Breaking news

Cyprus Reevaluates Investment Framework Amid Dual Nationality Debate

by THEFUTURE.TEAM

September 9, 2025

Clarifying the Rules

Cyprus is poised to refine its approach to foreign direct investments as the House finance committee concluded that clarifications are needed with the European Commission. The primary focus is on whether natural persons holding dual nationality—one from an EU member state and one from a non-EU country—can legally invest within the European Union.

Aligning With European Standards

The discussion emerged during an in-depth, article-by-article review of a harmonising bill. This legislation is designed to establish a robust national framework for screening foreign investments, thereby aligning Cyprus with prevailing European practices. The bill introduces enhanced scrutiny and stringent controls on investments deemed strategically important, all while preserving Cyprus’s competitive edge as an investment destination.

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

Dual Nationality Under the Microscope

The debate has centered on the investment eligibility of individuals owning dual nationality. Representatives from the Cyprus Bar Association and the Cyprus International Businesses Association (CIBA) have advocated for clear guidance from the European Commission to prevent any potential breaches of EU law, as the current directive does not explicitly address the matter.

Government Stance and Upcoming Discussions

A spokesperson from the Finance Ministry clarified that legal entities must be established in an EU member state to qualify for investment applications. However, the situation for individuals with mixed nationalities remains under review and will be discussed with the European Commission to determine if third-country nationals holding EU nationality can proceed with investments under EU law. The committee is set to revisit the issue as part of the ongoing legislative discussions.

Enhanced Safeguards and the Investment Landscape

Dipa MP Alekos Tryfonides, speaking after the session, underscored that the bill’s framework is poised to create a systematic procedure for controlling foreign direct investments within the EU. By replacing and refining provisions from a previous draft and integrating stakeholder suggestions, the legislation now offers stricter safeguards to protect national interests. Notably, the bill allows for interventions in the acquisition of large entities or systemic financial institutions, actions deemed critical if such transactions could jeopardize the security or public order of Cyprus.

Controversial Provisions Under Scrutiny

Among the contentious aspects of the bill is its retroactive application, permitting the screening of investments made up to 15 months prior and the potential cancellation of transactions upon discovering irregularities. Additionally, debate continues over the appropriateness of the proposed two-million-euro threshold and the scope for further exemptions. These issues highlight the delicate balance between maintaining robust national security measures and ensuring an attractive environment for foreign investment.

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.