Breaking news

Christodoulides Weighs 12 Laws Ahead Of Parliament Dissolution Deadline

by THEFUTURE.TEAM

April 17, 2026

President Nikos Christodoulides is expected to decide early next week on 12 legislative reforms approved by Parliament, covering asset dispossession, bankruptcy procedures, and guarantor protections. With an April 21 deadline approaching, he must choose whether to sign the laws, return them for revision, or refer specific provisions to the Supreme Court.

Decisive Deadline Ahead Of Elections

Parliament is set to dissolve on April 23 ahead of elections scheduled for May 24, placing additional urgency on the decision-making process. Timing is critical, as the President’s choices will determine how key financial and legal frameworks evolve during a sensitive political period.

Follow THE FUTURE on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X and Telegram

Mixed Reactions To Legislative Proposals

A mixed approach is expected. Some provisions are likely to be returned to Parliament due to practical or political concerns. Other measures, particularly those raising constitutional or EU law questions, may be referred to the Supreme Court for review.

Enhanced Debt Confirmation And Financial Oversight

Two draft laws focus on strengthening the role of the Financial Ombudsman in debt confirmation. Proposed changes include expanded restructuring options and binding decisions on complaints involving amounts up to €20,000. Borrowers would gain clearer pathways to verify and challenge outstanding debts under revised procedures.

Constitutional Concerns And Practical Implications

Concerns have been raised by the Ministry of Finance regarding overlapping provisions and potential conflicts with constitutional principles, including freedom of contract and separation of powers. Legal reviews have been completed, and the Presidential Legal Office is now assessing the proposals. The Attorney General is also expected to guide the next steps.

Judicial Workload And Retroactive Legislation

Questions remain about the judiciary’s capacity to handle an increased caseload. Some proposals would allow district judges to resolve financial disputes within 12 months, with a possible one-year extension. Another contentious provision restricts banks from charging additional interest once the total debt reaches double the original amount. This measure may apply retroactively, raising concerns about compatibility with existing contracts and EU law.

Legislative Remissions And Broader Regulatory Impact

Five laws related to asset dispossession are set to be reviewed again during an upcoming parliamentary session. The broader package also includes provisions addressing abusive contractual terms, though uncertainty remains around retroactive enforcement and legal alignment. A separate proposal on compensation for surplus electricity from photovoltaic systems is also under review due to its fiscal and constitutional implications.

President Christodoulides’ decisions will shape the balance between immediate financial reforms and longer-term legal and institutional considerations.

The Future Forbes Realty Global Properties

by News Editor

August 24, 2026

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.

Follow THE FUTURE on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X and Telegram

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.