District Court of Limassol Rules that Fraudulent Disposal of Assets of a Ukrainian Company

District Court of Limassol Rules that Fraudulent Disposal of Assets of a Ukrainian Company Cannot be Trumped by the "Exclusive Jurisdiction” of Article 22 of the Brussels Regulation


18 May 2012

The District Court of Limassol considered if it had jurisdiction to determine a dispute in relation to fraudulent disposal of assets of a Ukrainian Company where the fraudulent scheme involved a number of Cyprus individuals and companies. The Defendants applied for the dismissal of the action in that the disposal of the assets was made after the same were approved by the general meeting of the Ukrainian Company, and the matter was an internal corporate dispute, as the Plaintiff Company was also a shareholder of the Ukrainian Company, and thus Article 22(2) of the Brussels Regulation applied and required the District Court of Limassol to decline jurisdiction.




Action No. 6273/2010 of the District Court of Limassol, Between PROSCENO TRADING LTD (Prosceno) v OPEN JOINT STOCK COMPANY “SUMY MACHINE-BUILDING SCIENCE & PRODUCTION ASSOCIATION, named after M.V. FRUNZE” (Frunze)
Prosceno were principally represented by Soteris Pittas & Co LLC.

The Prosceno filed an action in the District Court of Limassol claiming damages suffered from the implementation of various alleged fraudulent transactions disposing and transferring assets of Frunze to other legal entities owned and controlled by the beneficial owners of the majority shareholders of Frunze.

The Action is a personal action and same was filed in Cyprus before the enactment of Ukrainian legislation regulating the filing of derivative actions by minority shareholders of Ukrainian Companies.

Prosceno alleges that the Defendants, some of which are individual and legal entities based in Cyprus, were part of a fraudulent scheme to defraud the Plaintiff Company though the implementation of sham transactions resulting to the fraudulent assets of the Ukrainian Company in violation of, inter alia, Article 13 of the Ukrainian Civil Code.

The Cypriot Defendants disputed the jurisdiction of the District Court of Limassol to adjudicate on the case, alleging that the Ukrainian Court had an exclusive jurisdiction over all issues raised by the Cypriot action pursuant to Article 22(2) of the Brussels Regulation, because the Cyprus Action constituted proceedings which have as their object the validity of decisions of the organs of Frunze, and in more particular its general meeting. So, the Ukrainian Courts had exclusive jurisdiction. 

Prosceno opposed the above position by alleging, inter alia, that Article 22(2) of the Brussels Regulation did not apply to the case because the alleged fraudulent actions of the Defendants could not be considered as “acts of the organs” Frunze due to the fact that they victimized Frunze.


The Decision 


The President Judge of the District Court of Limassol, Ms Dora Socratous, followed the principles set out by the Court of Appeal in Grupo Torras SA v Al-Sabah (No. 1) [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 7 as to the interpretation of Article 22(2) which provides that:

The following courts shall have exclusive jurisdiction regardless of domicile:…2. in proceedings which have as their object the validity of the constitution, the nullity or the dissolution of companies or other legal persons or associations of natural or legal persons, or of the validity of the decisions of their organs, the courts of the Member State in which the company, legal person or association has its seat”.

The principles included that, in considering whether or not Article 22(2) issues are raised, the Court must consider the nature of both the claim and any defences, that the question is whether or not the action is "principally concerned" with an Article 22(2) issue, and that the Court should conduct an exercise in "overall classification" to determine whether Article 22(2) is engaged.


The President Judge in the present case dismissed the jurisdictional objection of the Cypriot Defendants and held that Article 22(2) of the Brussels Regulation applies where proceedings ‘have as their object’ the validity of decision of their organs etc., which depends on whether the claim is principally concerned with such a matter(Grupo Torras SA v Al-Sabah (No. 1) [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 7). This requires the Court to undertake an overall classification and make an overall judgment of whether the company law point is more than a preliminary or incidental matter or whether it is what the claim is principally about. On the facts of the present case, the claim was principally about alleged fraudulent transfers of assets of the Ukrainian Company, so did not come within Article 22(2) of the Brussels Regulation.



Although a first instance decision, this is a welcome judgment for companies and individuals invested in Ukraine and other CIS countries, through Cyprus, but were defrauded on the foreign level. It is an example of the Cyprus Courts being robust in the face of a defendants’ challenge to Cyprus dispute resolution in favour of foreign courts where the remedies may be ineffective or inadequate. The decision reduces the risk that investors have in Cyprus as they will be able to wrest jurisdiction in favour of Cyprus where the remedies, both interim and final, may be more adequate and effective.




For further information on this topic please contact

Mr. Soteris Pittas( spittas@pittaslegal.com ) at SOTERIS PITTAS & CO LLC,

by telephone (+357 25 028460) or by fax (+357 25 028461)



The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advise should be sought about your specific circumstances.



Tuesday, 13 November 2012 00:51

  Cyprus and Ukraine signed a new bilateral tax agreement for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion that when in force will replace the existing Tax Bilateral tax...

Tuesday, 16 October 2012 19:21

  CYPRUS: Dispute arising out from a Shareholders Agreement containing an arbitration clause - Applicability of Law 101/87 adopting in the Republic of Cyprus of the Uncitral Model Law on...

Tuesday, 16 October 2012 19:20

CYPRUS: Anti-Suit Injunction issued by Arbitral Tribunal in an LCIA arbitration case conducted in London, prohibiting the commencement and/or continuation of legal proceedings before Cyprus...

Monday, 10 September 2012 19:24

The legality of a third party litigation funding, has not yet been examined by Cypriot Courts.   If such an issue, is raised, Cypriot Courts will look for guidance on English or other common law...

Tuesday, 24 July 2012 19:27


Friday, 20 July 2012 20:07

Cyprus Companies are in wide use as major vehicles in international tax structuring mainly due to the broad range of legal and tax related benefits they can offer because of the flexible tax system...

Monday, 09 July 2012 19:37

In the TASSARRUF MEVDUATI SEGORTA FONU -v- MERRIL LYNCH BANK AND TRUST COMPANY (CAYMAN) LTD & OTHERS (2011) UKPC 17, the Privy Council, permitted the appointment of an equitable receiver, to...

Tuesday, 29 May 2012 19:45

INTRODUCTION Cyprus does not have a formal policy towards the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments.  The question whether a foreign judgment can be enforced in Cyprus, depends solely by...

Tuesday, 29 May 2012 19:43

District Court of Limassol Rules that Fraudulent Disposal of Assets of a Ukrainian Company Cannot be Trumped by the "Exclusive Jurisdiction” of Article 22 of the Brussels Regulation   18 May...

Wednesday, 02 May 2012 19:48

The Republic of Cyprus is a Contracting party to New York Convention.   Since December 1980 the Republic of Cyprus, has been a contracting party to the New York Convention, on the recognition,...

Wednesday, 02 May 2012 19:46

INTRODUCTION    The registration and enforcement of a Russian judgment in the Republic of Cyprus is regulated by the provisions of the Bilateral Agreement, between Cyprus and the Russian...

Wednesday, 08 February 2012 18:51

The existence and nature of piratical attacks off Somalia, is a matter of great notoriety and has caused tremendous problems to ship-owners, cargo-owners, insurers, crew members etc.  Due to the...

Monday, 30 January 2012 18:58

In the recent case PENDERHIL HOLDINGS LTD –V- IOANNI KLOUKINA,  the Supreme Court of Cyprus, examined whether a stay can be granted of the enforcement of Norwich Pharmacal orders, pending...

Monday, 30 January 2012 18:57

In a recent decision of the Supreme Court of Cyprus, it has been held, that a derivative action filed by a minority shareholder of a Cyprus company, did not fall within the ambit of an arbitration...

Monday, 30 January 2012 18:55

In the context of an application to register and enforce a Russian judgment, pursuant  to the terms of the bilateral treaty, existing between the Republic of Cyprus and Russia, our firm succeeded to...

Tuesday, 10 January 2012 19:41

All jurisdictions apply particular limitation periods for an action to be filed. In Cyprus limitation periods where set out in the Limitation of Actions Law, Cap 15 ("Limitations Law"), which was...

Tuesday, 10 January 2012 18:53

The Council of Ministers issued recently its Decision setting new criteria and conditions for the Naturalization of Foreign Investors / Entrepreneurs by Exemption on the basis of para. 2(f) of the...

Subscribe to our Publications

We are dedicated to providing our clients with outstanding, highly personalized, legal representation.
Chrysanthou Mylona 10 
3030 - Limassol, Cyprus
© Soteris Pittas & Co LLC. All Rights Reserved.