As of September 2023, Cyprus implemented new Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), a significant reform aimed at modernizing and improving the efficiency of the judicial process. This reform, modelled after the English Civil Procedure Rules, was a major undertaking by the Cypriot Supreme Court, with the support of the Structural Reform Support Service (SRSS) of the European Commission. The project included an in-depth review by the Irish Institute of Public Administration (IPA) under the guidance of the Rt. Hon. Lord Dyson, former Head of the Civil Court of Appeal of England and Wales.

These new rules bring forth a hybrid procedural system: cases initiated before September 2023 are (generally) governed by the old CPR, while cases filed afterward fall under the new rules. This transitional period has inevitably led to procedural uncertainty and in some instances to mistakes and errors. This guide delves into two recent Cypriot court judgments, highlighting how Cypriot Courts will deal with such arguments.

The Case of Miltiades Neophytou Civil Engineering Contractors & Developers Ltd v Paphos Municipality

Civil Appeal no. E5/2018, 16/01/2024

In this appeal, the appellee mistakenly filed an application to extend the deadline for submitting its written address under the old procedural rules, despite the case being governed by the new CPR. The opposition promptly pointed out this error, arguing that the application was void ab initio.

The appellant stressed the importance of compliance with the new 2023 Civil Procedure Rules to ensure a more disciplined approach to court procedures.

In addressing the issue, the Court of Appeal referred to Part 3.8 of the new CPR, which deals specifically with procedural errors:

Furthermore, the Court of Appeal underscored that it would only cancel a procedural step if the following two conditions are met:

The Court of Appeal concluded that, in this particular instance, the application contained all the necessary elements for proper consideration and did not infringe on the rights of any third party. Therefore, the court decided to rectify the application, allowing it to proceed. The court’s decision to allow the application aligned with the primary purpose of the new rules: ensuring fair and effective access to the courts while avoiding unnecessary procedures over technical matters.

However, the Court of Appeal issued a cautionary note, emphasizing that this decision should not be interpreted as encouraging the violation of procedural rules by using incorrect forms. The Court of Appeal made it clear that this case was judged strictly based on its specific circumstances, particularly due to the recent implementation of the 2023 Civil Procedure Rules.

The Case of Andreas Schmatzer v Raging Rhino MV et al.

Claim no. 563/2023, 22/02/2024

In this case, where the Claimant is represented by the lawyers of Economou & Co LLC, Defendant 2 argued that the Claimant had incorrectly initiated proceedings under Part 8. According to the defendant, the correct procedure to apply for a charging order over the shares owned by a judgment debtor, should have been under Part 23, which deals with cases where the Cypriot courts act in support of foreign legal proceedings.

The Claimant disagreed, arguing that Part 23 did not apply because there was no ongoing or expected legal proceedings of the purposes of Part 7.1(4). It argued that Part 23 typically covers situations where the court acts in support of legal proceedings occurring in a foreign jurisdiction. However, since decisions had already been issued in Austria, it was clear that no foreign proceedings were currently underway or expected to occur.

The Court agreed with the Claimant's position. It proceeded to also state that the overarching intent of the new 2023 Civil Procedure Rules was not to create unnecessary difficulties for litigants, nor were they designed to act as obstacles in their application. The Court emphasized that the purpose of the Rules was to facilitate, rather than hinder, access to justice.

Conclusion

These two recent cases offer valuable insights into how Cypriot courts are managing the transition to the new Civil Procedure Rules. Both judgments highlight the courts' commitment to interpreting the rules in accordance with their primary purpose: ensuring the swift and efficient administration of justice.

As succinctly stated by Gavriilidis D. in the case of Panagiotis Louca Ltd v Elias Onoufriou (2004) 1 ΑΑΔ 582:

As the new Civil Procedure Rules continue to shape the legal landscape in Cyprus, legal professionals must stay vigilant, ensuring strict compliance with the new procedural framework. At the same time, Courts will likely continue their balanced approach.

---

This guide is essential for anyone dealing with the Cyprus Civil Procedure Rules, offering insights into how courts are handling the transition and procedural errors. The aim is to provide a clear understanding of how the 2023 CPR affects ongoing and new cases while emphasizing the importance of procedural compliance.