Cyprus Shipping Law

Published by Global Legal Group, with contributions from:
Achour Law Firm
Advokatfirma Ræder DA
Ali Budiardjo, Nugroho, Reksodiputro
Anastasios Antoniou LLC
Araya & Compañía Abogados
Armando Henriques, Ana Cristina Pimentel & Associados,
Sociedade de Advogados, RL
Bech-Bruun
Bland & Partners P.L.L.C.
Bloomfield Advocates & Solicitors
Borenius Attorneys Ltd
Bull, Housser & Tupper LLP
Clyde & Co LLP
Clyde & Co US LLP
Dingli & Dingli
Estudio Arca & Paoli Abogados S.A.C.
Fleet Hamburg LLP
FRANCO & ABOGADOS ASOCIADOS
GENI & KEBE
GUR LAW FIRM
Holman Fenwick Willan
The International Comparative Legal Guide to:
A practical cross-border insight into shipping law
3rd Edition
Shipping Law 2015
ICLG
Izard Weston
Kegels & Co
Kincaid | Mendes Vianna Advogados
L&J LAW OFFICE, LPC
Lee and Li, Attorneys-at-Law
LEWIS & CO AARPI
LEX NAVICUS CONCORDIA
MALSCO LAW OFFICE
Marine Legal Adviser Co
MAQS Advokatbyrå
Murillo, Maldonado, Arredondo y Asociados, S.C.
Patton, Moreno & Asvat
Q.E.D INTERLEX CONSULTING SRL
Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Rosicki, Grudzinski & Co.
Sabatino Pizzolante Abogados Marítimos & Comerciales
SAN SIMÓN & DUCH
Shepstone & Wylie Attorneys
Tonucci & Partners
Van Steenderen Mainport Lawyers
VUKIĆ & PARTNERS
Wintell & Co

WWW.ICLG.CO.UK
Further copies of this book and others in the series can be ordered from the publisher. Please call +44 20 7367 0720
Disclaimer
This publication is for general information purposes only. It does not purport to provide comprehensive full legal or other advice.
Global Legal Group Ltd. and the contributors accept no responsibility for losses that may arise from reliance upon information contained in this publication.
This publication is intended to give an indication of legal issues upon which you may need advice. Full legal advice should be taken from a qualified
professional when dealing with specific situations.
General Chapters:
The International Comparative Legal Guide to: Shipping Law 2015
Contributing Editor
Ed Mills-Webb,
Clyde & Co LLP
Head of Business
Development
Dror Levy
Sales Director
Florjan Osmani
Commercial Director
Antony Dine
Account Directors
Oliver Smith, Rory Smith
Senior Account Manager
Maria Lopez
Sales Support Manager
Toni Hayward
Senior Editor
Suzie Levy
Sub Editor
Amy Hirst
Group Consulting Editor
Alan Falach
Group Publisher
Richard Firth
Published by
Global Legal Group Ltd.
59 Tanner Street
London SE1 3PL, UK
Tel: +44 20 7367 0720
Fax: +44 20 7407 5255
Email: info@glgroup.co.uk
URL: www.glgroup.co.uk
GLG Cover Design
F&F Studio Design
GLG Cover Image Source
iStockphoto
Printed by
Ashford Colour Press Ltd.
July 2015
Copyright © 2015
Global Legal Group Ltd.
All rights reserved
No photocopying
ISBN 978-1-910083-55-0
ISSN 2052-5419
Strategic Partners
Country Question and Answer Chapters:
3 Albania Tonucci & Partners: Endrit Shashaj 10
4 Australia Holman Fenwick Willan: Hazel Brewer & Nic van der Reyden 15
5 Belgium Kegels & Co: Andre Kegels 22
6 Brazil Kincaid | Mendes Vianna Advogados: Godofredo Mendes Vianna
& Camila Mendes Vianna Cardoso 29
7 Canada Bull, Housser & Tupper LLP: John W. Bromley 35
8 Chile Araya & Compañía Abogados: Rafael Durán & Fernando Arancibia 40
9 China Wintell & Co: James Hu & Mervyn Chen 46
10 Colombia FRANCO & ABOGADOS ASOCIADOS: Javier Franco-Zárate 52
11 Croatia VUKIĆ & PARTNERS: Prof.dr.sc. Gordan Stanković 56
12 Cyprus Anastasios Antoniou LLC: Anastasios A. Antoniou & Aquilina Demetriadi 61
13 Denmark Bech-Bruun: Johannes Grove Nielsen & Camilla Søgaard Madsen 68
14 Dominican Republic Q.E.D INTERLEX CONSULTING SRL: Luis Lucas Rodríguez 74
15 England Clyde & Co LLP: Ed Mills-Webb 79
16 Estonia MALSCO LAW OFFICE: Indrek Nuut 84
17 Finland Borenius Attorneys Ltd: Ulla von Weissenberg 88
18 France LEWIS & CO AARPI: Leila Esnard & Guillaume de Bascher 93
19 Georgia Marine Legal Adviser Co.: Valerian Imnaishvili & Paata Kopaleishvili 99
20 Germany Fleet Hamburg LLP: Dr. Christoph Hasche & Ingo Jacobs 105
21 Indonesia Ali Budiardjo, Nugroho, Reksodiputro: Sahat A.M. Siahaan
& Muhammad Muslim 111
22 Japan L&J LAW OFFICE, LPC: Hirokazu Abe & Hajime Sasaki 116
23 Malta Dingli & Dingli: Dr. Tonio Grech & Dr. Fleur Delia 123
24 Mexico Murillo, Maldonado, Arredondo y Asociados, S.C.: Rafael Murillo 127
25 Netherlands Van Steenderen Mainport Lawyers: Arnold J van Steenderen
& Charlotte J van Steenderen 131
26 New Zealand Izard Weston: John Burton & Robert Cahn 137
27 Nigeria Bloomfield Advocates & Solicitors: Olabode Adegoke 142
28 Norway Advokatfirma Ræder DA: Jon Andersen & Mona Lynne Eitzen 146
29 Panama Patton, Moreno & Asvat: Khatiya Asvat Patel & Nadya K. Price S. 151
30 Peru Estudio Arca & Paoli Abogados S.A.C.: Francisco Arca Patiño
& Carla Paoli Consigliere 158
31 Poland Rosicki, Grudzinski & Co.: Maciej Grudziński & Piotr Rosicki 163
32 Portugal Armando Henriques, Ana Cristina Pimentel & Associados,
Sociedade de Advogados, RL: Ana Cristina Pimentel 169
33 Russia LEX NAVICUS CONCORDIA: Konstantin Krasnokutskiy 174
34 Senegal GENI & KEBE: Codou Sow-Seck & Dr. Aboubacar Fall 179
35 Singapore Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP: Kendall Tan & Koh See Bin 183
1 Unsafe Ports and the ‘Ocean Victory’; What is an ‘Abnormal Occurrence’? – Ed Mills-Webb
& Mark Tilley, Clyde & Co LLP 1
2 Maritime Liens: Recent Developments in U.S. Law Following the Collapse of OW Bunker
– John R. Keough & George G. Cornell, Clyde & Co US LLP 5
Continued Overleaf

EDITORIAL
Welcome to the third edition of The International Comparative Legal
Guide to: Shipping Law.
This guide provides the international practitioner and in-house counsel
with a comprehensive worldwide legal analysis of shipping laws and
regulations.
It is divided into two main sections:
Two general chapters. These are designed to provide readers with a
comprehensive overview of key issues affecting shipping law, particularly
from the perspective of a multi-jurisdictional transaction.
Country question and answer chapters. These provide a broad overview of
common issues in shipping laws and regulations in 41 jurisdictions.
All chapters are written by leading shipping lawyers and industry specialists
and we are extremely grateful for their excellent contributions.
Special thanks are reserved for the contributing editor Ed Mills-Webb of
Clyde & Co LLP for his invaluable assistance.
Global Legal Group hopes that you find this guide practical and interesting.
The International Comparative Legal Guide series is also available online
at www.iclg.co.uk.
Alan Falach LL.M.
Group Consulting Editor
Global Legal Group
Alan.Falach@glgroup.co.uk
36 South Africa Shepstone & Wylie Attorneys: Shane Michael Steven Dwyer
& Vanil Stephen Bagwandeen 189
37 Spain SAN SIMÓN & DUCH: Mercedes Duch & Luis De San Simón 196
38 Sweden MAQS Advokatbyrå: Kawin Mårtensson & Annica Börjesson 202
39 Taiwan Lee and Li, Attorneys-at-Law: Daniel T.H. Tsai & James Chang 207
40 Tunisia Achour Law Firm: Abdelmonem Achour 212
41 Turkey GUR LAW FIRM: Tevfik Gür & Serkan Yildirim 218
42 USA Bland & Partners P.L.L.C.: Matthew C. Guy & David S. Bland 223
43 Venezuela Sabatino Pizzolante Abogados Marítimos & Comerciales:
José Alfredo Sabatino Pizzolante & Iván Darío Sabatino Pizzolante 230
Country Question and Answer Chapters:
The International Comparative Legal Guide to: Shipping Law 2015

ICLG TO: SHIPPING LAW 2015 61WWW.ICLG.CO.UK
© Published and reproduced with kind permission by Global Legal Group Ltd, London
1 Marine Casualty
1.1 In the event of a collision, grounding or other major
casualty, what are the key provisions that will impact
upon the liability and response of interested parties?
In particular, the relevant law / conventions in force in
relation to:
(i) Collision
The International Convention for the Unification of Certain
Rules of Law with respect to Collisions between Vessels
and Protocol of Signature, Brussels 23 September 1910, is
fully applicable in Cyprus by virtue of Article 188 of the
Constitution, as per the judgment of the Supreme Court of
Cyprus in Danish Danish Kingdom v Mystic Isle Navigation
Company Ltd (1990) 1 CLR 850.
The International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at
Sea of 1972 apply in Cyprus by virtue of the relevant statute
(Law 18/1980) ratifying the relevant Convention of 1972.
They apply to all Cyprus registered ships and to all other ships
within the territorial waters of Cyprus. Their application is
illustrated in The Ship NAWAL v The Ship BAYONNE (1994)
1 CLR 54 and Constantinos Sklavos v the Ship NATALEMAR
(1999) 1B CLR 1079.
Cyprus courts have jurisdiction to hear any claim for damage
done to a ship in rem, provided that physical presence of
the res within the territory of Cyprus is established, towards
enabling service of the writ of summons (service out of
jurisdiction is not available for in rem proceedings).
Alternatively,proceedingsmaybefiledagainsttheshipowners
of the vessel having their residence or place of business in
Cyprus. Where the shipowners do not reside in Cyprus,
in personam proceedings are subject to the procedural and
substantial rules regulating service out of the jurisdiction.
(ii) Pollution
Cyprus is State party to the major international instruments
relating to the prevention and management of pollution.
Specifically, it is a party to and has ratified the International
Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage
of 1969 (“CLC”) and the 1992 Protocol amending same
(ratification Laws 1989 to 2005) as well as the International
Convention for the Establishment of an International Fund
for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage of 1971 and
subsequent amendments (ratification laws 1989 to 1997).
The liability regime under the said instruments has been
extended to cover the exclusive economic zones (“EEZ”) of
state parties.
Under the CLC liability regime, strict liability applies for
shipowners. The right of the owner to limit liability can be
removed by virtue of acts or omissions of the owner itself,
with the burden of proving the shipowner’s conduct being on
the claimant.
Cyprus is also party to the International Convention for the
Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973 as modified by the
Protocol of 1978 (“MARPOL 73/78”) and its amendments,
which has been ratified by virtue of the relevant Laws 1989
to 2005.
As regards the Mediterranean, Cyprus is a party to Convention
for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea Against Pollution
and Connected Protocols and has ratified the same by virtue
of Law of 1979 (Law 51/79) and amendments thereto by
virtue of subsequent legislation (Laws 20(III)/2001 and Law
35(III)/2007 respectively). Cyprus is also a party to the
Trilateral Agreement between Cyprus, Israel and Egypt for
Cooperation in Combating Major Marine Pollution Incidents
in the Mediterranean.
(iii) Salvage / general average
Cyprus is not a state party to the 1989 International
Convention on Salvage. The Wrecks Law, Cap. 298 (“Cap.
298”) regulates salvage and wreck removal. Cap. 298 vests
the Council of Ministers of the Republic with the power to
appoint a Receiver of Wrecks (“Receiver”) in each of the
Republic’s Districts.
Pursuant to the provisions of s. 24 of Cap. 298 where:
(a) any ship or boat is stranded or is otherwise in distress
on the shore of any sea or tidal water situated within the
limits of Cyprus, and services are rendered by any person
in:
(i) assisting her;
(ii) saving the lives of the persons belonging to her; or
(iii) saving her cargo or apparel, or any portion thereof;
and
(b) whenever any wreck is saved by any person other than
a Receiver within Cyprus, the owners of the ship or boat,
cargo, apparel or wreck, as the case may be, shall be under
an obligation to pay any such person a reasonable amount
together with all expenses properly incurred in the course
of providing the said services.
The Receiver may appoint a valuer to establish the reasonable
amount of salvage due, while he also has the right to sell the
salvaged ship, her apparel or cargo where salvage payment
has not taken place within 30 days as of the day it became
due.
As per the Supreme Court in Kaddoura Abdul Rahman
Mohamed and Another v The Ship Sea Horse and Another
(1988) 1 CLR 713, for an operation to be one of “salvage
services” the following elements must exist:
Anastasios A. Antoniou
Aquilina Demetriadi
Cyprus
Chapter 12

WWW.ICLG.CO.UK
62 ICLG TO: SHIPPING LAW 2015
Cyprus
foreign flagged ships in the territorial waters of Cyprus vests with the
Marine Accident Investigation Committee (“MAIC”), established
under the Investigation of Marine Casualties and Incidents Law of
2012, Law 94(I)/2012 (transposing Directive 2009/18/EC) of the
European Parliament and the Council establishing the fundamental
principles governing the investigation of accidents in the maritime
transport sector.
2 Cargo Claims
2.1 What are the international conventions and national
laws relevant to marine cargo claims?
Cyprus has ratified the Hague Rules by the Carriage of Goods by
Sea Law, Cap 263 (“Cap. 263”) and has adopted – by succession –
the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of
Law Relating to Bills of Lading and Protocol of Signature, Brussels
25 August 1924 (extended to Cyprus on 2 June 1931). Cyprus has
ratified neither the Hamburg Rules nor the Rotterdam Rules.
The Hague Rules are applicable to charterparties only if they are
expressly incorporated in the bill of lading, which must also include
an express statement to that effect (s. 4 of the Carriage of Goods by
Sea Law, Cap 263). There is substantial case law of the Supreme
Court of Cyprus on this issue, such as The Ship Dama v TH. D.
Georghiades SA (1980) 1 CLR 386; Kounnas and Sons Ltd v Zim
(1966) 1 CLR 181; Said Hamade v Anthimos Demetriou Ltd (1994)
1 CLR 443. Moreover, subject to the above qualification, the
Hague Rules would only apply for shipments from a port of Cyprus
pursuant to s. 2 of Cap 263.
However, if a general paramount clause were incorporated in the bill
of lading, the Hague Rules would apply notwithstanding s. 2 of Cap
263 (e.g., inter alia, Loizos Louca & Sons Ltd v The Company Batsi
Shipping Ltd (1992) 1B CLR 979).
2.2 What are the key principles applicable to cargo claims
brought against the carrier?
England’s Bills of Lading Act 1855 applies in Cyprus by virtue
of sections 19 and 29 of the Courts of Justice Law of 1960, Law
14/1960, as amended, as per the Supreme Court of Cyprus in
Stavros Georgiou & Son (Scrap Metals) Ltd v The Ship LIPA (2001)
1B CLR 1220. The 1855 Act regulates the transfer of rights under a
contract of carriage. Any party to a contract of carriage can sue for
damages against the carrier, as well as consignees of goods named
in a bill of lading and endorsees of a bill of lading, having acquired
full proprietary rights upon or by reason of such consignment or
endorsement.
The court will consider all the facts and where appropriate in the
circumstances will treat a person as being a carrier even where the
carriage was not performed by such party (Andreas Orthodoxou Ltd
v Dimitriou Tilliri Ltd (2007) 1B CLR 1247). A demise clause or
identity of carrier clause is likely to be recognised as binding and, in
view of the decision of the House of Lords in The Starsin [2003] 1
Lloyd’s Rep. 571, the objective approach in the construction of a bill
of lading is likely to be followed.
Ownership of the cargo will also depend on the way the parties
deal with each other, and such dealings may or may not include
the transfer of the bill of lading (Andreas Orthodoxou Ltd v
Dimitriou Tilliri Ltd (2007) 1B CLR 1247; Standard Fruit Company
(Bermuda) Ltd v Gold Seal Shipping Company Ltd (1997) 1 CLR
464). Such transfer extinguishes the rights of the original shipper or
any intermediary, but in respect of matters for which the shipper still
(a) the services provided must either save or contribute to
the ultimate safety of:
(i) a ship, her apparel and cargo; or
(ii) of the lives of persons belonging to a ship when in
danger; and
(b) the danger to the ship, her cargo or life must be real
and appreciable.
(iv) Wreck removal
Cap. 298 regulates the removal of wrecks. Responsibility
for the removal of wrecks in the territory of Cyprus lies with
the Receiver, unless the shipowner is present, in which case
the Receiver cannot be involved. However, the shipowner
concerned must immediately notify the competent Receiver
of the existence of a wreck in Cyprus, while all third parties
are bound to also notify, or, where they come in possession of
a wreck, surrender the same to the Receiver.
Subject to the payment of the expenses, fees, and salvage as
aforesaid, the owner of any wreck that establishes its claim
over the wreck to the satisfaction of the Receiver within one
year from the date at which the wreck has come into the
possession of the Receiver, shall be entitled to possess the
wreck or the money arising from a sale of part or all of the
wreck.
In the event that no owner establishes a claim to any wreck
before the expiration of the said one year period from the
date at which it has come into the possession of the Receiver,
the Receiver shall forthwith sell the wreck, and, following
deduction of all fees and expenses (if any) due to and incurred
by him and paying the salvors such amount of salvage as may
be agreed upon, any outstanding proceeds shall be attributed
to the State.
(v) Limitation of liability
There are currently three systems of limitation regimes
globally, alongside national limitation regimes. The
dominant system is the one established under the Convention
on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims of 1976 and
of its amending Protocol of 1996 (“LLMC”), which has been
ratified in Cyprus by virtue of Law 20(III)/2005.
The Merchant Shipping (Shipowners Insurance for Maritime
Claims) Law of 2012 (Law 14(I)/2012) transposed Directive
2009/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 23 April 2009 on the insurance of shipowners for maritime
claims. Under the said legislative framework, compulsory
insurance requirements are set for vessels with a gross
tonnage of over 300. The required insurance concerns
maritime claims subject to the limitations of the LLMC.
Maritime claims subject to limitations of liability are listed in
Article 2 of the LLMC, whether these claims arise in contract,
tort or by statute (cf. The Breydon Merchant [1992] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep 373). Claims excluded from limitation are listed under
Article 3 of the LLMC. Pursuant to the provisions of Article
1, as this has been interpreted by English judgments – which
have persuasive authority in Cyprus – the persons who may
limit liability are shipowners, such term includes charterers,
managers, operators and salvors. Insurers are also afforded the
right to limit liability to the same extent as the insured party.
Articles 7 and 8 of the 2002 Athens Convention Relating to
the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea (Athens
Convention) set out the relevant limits of liability for death or
personal injury or for loss or damage to luggage and vehicles.
1.2 What are the authorities’ powers of investigation
/ casualty response in the event of a collision,
grounding or other major casualty?
The duty to investigate marine accidents and incidents of Cyprus
flagged ships all over the world and accidents and incidents of
CyprusAnastasios Antoniou LLC

Cyprus
4 Arrest and Security
4.1 What are the options available to a party seeking to
obtain security for a maritime claim against a vessel
owner and the applicable procedure?
The Supreme Court has first instance and appellate jurisdiction in
admiralty cases (“the Admiralty Court”). The Admiralty Court is
competent to be seized in the following types of claims:
(a) claim to possession or ownership of a vessel or to ownership
of any share therein;
(b) question arising between the co-owners of a vessel as to
possession, employment, or earnings of that vessel;
(c) claim in respect of a mortgage of or charge on a vessel or any
share thereof;
(d) claim for damage done by a vessel;
(e) claim for damage received by a vessel;
(f) claim for loss of life or personal injury sustained in
consequence of defect in a vessel or in her apparel/equipment,
or of a wrongful act, neglect, or default of owners, charterers,
or persons in possession or control of a vessel or of master
or crew thereof or of any other person for whose wrongful
acts, neglects, or defaults owners, charterers, or persons in
possession or control of a vessel are responsible, being an act,
neglect or default in navigation or management of the vessel,
in loading, carriage, or discharge of goods or in embarkation,
carriage, or disembarkation of person;
(g) claim for loss or damage to goods carried in a vessel;
(h) claim arising out of any agreement relating to carriage of
goods in a vessel or to use/charter;
(i) claim in nature of salvage;
(j) claim in nature of towage in respect of a vessel;
(k) claim in nature of pilotage in respect of a vessel;
(l) claim in respect of goods or materials supplied to a vessel for
her operation or maintenance;
(m) claim in respect of construction, repair, equipment of a vessel,
dock charges/dues;
(n) claim by a master or crew for wages and claim by or in
respect of a master or crew for any money or property which,
under any provisions of the Merchant Shipping Acts 1894-
1954, is recoverable as wages at Court or in the manner in
which wages may be recovered;
(o) claim by a master, shipper, charterer, or agent in respect of
disbursements made a vessel’s account;
(p) claim arising out of a general average act;
(q) claim arising out of bottomry; and
(r) claim for the forfeiture or condemnation of a vessel or of
goods.
Bareboat Owners and Time Charterers are viewed as ‘disponent
owners’ of vessels. In the case of the claims mentioned in (d) to (r)
above, where a person who would be liable on claim in an action in
personam had been, at the time when the cause of action arose, the
owner or charterer of, in possession or in control of, the vessel, the
Admiralty Court’s jurisdiction may be invoked by an action in rem
against:
(i) the vessel, if at the time when the action is brought, she is
beneficially owned in respect of all the shares therein by that
person; or
remained at risk, it may entitle him to sue. The courts have not yet
been called upon to consider whether the original shipper remains
liable once title has passed.
2.3 In what circumstances may the carrier establish
claims against the shipper relating to misdeclaration
of cargo?
Pursuant to the provisions of s. 4 of Cap 263 the Hague Rules are
applicable where they are expressly incorporated in the Bill of
Lading, or another document of title. Where the Hague Rules do
apply, the shipper is under a duty to properly declare cargo and
failure to do so would result in the shipper being liable to the carrier
for damage to the ship, under strict liability. The shipper may also
be liable for damage to other cargo where hazardous cargo has not
been declared or has been misdeclared.
3 Passenger Claims
3.1 What are the key provisions applicable to the
resolution of maritime passenger claims?
Regulation (EC) No. 392/2009 of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the liability of carriers of
passengers by sea in the event of accidents (“the Regulation”) is
fully applicable in Cyprus as an EU Member State. The Regulation
lays down a harmonised regime of liability and insurance for the
carriage of passengers by sea, based on:
■ theAthens Convention to the Carriage of Passengers and their
Luggage by Sea 1974, as amended by the Protocol of 2002 on
the carriage of passengers (“the Athens Convention”); and
■ the International Maritime Organisation (“IMO”) guidelines
for implementation of the Athens Convention, adopted in
2006.
‘International carriage’ is defined under the Regulation as any
carriage in which, according to the contract of carriage, the place of
departure and the place of destination are situated in two different
States, or in a single State if, according to the contract of carriage
or the scheduled itinerary, there is an intermediate port of call in
another State. This Regulation applies to all international carriage
and carriage by sea within a single Member State on board ships of
Classes A and B (under Directive 98/18/EC) when:
■ the ship is flying the flag of or is registered in a Member
State;
■ the contract of carriage has been signed in a Member State; or
■ the place of departure or of a destination as laid down in the
contract of carriage is situated within a Member State.
According to the liability regime established by the Regulation
and drawn from the Athens Convention, for damages related to
navigation accidents victims shall be covered by an ipso jure
liability regime but must prove a fault on the part of the carrier in
order to be compensated for damages falling under the category of
“innkeeper” liability. The limitations of liability to which carriers
are entitled under the Athens Convention are also included and
the overall limitations of liability established in application of the
LLMC, are not affected. Carriers must all maintain insurance and
victims shall be entitled to make claims directly against the insurer.
CyprusAnastasios Antoniou LLC

WWW.ICLG.CO.UK
Cyprus
Anastasios Antoniou LLC Cyprus
(ii) any other ship which, at the time when the action is brought,
is beneficially owned as aforesaid.
Under the English Administration of Justice Act 1956, which is
applicable in Cyprus, the following maritime liens are recognised:
a) Bottomry.
b) Salvage.
c) Wages.
d) Master’s Wages.
e) Disbursements and liabilities.
f) Damage done by a ship.
Aright of arrest of a vessel arises by virtue of rule 50 of theAdmiralty
Jurisdiction Order 1893 applicable in Cyprus. As regards issuing an
order of arrest, it is necessary for the Admiralty Court to be satisfied
that there is a serious matter at trial and that on the facts before it
there is a probability that the claimant is entitled to relief. In the
event that the application for the arrest of a vessel is successful, the
Admiralty Court will require the following from the claimant, in the
absence of which the vessel will be released:
(a) payment of a deposit towards expenses which may be
incurred by the Admiralty Marshal in connection with the
custody and supervision of the vessel whilst under arrest;
(b) payment of any other amounts required by the Registrar for
the expenses of the arrest; and
(c) posting of a security bond by way of bank guarantee.
Where arrest is not possible, a litigant can apply for a freezing
order, in Cyprus or abroad, pursuant to the provisions of s. 32 of
Law 14/1960 and the principles relating to Mareva Injunctions. The
Cypriot legal order has incorporated the power of the courts to issue
freezing orders to protect assets at risk of alienation, or to preserve a
particular status quo pending the final and conclusive determination
of the relevant proceedings. The Supreme Court emphatically
confirmed in 2007 that the courts of Cyprus can issue freezing orders
with worldwide effect (Seamark Consultancy Services Limited v
Joseph P Lasala et al. (2007) 1 ΑΑΔ 162).
4.2 Where security is sought from a party other than the
vessel owner (or demise charterer) for a maritime
claim, including exercise of liens over cargo, what
options are available?
A contractual lien can be exercised against cargo, sub-freight
or sub-charter hire where a lien clause is expressly included in a
charterparty. Common law may also confer a lien against goods for
freight due, general average contributions and/or expenses incurred
by the owner for the purposes of preserving the goods.
A shipowner’s right to exercise a lien on cargo at common law is
available only: (a) for the recovery of a general average contribution
due from the cargo; (b) for expenses incurred by the shipowner in
protecting the cargo; and (c) to recover freight due on delivery of the
cargo under the bill of lading or the charter. No common law lien
arises for deadfreight, demurrages or shipper’s liabilities in respect
of the cargo. Where a contractual lien on sub-freights is given to the
owners by a charterer incorporated in Cyprus, owners must register
the lien as a charge against the charterer. Failure to do so will result
in such charge being void against the liquidator and any creditor of
the company.
Where the time-charterer is the cargo owner, the owner has the right
to lien the cargo, if the charterparty provides for this. However,
such lien cannot be extended against third parties, holders of the bill
of lading, unless expressly provided in the bill of lading. A bill of
lading stamped ‘freight prepaid’ will defeat any owner’s lien on the
cargo, either at common law or ex contractu (Grade One Shipping
Ltd, Owners of the Cyprus Ship ‘CRIOS II’ v The Cargo on Board
the Ship ‘CRIOS II’(No. 2) (1979) 1 CLR 350).
4.3 In relation to maritime claims, what form of security is
acceptable; for example, bank guarantee, P&I letter of
undertaking.
Bank guarantees is the only form of security the Admiralty Court
will accept. Determining the amount of such guarantee rests with
the Court, which takes into account the facts of the case before it
and particularly the purchase value of the vessel (Judgment of 18
January 2013 in Admiralty Action No. 26/2012, TELIA VASILIKO
LIMITED v the Ship “Friendship”, not yet reported).
5 Evidence
5.1 What steps can be taken (and when) to preserve or
obtain access to evidence in relation to maritime
claims including any available procedures for the
preservation of physical evidence, examination of
witnesses or pre-action disclosure?
Preservation of evidence orders (known as ‘Anton Piller’ orders
drawing from the landmark English judgment Anton Piller KG v
Manufacturing Processes Limited [1976] 1 All ER 779 establishing
the same) can be issued by Cyprus courts. Such an order would
preserve evidence or property which is or may become the subject
matter of the main proceedings.
Anton Piller orders can be pursued by a party to:
■ Allow this party to discover and preserve evidence against
the defendant, which is in the possession of the defendant and
is likely to be concealed or destroyed by the defendant.
■ Identify and obtain evidence against others who have been
involved with the principal tortfeasor in the tortious activities.
■ Prevent the defendant from warning others to destroy or
conceal evidence.
■ Reveal further harm and damage to the applicant.
Moreover, Cyprus courts have jurisdiction to issue discovery orders
under both:
■ Section 32 of the Courts of Justice Law 14/1960. This
empowers a court to grant an injunction in all cases where it
appears to the court to be just and convenient to do so.
■ Section 29(1)(c) of the Courts of Justice Law, which requires
courts to apply the principles of equity.
In the context of applications for discovery or tracing of assets,
Cyprus courts can issue orders towards:
■ Disclosure on oath by a respondent of the location and value
of specified assets.
■ Tracing purposes, namely leading to the disclosure of
information and documents regarding assets deprived or
stolen from the applicant, to enable the person having
suffered harm to identify and pursue proceedings against the
real person committing the tort (tortfeasor).
5.2 What are the general disclosure obligations in court
proceedings?
Under the Civil Procedure Rules a party to litigious proceedings
may apply to the Court for an order requiring the other party, within
a period of time from that date, to make discovery on oath of the
documents which are or have been in their possession or power,
relating to the matters in question in the action, and to inspect the

Cyprus
documents set out in the affidavit for discovery. This procedure
is called ‘Discovery and Inspection’ and is subject to claims for
privilege and admissibility. Each party may use these documents
to support his case.
If a party ordered to disclose documents fails to do so, he cannot
use any document he failed to disclose, or allow it to be inspected as
evidence on his behalf in the action, unless the court is satisfied that
he had sufficient excuse for failing to do so.
A claim for privilege may be raised in relation to the following
documents and/or information: documents that are confidential
information between lawyer and client for purposes of the litigation
(litigation privilege); confidential information between lawyer and
client (legal professional privilege); documents that tend to self-
incriminate or subject someone to a penalty; any “without prejudice”
communications either orally or in writing. These documents are
privileged from inspection.
Under the Civil Procedure Rules, a third party may be summoned to
produce a document without being summoned to give evidence. The
third party summoned to produce such a document shall be deemed
to have complied with the summons if he causes the document to be
produced, instead of attending personally to produce it.
In the context of interim proceedings, such as arrest order
applications or freezing order applications, there is an obligation for
full disclosure on behalf of the applicant. An application of this
nature is considered to be one of uberrima fides and an omission
of disclosing material facts to the Court would inevitably lead to a
collapse of any order issued under such application on an ex parte
basis (see, inter alia, Τimberland Co. v Evans & Sons Ltd κ.ά.
(1998) 1 CLR 1179 and Demstar Limited v Zim Israel Navigation
Co Limited κ.ά. (1996) 1 (Α) CLR).
6 Procedure
6.1 Describe the typical procedure and time-scale
applicable to maritime claims conducted through: i)
national courts (including any specialised maritime or
commercial courts); ii) arbitration (including specialist
arbitral bodies); and iii) mediation / alternative dispute
resolution.
All admiralty actions whether in rem or in personam are instituted
with the issue of a writ of summons, which must identify all parties
to the intended proceedings and the claim sought. The issue of the
writ gives the claimant a right against the vessel, which originates
from the cause of action in rem and crystallizes upon the arrest of
the vessel. In an action in rem, the writ of summons must be served
at least 21 days before the date named in the writ of summons for
the appearance of the parties before the Admiralty Court, while the
same period in an action in personam is at least 10 days.
Arbitration for maritime claims is not widely used in Cyprus.
However, the Cypriot legal order provides for an international
arbitration framework that is in full alignment with international
best practices and standards. Pursuant to s. 7 of the International
CommercialArbitration Law of 1987 (Law 101 of 1987), recognises
an arbitration clause in a contract or in the form of a separate
agreement, including an exchange of correspondence (including
telecommunications), or in an exchange of statements of claim and
defence in which the existence of an agreement is alleged by one
party and not denied by another. The reference in a contract to a
document containing an arbitration clause constitutes an arbitration
agreement provided that the contract is in writing and the reference
is such as to make that clause part of the contract. These provisions
mirror Article 7 of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International
Commercial Arbitration.
However, general words in a bill of lading incorporating all the terms
and conditions of another document, such as a charterparty, are not
sufficient to properly give effect to an arbitration clause contained
in that document into the bill of lading with a view to making such
other document’s provisions applicable to disputes arising under the
bill of lading (Elie Sadek v Efpalinos Shipping Company Ltd (1983)
1 CLR 696).
6.2 Highlight any notable pros and cons related to Cyprus
that any potential party should bear in mind?
There are a number of elements to be considered prior to pursuing
proceedings before Cyprus courts. Over the past decades, Cyprus
has solidified its place on the global dispute resolution map as a
jurisdiction affording integrity, efficiency and reliability. Cyprus
has served as a forum for the resolution of a plethora of high-profile
commercial, investment and corporate disputes, while the last few
years in particular have seen a constructive approach by Cypriot
courts in relation to the protection of assets and interests located
across the world.
With respect to maritime claims in particular, in Cyprus there is no
difference in the procedure between a maritime lien and a maritime
claim. However it should be noted that under Cyprus law maritime
liens enjoy certain advantages over all other permitted actions in
rem.
As regards ship arrests, the Admiralty Court can issue an arrest
order against a ship in Cyprus irrespective of her flag. Moreover,
a ship can be arrested in Cyprus irrespective of the debtor (unless
sovereign immunity rules are applicable). What could be seen as
a disadvantage of the ship arrest procedure in Cyprus would be
that the Admiralty Court only accepts bank guarantees as security
towards issuing an arrest order.
The integrity and independence of the Cypriot judicial system
ensures the impartial, unbiased, transparent and just adjudication
of disputes of the highest complexity and scale. Despite the
impeccable track record of Cypriot courts, local and international
arbitration is also on the rise, benefiting from a fully functional
and accommodating legal framework. Cypriot courts have in fact
encouraged arbitration on numerous occasions, particularly in
cases concerning highly technical issues and Cyprus is increasingly
becoming a suitable international arbitration forum.
7 Foreign Judgments and Awards
7.1 Summarise the key provisions and applicable
procedures affecting the recognition and enforcement
of foreign judgments.
Judgments from EU Member States’ Courts can be registered
and enforced in Cyprus under the provisions of Regulation (EU)
1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12
December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement
of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast). In enforcing a
foreign judgment, Cyprus courts cannot review it as to its substance
and therefore the courts will either accept or refuse the judgment’s
recognition and enforcement, without interfering with the substance
of the judgment.
Courts may refuse the judgment’s recognition and enforcement
where:

WWW.ICLG.CO.UK
Cyprus
8 Updates and Developments
8.1 Describe any other issues not considered above that
may be worthy of note, together with any current
trends or likely future developments that may be of
interest.
It was recently held by the Admiralty Court in Nationwide Shipping
Inc ν. The Ship Athena (formerly Amaze) (2012) 1 CLR 2343 that the
same lacked jurisdiction to arrest a ship berthed in a Cyprus port, for
the purpose of aiding foreign arbitration proceedings. According to
the judgment, the Court’s jurisdiction to arrest a ship in an action in
rem should not be exercised for the purpose of providing security
for an award that may be made in arbitration proceedings. Under
the current legislative framework in Cyprus, the Admiralty Court
may entertain provisional measures that seek to provide security in
respect of the action in rem, however this is not the case when the
interim relief is sought in order to provide security in some other
proceedings, e.g. arbitration proceedings. In reaching this result, the
Supreme Court applied the English ruling in The Vasso (formerly
Andria) (1984) Lloyd’s Reports 235, which was decided prior to the
English Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982.
It follows that if a claimant invokes the jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court (acting as Admiralty Court) to obtain the arrest of a ship as
security for an award in arbitration proceedings, the Court may not
issue a warrant of arrest. A possible alternative for protection of
a potential Claimant would be to invoke the provisions of section
9 of the International Commercial Arbitration Law 1987 (Law
101/87) which confers jurisdiction, on the application of one of the
parties, for provisional measures at any time before commencement
or in the course of arbitration proceedings. Nevertheless, any such
application can only be commenced before a District Court.
Overall, we can safely say that Cyprus is a genuine maritime nation,
being a major ship-management centre worldwide with more than
60 ship-management companies operating on the island. Several of
these companies rank among the largest of their kind in the world.
Cyprus is among the top five countries and territories in the world
with the largest number of third party ship-management companies
on its territory. The Cyprus registry today, ranking 10th among
international fleets – with ocean going vessels of a gross tonnage
exceeding 21 million – is continuously upgrading its services in
order to offer a high standard of support to international shipping
and a reputation of a “Flag of Progress”.
Cyprus also features an EU-approved tonnage tax system. The
European Commission approved the Cypriot tonnage tax scheme as
compatible with the requirements of the EU guidelines on State Aid
to Maritime Transport, the first occasion on which an EU Member
State with an open registry received such approval. The tonnage tax
system confers tax exemptions in favour of the payment of tonnage
tax only, which is calculated on the basis of the net tonnage of the
ships owned, chartered or managed.
■ the judgment is contrary to the public policy of Cyprus;
■ where the judgment was given in default of appearance, the
defendant had not been not served with the proceedings in
good time or in a manner so as to enable him to prepare his
defence himself;
■ where the judgment is inconsistent with an earlier judgment
of the Cypriot Courts between the same parties; or
■ if recognition is inconsistent with an earlier judgment given
in another Member State or in a third State between the same
parties regarding the same cause of action.
As far as non-EU judgments are concerned, Cyprus is party to a
number of multilateral and bilateral treaties in relation to the
recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments.
In order to simplify procedures for enforcement and execution of
foreign judgments in Cyprus, Law No. 121(1)/2000 was introduced
in relation to the Recognition, Enforcement and Execution of
Foreign Judgments which applies to all cases in which recognition,
registration and enforcement of decisions of foreign courts is
requested. A judgment creditor can also pursue enforcement of a
foreign judgment in Cyprus at Common Law, bringing an action
on the foreign judgment. If the foreign judgment is capable of
registration under statute, it cannot be enforced by a Common Law
action on the judgment.
In the context of proceedings for recognition, registration and
enforcement of foreign judgments either under statute, or at
Common Law, the judgment creditor may apply for interim relief.
7.2 Summarise the key provisions and applicable
procedures affecting the recognition and enforcement
of arbitration awards.
Foreign arbitral awards can be enforced in Cyprus by virtue of
the provisions stated in the Cyprus International Commercial
Arbitration Law No.101/1987 and the New York Convention on the
Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 1958,
which Cyprus has ratified by Law No. 84/1979. Cyprus is thus
obliged to enforce awards made in foreign states that are signatories
to the Convention. There are particular grounds on which a Cyprus
court may refuse to register or enforce a foreign arbitral award.

Cyprus
Anastasios Antoniou LLC, ranked as a top-tier Cyprus law firm by The Legal 500, recommended and acclaimed by Best Lawyers International,
IFLR1000 and the Client Choice Awards, is a boutique law practice specialising in maritime and shipping law, including admiralty litigation. Our
lawyers provide expert legal services to ship owners, ship managers, carriers, maritime security companies, freight forwarders, underwriters and
cargo claimants with respect to:
■■ Ship registrations.
■■ Tonnage Tax.
■■ Time, voyage and bareboat charters.
■■ Purchases of new build vessels both at the pre-delivery and post-delivery stage.
■■ Affreightment.
■■ Cooling and capacity sharing arrangements.
■■ Financing, operation and ownership of vessels.
■■ Cargo losses.
■■ Collusion.
■■ Pollution.
■■ Towage and salvage claims.
■■ Drafting and advising on ship building and ship repair contracts.
■■ Law of the Sea and Public International Law issues.
■■ Ship arrests.
■■ Maritime security.
Anastasios A. Antoniou
Grigori Afxentiou 3
Office 102, 4003 Limassol
Cyprus
Tel: +357 25 105 038
Fax: +357 25 104 574
Email: anastasios@antoniou.com.cy
URL: www.antoniou.com.cy
Anastasios A. Antoniou is an Advocate of the Supreme Court of Cyprus
and is ranked as a leading lawyer in competition law, shipping law, EU
and international law by eminent ranking houses, including The Legal
500, Who’s Who Legal, IFLR1000 and Best Lawyers.
In recommending Anastasios as “very knowledgeable” and a leading
lawyer, The Legal 500 have highlighted his “eye for detail” and
“expertise” as being the reason behind Anastasios Antoniou LLC’s
“solid reputation”, while he has been included in the best competition
lawyers globally by Who’s Who Legal and was chosen by his peers for
inclusion in Best Lawyers International.
As counsel he appears before national and international courts and
arbitration tribunals in high-profile maritime, energy, competition and
international law disputes.
He is a member of the European Competition Lawyers Forum, the
Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, the Association of International
Petroleum Negotiators (AIPN), the British Institute of Comparative and
International Law and the European Society of International Law.
An Advocate of the Supreme Court of Cyprus, Aquilina Demetriadi is
a member of the Cyprus Bar Association, the Nicosia Bar Association
and the International Trademark Association.
Prior to being called to the Bar, Aquilina read law in the United Kingdom
(LL.B. (Hons) from the University of Manchester) and was subsequently
awarded with an LL.M. in International Business, Corporate and
Maritime Law from the Erasmus University of Rotterdam, in the
Netherlands. She also holds a Postgraduate Diploma in International
Arbitration from the Queen Mary University of London.
Aquilina is fluent in English, German, French and Greek.
Aquilina Demetriadi
Grigori Afxentiou 3
Office 102, 4003 Limassol
Cyprus
Tel: +357 25 105 038
Fax: +357 25 104 574
Email: a.demetriadi@antoniou.com.cy
URL: www.antoniou.com.cy

59 Tanner Street, London SE1 3PL, United Kingdom
Tel: +44 20 7367 0720 / Fax: +44 20 7407 5255
Email: sales@glgroup.co.uk
www.iclg.co.uk
Other titles in the ICLG series include:
■ Alternative Investment Funds
■ Aviation Law
■ Business Crime
■ Cartels & Leniency
■ Class & Group Actions
■ Competition Litigation
■ Construction & Engineering Law
■ Copyright
■ Corporate Governance
■ Corporate Immigration
■ Corporate Recovery & Insolvency
■ Corporate Tax
■ Data Protection
■ Employment & Labour Law
■ Environment & Climate Change Law
■ Franchise
■ Gambling
■ Insurance & Reinsurance
■ International Arbitration
■ Litigation & Dispute Resolution
■ Lending & Secured Finance
■ Merger Control
■ Mining Law
■ Oil & Gas Regulation
■ Patents
■ Pharmaceutical Advertising
■ Private Client
■ Private Equity
■ Product Liability
■ Project Finance
■ Public Procurement
■ Real Estate
■ Securitisation
■ Shipping Law
■ Telecoms, Media & Internet
■ Trade Marks

Cyprus Shipping Law

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (11)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Cyprus Shipping Law

Similar to Cyprus Shipping Law (20)

More from A. A. Antoniou & Associates LLC

More from A. A. Antoniou & Associates LLC (11)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Cyprus Shipping Law