Injunctions with Extraterritorial Effect / Litigation - Cyprus.

Before the accession of Cyprus to the European Union, the Cypriot courts did not have jurisdiction to issue injunctions with extraterritorial effect. This principle was established by the Supreme Court in the Pastella Case.

Upon accession to the European Union, however, the jurisdiction of the Cypriot courts to issue injunctions was extended by the EU Regulation on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (44/2001). Pursuant to the regulation, the Cypriot courts have the power to grant interim relief when substantive proceedings are pending before the courts of an EU member state and the subject matter of the proceedings falls within the scope of the regulation. In addition, the Cypriot courts can issue ex parte injunctions that, pursuant to the terms of the regulation, can be registered and enforced in any EU member state.

In Seamark Consultancy Services Ltd v Joseph Lasala the Supreme Court, in its jurisdiction as an appellate court, declared that the Pastella Case was bad law. Instead, the Supreme Court recognized the jurisdiction of the Cypriot courts to issue injunctions with extraterritorial effect and extended this jurisdiction to cover non-EU member states. The Supreme Court's ruling was influenced by several UK court decisions on the issue.

Under the regulation, the Cypriot courts can now issue injunctions with extraterritorial effect even if the defendant or respondent does not reside within the jurisdiction of the Cypriot courts, as such injunctions can be registered and enforced in all EU member states.

Furthermore, pursuant to the principles laid down in the Seamark Case, the Cypriot courts can issue injunctions with extraterritorial effect in countries that are not member states of the European Union, provided that the defendant or respondent is located within the jurisdiction of the Cypriot courts.

"International Law Office"