly effective that together with the full transposition of the acquis communautaire result in making Cyprus one of the most stable and reliable jurisdictions. Cyprus’ corporate law, intellectual property law, investment services law and banking law are all aligned to the extensive foreign direct investment policy and ensure protection of foreign investments through widely accepted mechanisms.

Which international investment protection rules does Cyprus adopt?

International investment law aims to protect the owner of tangible or intangible assets who transfers them from one country to another to generate wealth from their use in that country. The safeguards relating to the protection for foreign investment and proprietary rights afforded by international investment law comprise the requirement of non­discrimination, the prohibition of confiscatory taxation, the standard treatment of foreign investors, and the doctrine of abuse of rights. Cyprus, a renowned international business center, is a signatory to a significant number of the major international conventions and treaties and has incorporated a plethora of acknowledged concepts and practices of international investment rules into its national legal order.

Is Cyprus a signatory to any international instruments relating to foreign investment?

Cyprus is a signatory to the most important multilateral treaties (‘MITs’) relating to foreign investment, which are briefly described herebelow. The Energy Charter Treaty (‘ECT’), signed and ratified by Cyprus, is an international agreement which establishes a multilateral framework for cross-border co-operation. The treaty covers all aspects of commercial energy activities including trade, transit, investments and energy efficiency and is responsible for protection of direct foreign investments. Its provisions protect investors and their investments from political risks involved in investing into a foreign country such as discrimination, expropriation, nationalization, breach of contract, damages due to war, etc. The Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (‘MIGA’) is an autonomous international organization (under the World Bank), to which Cyprus is a member state. MIGA offers insurance to cover five types of non-commercial risks: currency inconvertibility and transfer restriction; government expropriation; war, terrorism, and civil disturbance; breaches of contract; and the non-honoring of sovereign financial obligations.

The International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (‘ICSID’), established under the ICSID Convention of 1966, which Cyprus has signed and ratified, is an impartial international forum providing facilities for the resolution of legal disputes between eligible parties, through conciliation or arbitration procedures. ICSID can be utilized for the resolution of any investment dispute arising from an investment made by a national of a contracting state in the territory of another contracting state. As evidenced by its large membership, increasing caseload, and by the numerous references to its arbitration facilities in investment treaties and laws, ICSID has come to play an important role in the field of international investment and economic development. The principal requirements for ICSID arbitration are:

• party consent in writing; and
• the existence of a legal dispute arising from an investment between an ICSID

Contracting State and a national of another Contracting State. Consent to ICSID arbitration by a host state may be contained in national investment legislation, an investment contract or an investment treaty. ICSID is a self-contained system which provides for enforcement in Contracting States. It derives its authority from its status as an institution of the World Bank. Investment disputes may also be heard in other fora. Of the total investment disputes known to have been referred to arbitration, the overwhelming majority were filed with ICSID or under the ICSID Additional Facility (which provides for ICSID arbitration in circumstances where the requirements of the ICSID Convention are not met). However, the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce, the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague and the International Chamber of Commerce (‘ICC’) have also been chosen by parties for the settlement of investment disputes.

Does Cyprus have any Bilateral Investment Treaties with other states?

So far, Cyprus is a party to 23 Bilateral Investment Treaties (‘BIT’). Cyprus is bound by BITs with the following countries: Armenia, Belarus, Belgium and Luxembourg, Bulgaria, China, Czech Republic,Egypt, Greece, Hungary, India, Iran, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Lebanon, Malta, Montenegro, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Russian Federation, Serbia, and Seychelles.

BITs govern issues relating to investments carried out by nationals of one contracting state in another contracting state. They guarantee protection for such investments and provide regulations for settling any disputes which may arise therefrom. Nevertheless, despite the dispute resolution advantages that BITs afford, it should be stressed that within the context of its constitutionally enshrined safeguards, an investment-friendly domestic legal regime and its ratification of international legal instruments, the treatment provided for investors from states that are parties to BITs is essentially the same treatment which would be offered by Cyprus to investors from any country.

How do investment treaties protect investors?

BITs and MITs generally contain similar investor protections. The most common protections found in these instruments are:

• Protection from expropriation without compensation;
• Most favoured nation provisions;
• National treatment provisions;
• Fair and equitable treatment;
• Full protection and security; and
• Free transfer of investment and returns.

How does the Constitution of Cyprus afford protection to investors?

Part II of the Constitution of Cyprus (Fundamental Rights and Liberties, articles 6-35) establishes equality amongst all persons, irrespective of their nationality, and safeguards fundamental rights to the same extent as such rights are protected under the European Convention of Human Rights. Both foreign and national investors are offered continuous protection and security in Cyprus and enjoy the same rights and civil liberties, a main aspect of which is the right to access to justice. Of particular importance in the above context are the right to petition and the right to property. The right to petition is guaranteed under Article 29 of the Constitution. Any violation by an administrative authority of a person’s fundamental rights entitles such person to request this authority to remedy the situation. Moreover, any administrative act or omission that harms the legitimate interests of any person could be subject to administrative recourse pursuant to Article 146 of the Constitution.

The right of ownership of property is considered as one of the fundamental rights under the Constitution of Cyprus and as such it is clearly and absolutely protected by article 23 of the Constitution.

Is there an authority responsible for promoting foreign investment in Cyprus?

On a strategic level, a measure that unambiguously reflects the importance of the development of Cyprus as an attractive investment destination has been the establishment of the Cyprus Investment Promotion Agency (‘CIPA’), as of January 2008. CIPA is a registered non-profit company limited by guarantee and fully funded by the Government of Cyprus. CIPA has a threefold mandate:

• to promote Cyprus as an attractive international investment center in key priority growth sectors
• to advocate reform in Cyprus required to improve the regulatory and business environment and infrastructure
• to provide investor support with after care and further development services.

CIPA, in conjunction and partnership with the private sector and related government organizations and agencies, plays a significant role in promoting Cyprus as an appealing investment location, providing vital aftercare services to new and existing investors, and acting as an advocate for reforms that further improve the business operating environment. Cyprus is actively supporting the development of high value-added sectors that augment the island’s innovative capacity, international competitiveness and status as a knowledge economy. In this respect, CIPA’s strategic focus is to encourage investment in sectors and activities which result in products and services that encompass high value added knowledge and expertise. CIPA has established its membership with the world Association of investment Promotion Agencies (WAIPA), ANIMA Investment Network, the Mediterranean countries’ Investment Promotion Agencies network. Memberships in these and other fora provide a platform for best practices sharing and learning in the area of FDI promotion and strategy implementation.

Are there any specifically regulated sectors or ‘restricted investments’?

In line with the freedom of establishment there are no restrictions on investment by citizens of EU member states other than those applying to specifically regulated sectors, such as banking and finance sectors, where approvals may be required for customer protection purposes, but these apply equally to Cypriots, nationals of other EU member states and third-country nationals. For both EU and third country investors, restrictions remain on acquisitions in the areas of real estate, tertiary education, public utilities, radio and television stations, newspapers and magazines and airlines. It is characteristic that the Movement of Capital Law 115(I) of 2003 ensures that no restrictions in relation to the movement of capital shall exist, including profits and dividends, from Cyprus to any person in either a Member State of the EU or a third country. Furthermore, there is no exchange control legislation in Cyprus and residents and non­residents alike may hold and manage assets and liabilities in any foreign currency in any jurisdiction, including freely convertible and transferable balances on the island. In all but a very few strategic sectors of the economy, namely those perceived to relate to national and public security, foreign investors may now participate with no limits on equity holdings and without any prescribed minimum level of capital investment. In general, foreign investors no longer need approval from the Central Bank of Cyprus and may invest and do business in most sectors in Cyprus on equal terms with local investors.

Is there a mandatory screening of foreign investment?

There is no mandatory screening of foreign investment. Foreign investors can incorporate a company directly at the Registrar of Companies through regulated lawyers (advocates), a procedure identical to that for national residents. Similarly, foreign investors may acquire shares in an existing Cypriot company directly, without prior permission by the Central Bank (which had been the previous regime). Companies, are, however, required to make relevant filings with the Registrar of Companies over any change in their ownership.

Are taxation matters subject to protection?

Cyprus has developed a wide network of Double Tax agreements with more than 45 states, ensuring that the same income is not taxed in more than one country. Moreover, Cyprus is negotiating the conclusion or awaiting ratification of Double Taxation Agreements with several other countries. Moreover, Cyprus has laid particular attention to elevating both the competitiveness and the investment protection approach with respect to its shipping sector. It is considered as one of the most competitive shipping centers in the world in terms of registration fees and taxes. No tax is imposed on profits from the operation of Cypriot registered vessels, or on dividends received from a ship-owning company.

Have there been any recent changes or proposals for change to the regime?

The Government of Cyprus is committed to implementing reforms to further strengthen the investment protection regime. Since acceding to the EU, Cyprus has implemented significant economic and structural reforms which transformed the economic and business landscape of the country. Tariffs and quantitative restrictions have been eliminated for all manufactured goods and agricultural products originating in Cyprus and other EU countries, liberalizing trade. Within the EU, the Common Customs tariff and all relevant EU legislative frameworks for the facilitation of the free movement of goods, capital and services have been adopted. CIPA, acting in conjunction with both the public and the private sectors, is advancing significant initiatives in ensuring that laws and regulations are updated and is actively involved in advocating key reforms to remove hurdles and further improve the regulatory and business environment in Cyprus.

In 2013 alone, which is only in its second month, has seen a plethora of contributions by our Firm’s members in leading publications. The following list is indicative and we would be delighted to discuss the contents or any matter relating to the below articles and chapters with any interested person at info@antoniou.com.cy:

Cyprus Chapter, The International Comparative Legal Guide to Oil & Gas Regulation 2013  (This article appeared in the 2013 edition of The International Comparative Legal Guide to: Oil & Gas Regulation; published by Global Legal Group Ltd, London www.iclg.co.uk)

Cyprus Chapter, The International Comparative Legal Guide to Merger Control 2013  (This article appeared in the 2013 edition of The International Comparative Legal Guide to: Merger Control; published by Global Legal Group Ltd, London www.iclg.co.uk)

‘Oil Regulation and Natural Gas’, Cyprus Law Digest (2012) Nomiki Bibliothiki, published under the auspices of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, the Cyprus Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Cyprus Investment Promotion Agency and the Cyprus Bar Association (www.cypruslawdigest.com)

‘Antitrust Regulation – Cartels – Abuse of Dominance’, Cyprus Law Digest (2012) Nomiki Bibliothiki, published under the auspices of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, the Cyprus Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Cyprus Investment Promotion Agency and the Cyprus Bar Association (www.cypruslawdigest.com)

‘Notification of Concentrations/Merger Control’, Cyprus Law Digest (2012) Nomiki Bibliothiki, published under the auspices of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, the Cyprus Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Cyprus Investment Promotion Agency and the Cyprus Bar Association (www.cypruslawdigest.com)

‘Protection of Foreign Investments’, Cyprus Law Digest (2012) Nomiki Bibliothiki, published under the auspices of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, the Cyprus Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Cyprus Investment Promotion Agency and the Cyprus Bar Association (www.cypruslawdigest.com)

Cyprus Chapter, The European Antitrust Review 2013 at GCR’s website (link directs to third party content, an extract from The European Antitrust Review 2013 – a Global Competition Review special report – www.GlobalCompetitionReview.com)

Cyprus Chapter, Merger Control 2013 Getting the Deal Through (Reproduced with permission from Law Business Research Ltd. This article was first published in Getting the Deal Through – Merger Control 2012, (published in September 2012; consulting editor: John Davies, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer).

‘The legal elements of private funds regulation in Cyprus which classify it as an ideal alternative funds jurisdiction’, The Euromoney Global Asset Management & Servicing Review 2012/13

ANASTASIOS ANTONIOU LLC‘s commitment to legal clarity in everything it does means that we could only be supplementing our merger control practice with a significant contribution to jurisprudence on the subject. Beyond the landmark decisions we have obtained from the CPC, which greatly clarify a previously unchartered practice area in Cyprus, the Firm’s lawyers are also avid contributors to journals, books and other publications on competition law and merger control. 2012 saw the sponsoring of the 6th International Competition Law & Policy Conference by the Firm – following successful sponsorships of the fifth such conference and the European Commission’s Merger Regulation anniversary conference in 2011. At the same time, the Firm has contributed the merger control chapter for Cyprus in the following publications:

The European Antitrust Review 2013 at GCR’s website (link directs to third party content, an extract from The European Antitrust Review 2013 – a Global Competition Review special report – www.GlobalCompetitionReview.com)

Merger Control 2013 Getting the Deal Through (Reproduced with permission from Law Business Research Ltd. This article was first published in Getting the Deal Through – Merger Control 2012, (published in September 2012; consulting editor: John Davies, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer)

The International Comparative Legal Guide to Merger Control 2013 (This article appeared in the 2013 edition of The International Comparative Legal Guide to: Merger Control; published by Global Legal Group Ltd, London www.iclg.co.uk)

‘Antitrust Regulation – Cartels – Abuse of Dominance’, Cyprus Law Digest (2012) Nomiki Bibliothiki, published under the auspices of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, the Cyprus Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Cyprus Investment Promotion Agency and the Cyprus Bar Association (www.cypruslawdigest.com)

‘Notification of Concentrations/Merger Control’, Cyprus Law Digest (2012) Nomiki Bibliothiki, published under the auspices of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, the Cyprus Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Cyprus Investment Promotion Agency and the Cyprus Bar Association (www.cypruslawdigest.com)

You can read more about our competition law and merger control practice here, while you can contact our competition team for any enquiries.
ANASTASIOS ANTONIOU LLC has over 2012 consolidated its position as the leading Merger Control law firm in Cyprus, clearing concentrations for a number of multinational corporations under Cyprus law. The Firm’s ‘solid reputation’, as the Legal 500 have said in their 2012 EMEA edition in which they have ranked the Firm as leading firm in EU & Competition law in Cyprus, remains unparalleled and is affirmed on each successful concentration clearance with the Cyprus Commission for the Protection of Competition (CPC). The Firm’s satisfied Clients, from Glencore to Western Union, Vale, Travelex and Henkel and from the Government of the Czech Republic to AIG, have seen acquisitions, takeovers and mergers being handled successfully as to their competition law aspects by our expert antitrust lawyers, while the Firm is the first stop for Cyprus merger control and competition law for global law firms such as Clifford Chance, Freshfields, Linklaters, Sidley Austin, Bird & Bird and others.

ANASTASIOS ANTONIOU LLC‘s commitment to legal clarity in everything it does means that we could only be supplementing our merger control practice with a significant contribution to jurisprudence on the subject. Beyond the landmark decisions we have obtained from the CPC, which greatly clarify a previously unchartered practice area in Cyprus, the Firm’s lawyers are also avid contributors to journals, books and other publications on competition law and merger control. 2012 saw the sponsoring of the 6th International Competition Law & Policy Conference by the Firm – following successful sponsorships of the fifth such conference and the European Commission’s Merger Regulation anniversary conference in 2011. At the same time, the Firm has contributed the merger control chapter for Cyprus in the following publications:

The European Antitrust Review 2013 at GCR’s website (link directs to third party content, an extract from The European Antitrust Review 2013 – a Global Competition Review special report – www.GlobalCompetitionReview.com)

Merger Control 2013 Getting the Deal Through (Reproduced with permission from Law Business Research Ltd. This article was first published in Getting the Deal Through – Merger Control 2012, (published in September 2012; consulting editor: John Davies, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer)

The International Comparative Legal Guide to Merger Control 2013 (This article appeared in the 2013 edition of The International Comparative Legal Guide to: Merger Control; published by Global Legal Group Ltd, London www.iclg.co.uk)

‘Antitrust Regulation – Cartels – Abuse of Dominance’, Cyprus Law Digest (2012) Nomiki Bibliothiki, published under the auspices of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, the Cyprus Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Cyprus Investment Promotion Agency and the Cyprus Bar Association (www.cypruslawdigest.com)

‘Notification of Concentrations/Merger Control’, Cyprus Law Digest (2012) Nomiki Bibliothiki, published under the auspices of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, the Cyprus Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Cyprus Investment Promotion Agency and the Cyprus Bar Association (www.cypruslawdigest.com)

You can read more about our competition law and merger control practice here, while you can contact our competition team for any enquiries.

Being a Leading Law Firm in Competition law, acclaimed for our ‘extensive expertise’ and ‘solid reputation’ by the Legal 500 and awarded by a plethora of international legal rankings for our antitrust work, we are one of the few truly specialized competition practices in Cyprus dealing with both domestic and cross-border competition issues, should these arise in the context of anticompetitive and collusive behaviour, such as in agreements, decisions or concerted practices between competitiors, or in the context of mergers and acquisitions in relation to which notification to the Competition Authority may be necessary.

We provide our legal services in relation to the following situations:

• Cartels, price fixing and other coordinated practices between competitors
• Abuses of market dominance as well as refusals to access or supply or other entry barriers
• Anticompetitive agreements such as tying and bundling
• Advise on your agreements, decisions and practices so that these are compliant with competition rules
• Ensure mergers and acquisitions are compliant with competition rules and are duly notified to the competent authorities for clearance
• Competition Litigation of any kind, including interim measures

Our work also focuses in sector-specific compliance, including energy (electricity and gas),telecommunications, air transport and media.

You can read an extract from our Cyprus chapter to the European Antitrust Review 2013 at GCR’s website (link directs to third party content, an extract from The European Antitrust Review 2013 – a Global Competition Review special report – www.GlobalCompetitionReview.com).

Cyprus merger control is exclusively regulated under the Control of Concentrations of Undertakings Law 22(I)/1999, as amended. The jurisdictional thresholds that give rise to the requirement to notify a concentration to the Cypriot competition authority Cyprus are that:

• at least two of the concentrating undertakings have a total turnover of at least €3.4 million each; and
• at least €3.4 million out of the aggregate turnover of all the participating undertakings relates to the disposal of goods or the supply of services within Cyprus; and
• at least one of the concentrating undertakings is engaged in commercial activities in Cyprus

Being ranked as a Leading Cyprus Law Firm and acclaimed for our ‘extensive expertise‘ and ‘solid reputation‘ by the Legal 500 and other legal rankings and eminent directories, we regularly render our legal services to a number of multinational companies that engage in concentrations that need to be notified to the Cyprus Commission for the Protection of Competition. Our Firm renders its legal services towards:

• Advising on whether a merger, acquisition or joint venture must be notified to the Cyprus competition authority and/or the European Commission;
• Preparing, drafting and submitting Notifications of Concentrations relating to mergers, acquisitions and joint ventures to the Cyprus competition authority and/or the European Commission;
• Advising on the Cyprus law aspects of regional and/or international mergers, acquisitions and joint ventures and formulating legal strategies that pursue and achieve clearance of concentrations;
• Handling the full process of interacting with the competent authorities, dealing with their requests and securing clearance of a concentration;
• Advising on Phase II investigations and handling the full process of interaction with the Cyprus competition authority in that regard;
• Conducting hearings before the Cyprus competition authority with respect to merger notifications.

Find out more about our Merger Control practice or visit GTDT’s website for information on the Merger Control 2013 guide.

• Cartels, price fixing and other coordinated practices between competitors
• Abuses of market dominance as well as refusals to access or supply or other entry barriers
• Anticompetitive agreements such as tying and bundling
• Advise on your agreements, decisions and practices so that these are compliant with competition rules
• Ensure mergers and acquisitions are compliant with competition rules and are duly notified to the competent authorities for clearance
• Competition Litigation of any kind, including interim measures

Our work also focuses in sector-specific compliance, including energy (electricity and gas), telecommunications, air transport and media.

During the past two years, the Firm had been a sponsor of ‘Merger Regulation in the EU after 20 years’ organised by the International Bar Association’s (“IBA”) Antitrust Committee and the European Commission held in Brussels, of IMEDIPA and UCL’s 5th International Competition Conference in Athens, and various other competition law-related workshops and conferences in Cyprus and abroad.

Contact our competition law practice for more information on our competition law and merger control work.