Breaking news

Nexans Issues Ultimatum: ADΜIE Held Accountable For Cyprus-Greece Interconnector Delays

The ongoing dispute over the Cyprus-Greece power interconnector project has reached a critical juncture as the French contractor ADΜIE finds itself at the center of a contractual storm. While ADΜIE and local regulatory authorities have attributed the project’s delays to systemic challenges, reliable sources indicate that Nexans—the company responsible for manufacturing and laying the cable—now holds ADΜIE solely accountable for breaching fundamental contract terms, including critical timeline milestones.

Contractual Breaches and Formal Warnings

According to industry reports, Nexans has formally notified ADΜIE, following the recent agreement between Mitsotakis and Christodoulidis, that failing to issue the Full Notice to Proceed—the final approval required for the commencement of all project phases—by the first quarter of 2026 will release the contractor from all schedule-related obligations. Originally scheduled for August 2024, this delay not only invalidates the contractual timeframes but also nullifies penalty clauses that would otherwise compensate for project delays.

Escalating Financial Liabilities

Further compounding the situation, Nexans has communicated in writing that, given the accumulated delays and halted cable payments since April 2025, ADΜIE could soon face liabilities amounting to approximately €250 million if the project is terminated prematurely by ADΜIE. This figure is likely to rise when combined with other overdue amounts and potential claims related to raw material orders or subsequent cancellations on similar electric cable projects.

Operational Progress and Critical Dependencies

Despite the mounting legal tensions, Nexans has already produced roughly 300 kilometers of cable conforming to diverse technical standards, leveraging its manufacturing facilities in Japan and Norway. However, the French firm’s willingness to extend deadline relaxation—with the latest extension expiring in December 2025—is contingent upon the imminent issuance of the Full Notice to Proceed. Failure to secure this approval by March 2026 may prompt Nexans to invoke contractual penalty clauses, effectively releasing them from further obligations.

Regional Implications and Future Steps

If Nexans’ conditions are not met, ADΜIE is poised to initiate compensation claims against regulatory authorities in both Cyprus and Greece, potentially implicating national governments and electricity consumers in the financial fallout. ADΜIE has already disbursed approximately €300 million to Nexans—funds which Nexans considers non-refundable. When combined with the aforementioned penalties, the overall cost of this venture, launched in the summer of 2023, could soar to nearly €550 million, excluding additional claims that might materialize.

Rescheduling Efforts and Strategic Impacts

On January 6, 2026, Nexans acknowledged the project’s delays in an official announcement, indicating that a reprogramming of activities was underway with its client. The revised delivery date, initially set for the close of 2029, may now be postponed by as much as one year—provided that no further disruptions occur, such as geopolitical instabilities in international waters between Crete and Cyprus. The contractor remains clear: should ADΜIE issue the Full Notice to Proceed within the stipulated timeframe, the delay in project completion will be limited to one year.

This unfolding scenario underscores not only the operational and financial challenges inherent in large-scale infrastructure projects but also the critical importance of timely decision-making at the governmental level. With both Nexans and ADΜIE now firmly entrenched in a high-stakes legal and financial battle, the resolution of this dispute will have far-reaching implications for regional energy policy and investor confidence in interstate infrastructure initiatives.

Copyright Law Struggles To Keep Up With AI Training

Courts Are Still Applying Old Copyright Rules To AI

AI companies train models on enormous amounts of published material, including books, articles and academic research. Whether using that content without authors’ permission violates copyright law remains unresolved.

Much of the debate centres on fair use, which allows copyrighted material to be used without permission in certain circumstances. Courts consider factors such as the purpose of the use, how much material was involved and its impact on the original market.

Anthropic Case Sets An Important Precedent

A major case involving Anthropic and a group of authors provided one of the clearest rulings so far. Judge William Alsup found that using copyrighted books to train AI models was lawful, comparing the process to people reading and studying literature before creating something new.

Anthropic was nevertheless ordered to pay $1.5 billion in a settlement. The penalty concerned books the company had obtained from illegal online libraries rather than the AI training itself.

For AI companies, that distinction could prove significant because it separates studying copyrighted material from directly copying it.

Competition Could Be The Key Issue

A case involving Thomson Reuters and Ross Intelligence offers a different perspective. A court ruled that Ross could not claim fair use after using Reuters’ copyrighted material to develop a competing AI-powered legal research platform.

The decision suggests courts may be less willing to consider AI training fair use when copyrighted content is used to build a product that directly competes with the original.

For authors, an unresolved question is whether AI-generated content should be considered competition for the works used to train these models.

The Law Has Yet To Catch Up

US copyright law predates generative AI by decades, leaving courts to apply old principles to new technology. Questions also remain over copyright protection for AI-generated works. In Thaler v. Perlmutter, a court ruled that material created entirely by AI cannot receive copyright protection.

Major AI companies remain involved in copyright litigation, and different courts could reach different conclusions. For now, there is no universal rule: the legality of AI training will depend on the circumstances of each case and how courts ultimately interpret copyright and fair use.

eCredo
The Future Forbes Realty Global Properties
Uol
Aretilaw firm

Become a Speaker

Become a Speaker

Become a Partner

Subscribe for our weekly newsletter