Filenews 17 December 2025 - by Michalis Chatzivasilis
Once again, the project of the former managers of Laiki Bank, Efthymios Bouloutas and Kyriakos Mageiras, as well as of Marfin Investment Group, to prevent a lawsuit filed by the former Laiki Bank against them and then by its liquidator not to be heard in Cyprus.
The Court of Appeal, to which Bouloutas and Magiras, as well as Marfin, resorted, rejected their appeals as abusive of procedure, since they had already initiated a similar procedure and failed. According to a decision of the Court of Appeal, the subject of the appeals under consideration are identical, interim decisions of the Nicosia District Court dated 31.01.2017, which were issued in the context of lawsuit No. 8400/2012.
With the lawsuit filed by the former Laïki, it claimed damages of billions of euros, due to damages it claims it had suffered, which it attributes, among other things, to the violation of the obligations and duty of trust and good faith owed by some of the defendants, as its officials and directors.
Bouloutas, Magiras, and Marfin, reacted to this action and by registering two applications with similar wording, dated 17.07.2014 and supported by identical affidavits, they sought the rejection and/or deletion of the Summons Warrant and/or the Report of Claim or at least paragraphs of the latter that were specified in a relevant table. This, as they argued, due to the lack of jurisdiction of the Nicosia District Court and the exclusive jurisdiction of the Greek Courts and/or due to the fact that Cyprus is not the forum conveniens and/or due to abuse of procedure.
The Court of First Instance, rejecting their applications, held that it has jurisdiction to hear all claims against the appellants. To this end, he referred to everything that had been brought to his attention but also to the provisions of Regulation (EC) 44/01 of the Council of the European Union on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (hereinafter Regulation (EC) 44/01), as in force at the material time, which he analyzed.
The Court of Appeal, after analyzing the history of the applications filed to date by the two former executives of Laiki, found that two successive attempts were essentially made, aiming at the setting aside of the Indictment Warrant and/or the abolition of the procedure and/or the dismissal of the lawsuit. On the one hand, through the applications for Setting aside of 2013 (an attempt which failed) and on the other hand by forwarding the applications 17.07.2014, the decisions on which they are the subject of this appeal.
It is a finding of the Court of Appeal that the appellants, despite the fact that they were fully aware of the issues raised through the applications dated 17.07.2014, having at the same time the opportunity and the ability to raise them in the appropriate manner, through the relevant procedures of 2013, in order to put forward their positions and arguments on them, failed to do so. On the contrary, when they returned, the Court of Appeal notes, they preferred to put them forward as a "reserve", through the applications dated 17.07.2014, in order to achieve essentially the goal they aimed at from the beginning by promoting the 2013 Setting aside applications. This, having exhausted the procedural steps at their disposal for the annulment of the decisions that rejected the previous applications for setting aside in 2013.
"On the basis of all the above, the above procedural conduct of the appellants, ultimately resulting in the re-pursuit of the same goal, raising an issue that they had the opportunity to promote from the beginning and in the context of a previous procedure, inevitably, in our judgment, is part of the concept of abuse of procedures on their part, affecting the declared goal of finality. Under the circumstances, the intervention of the Court in order to "safeguard the effective functioning of the procedural procedures", in the manner suggested by the respondents' side, is considered justified and imperative", the Court of Appeal concluded.
