DC Nicosia - 3353/2019

DC Nicosia - ΕΔΛ - 3353/2019
Court:	DC Nicosia (Cyprus)
Jurisdiction:	Cyprus
Relevant Law:	Article 5(a) Data Protection Act 2018
Decided:	31.01.2020
Published:
Parties:	Griffin Property Finance II Hellenic Bank Public Company Limited
National Case Number/Name:	ΕΔΛ - 3353/2019
European Case Law Identifier:
Appeal from:
Appeal to:
Original Language(s):	Greek
Original Source:	Cyprus Bar Association (in Greek)
Initial Contributor:	n/a

The District Court of Nicosia (Επαρχιακό Δικαστήριο Λευκωσίας) ruled that a disclosure of personal data by a bank is justified by public interest which overrides the protection of personal data and the bank confidentiality, when the disclosure is needed for justice to be dispensed by the courts.

English Summary

Facts

The claimants requested the disclosure of specific "Norwich Pharmacal" Court Orders as foreseen in the civil procedure law, the court law and other national provisions. The defendant raised an objection based on the Data Protection Act 125(I)/2018 and other national provisions, claiming that the requested disclosure would include personal data and that the claimant didn't prove any public interest which would override the bank confidentiality binding the defendant.

Holding

As to what is relevant from a data protection point of view, the District Court of Nicosia found that there is public interest in the disclosure of personal data when this is needed for justice to be dispensed by the courts. Therefore, the Court approved the request for disclosure.

Comment

Share your comment here!

Further Resources

Share blogs or news articles here!

English Machine Translation of the Decision

The decision below is a machine translation of the original. Please refer to the Greek original for more details.

In the district Court  of NicosiaDIMITRIOS DIMITRIADIS — ANDREOU, DED
Goods: 3353/2019
After:
Griffin Property Finance II XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX iepublicznych, taken from Poland
Applicants
And
Hellenic BANK PUBLIC COMPANY LIMITED, Nicosia
Defendants
Unjustified action 22/10/2019 for the  issue of the type
 of Norwich Pharmacy Orders 
Date: 31 January 2020 
Appearing:
For Applicants/Applicants: A. Erotocrit for A.G. EROTCRITOU LLC
Defendant: S. Kastanos for Georgiadis and Pelidis LLC
INTERIM DECISION
Import duties 
By this application the Applicants are seeking the following writs of stripping Norwich Pharmacy:
A decree of the Court ordering the Defendants, such as within fifteen (15) working days from the date of service of the decree, to issue, register and give the Claimants’ lawyers a sworn statement by an authorised officer and/or employee of the Defendants which:
(I)Declare and/or disclose all bank accounts and/or facilities which, according to the records maintained by the Defendants, at any time from 13/06/2018 until the date of service of this Order, were owned and/or controlled by Mr XXXXX XXXXX Kusmierz, including all bank accounts of third persons and/or companies and/or other entities that, directly or indirectly, according to the files held by the Defendants at any time from 13/06/2018 until today, were owned and/or controlled by Mr XXXXX XXXXX Kusmierz, releasing the full description of the account or facilities, including the account or facility number, the name and details of the account holder; or
the balance of the account (bank statement) during the above period, the link to Mr XXXXX Kusmierz and the balance on the account at the date of service of this order.
It is understood that for the purposes of this paragraph a bank account and/or facility includes, inter alia, all bank accounts and facilities, whether or not they are in the name of Mr XXXXX Kusmierz, either in full or in association with other (merely or in joint names), and/or over which Mr. XXXXX XXXXX Kusmierz has or had the right to sign (“signatory”) and/or which are held by a representative on behalf of and/or in favour of Mr XXXXX XXXXX Kusmierz and/or on which Mr XXXXX XXXXX Kusmierz is otherwise or has the power to control transfers to and from the account and includes safe deposit boxes.
Declare and/or disclose any withdrawal from Mr XXXXX Kusmierz and/or any payment and/or transfer of money to Mr XXXXX Kusmierz and/or to the extent that the Defendants are in a position to know to any associated person with Mr. XXXXX Kusmierz, from and/or through the defendants from 13/06/2018 to the date of service of this Decree by disclosing the details of the carrier and the recipient of the money and the details of the transaction and/or withdrawal of funds.
B.  Ordinance of the Court ordering the Defendants to disclose and deliver to the lawyers of the Defendants copies of all documents which are below their control, occupation and authority, and/or the employees and/or representatives thereof, and which demonstrate all the facts referred to in paragraph A of this paragraph.
C. authorisation of the Court of Justice such as the information and documents to be disclosed by the Defendants in the course of the procedure with the above mentioned number and title, used for the purposes of enforcing the judgment of the Polish Court of Justice dated 22/10/2018 secured by the Claimants against Mr XXXXX Kusmierz.
D. an interim protective order of the Court of Justice (GAGGING ORDER) which prohibits and/or prevents the Defendants and agents and/or servants from informing, directly or indirectly, in any way upon Mr XXXXX XXXXX Kusmierz and/or any associated persons, for the initiation and/or promotion of the procedure under the above number and title from the Applicants until further notice of the Court and/or until a full hearing of the action with the above mentioned number and title.
Legal Basis
The application is based on Articles 29, 31, 32 and 42 of the Courts Law Ν.14/60, Article 9 of the Law on Civil Procedure, Chapter 6, to the Civil Procedure Rules D.39, D.48 , θi 1-9 and D.64, in Articles 58-68D of the Preventing and Combating Money Laundering Activities Law 188 (I)/07, in the case law, to the authorities related to the types of the Gulting Order and Norwich Pharmacal, the judgments of the Courts, the principles of Community law and the Code of Justice, and to the discretion and the inherent powers and practice of the Court of Justice.
Declaration on oath
The application is supported by an affidavit of  XXXXX Efstathioadou  lawyer at the Office of the lawyers representing the applicants to which they refer, as I can summarise, the following:
►	The Application and Action have been brought against the Bank of the Bank (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) on the basis of the Court’s jurisdiction to issue Norwich Pharmacal orders, with a view to ordering the Bank to disclose specific information in its possession, with the aim of enabling the applicants to bring proceedings for the enforcement of a judgment which they have obtained in Poland, as well as to identify the parties who have assisted the debtor in order to avoid his obligations vis-à-vis the applicants or otherwise make it more difficult to enforce the judgment.
►	The applicants are by decision of the creditors of Mr XXXXX Kusmiierz (hereinafter “Mr Kusmiierz”) creditors of the Polish Court of Justice on the basis of a judgment of the Polish Court of Justice.22/10/2018 (the “Decision”).A copy of the Decision and its translation in Greek are attached as Exhibit 1.
►	Mr Kusmierz is a well-known entrepreneur in Poland who seems to manage and control a number of large companies and projects. On this basis, Mr Kusmierz persuaded the applicants to accept a guarantee secured by a foreign exchange  blank (in bianco) for loans granted by the applicants to its affiliates. He then failed to meet the obligations arising from his personal guarantee and the Decision was issued against him. Following the adoption of the Decision, Mr Kusmiierz claims to the Polish authorities that he does not have any assets against which the Decision can be enforced, while the current attempts to implement the Decision in Poland have been fruitless.
►	Following enquiries of the applicants, it has become apparent that the companies and projects controlled by Kusmierz are owned by Cypriot companies, which are held by nominal shareholders (nomineeholdders) or other companies abroad, with the result that their final beneficiary does not appear. The Applicants suspect that the Cypriot companies in question act as special purpose vehicles through which Mr Kusmiierz controls companies and projects in Poland, while drawing funding from these companies through loans and financial instruments, thereby bypassing its creditors.
►	The Bank is the bank of the Cypriot companies in question and possibly the BVM Casmir (as defined below) and has, even innocent, been involved in the tort of Kusmierz since it seems to facilitate the raising of funds by Mr Kusmierz in a way that its creditors are bypassing. The Bank is also expected to hold information in relation to the companies and bank accounts owned and controlled by Mr Kusmiierz, as in accordance with its obligations, the Bank is expected to collect and hold information on the ultimate beneficiary companies having work with the Bank.
Objection/Pleas in law
In the statement of appeal, which is based on the Civil Procedure Rules, D.28 (i).1-4,  D.48, θ.1-7, D.64,  in Article 29 of the Credit Institutions Law, N.66 (I)/1997, as amended, in Articles 4 and 9 of Ch. 6, Articles 29, 31, and 32 of Law Ν.14/1960, the 2018 Law on the protection of personal data processing staff and the free movement of such data (Law 125 (I)/2018), Articles 3 and 22 of the Law on Evidence, Chapter 9, Article 37 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, the case law, the principles of the common organisation and the Community law, the general practice and discretion inherent to the Court;
As Pleas in law, the following 15 Reasons are specified:
1)	The Hellenic Bank shall be bound by a contractual and/or other relationship of trust with its customers as well as by the provisions of Article 29 of the Credit Institutions Act, N.66 (I)/1997, as amended and as part of its task of respecting the principles of discretion, confidentiality and due diligence to its clients, cannot lawfully disclose any client and/or client due to it and/or what is requested to be disclosed in the application.
2)	The information requested by the applicant by the Hellenic Bank is personal data which are protected in accordance with the provisions of the 2018 Law on the protection of personal data processing staff and the free movement of such data (Act No 125 (I)/2018).
3)	The applicant has not demonstrated that the public interest justifies the issuing of the orders requested in the application and/or the issuing and/or finalisation of the Decrees, and/or that any need to issue them shall take precedence over the confidential client-client relationship and/or the duty to protect personal data.
4)	The applicant may not rely on a judicial decision issued in Poland without first having been recognised and/or registered in the Republic of Cyprus and/or without providing a copy of the judgment which satisfies the conditions necessary to establish its authenticity and certificate from the court of origin in accordance with the form set out in Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012.
5)	The information requested by the applicant by the Hellenic Bank appears to be available in another way, i.e. from XXXXX Kusmierz in the context of the judicial procedures which appear to be ongoing in Poland, so the issuing of the requested decrees against the Hellenic Bank is not necessary.
6)	It has not been established that any effort by the Hellenic Bank in any attempt by Moldova XXXXX to alienate assets and/or obstruct the enforcement of a judicial decision against him/her has been proven.
7)	No evidence has been produced to justify the need to disclose the information requested and/or to explain how such disclosure would help to enforce the judgment cited by the applicants.
8)	The application is incorrect and/or unjustified is general and/or wide and/or is not limited to the companies mentioned in the statement of the applicants, namely the BVI company Casmir Investment Holding Ltd and the Cypriot companies Ventcomp Limited, Byroneous Holdings Limited, Statabon Limited, Tabernacle Limited and the Tatorul Limited.
9)	If the Decree is finalised, the phrase “any associated persons” should be deleted or clarified as it is unclear and/or confusing and/or gives rise to confusion and/or uncertainty and/or difficulty of compliance.
10)	If the Decree is finalised, it should be in force for as short a period as possible, that is, at the latest, until the application is heard and if it is successful, until the information requested in the application has been disclosed.
11)	In case of approval of the application, the words ‘any associated person with Mr XXXXX Kusmierz’ in paragraph A (ai) should be deleted or clarified as they are unclear and/or confusing and/or give rise to confusion and/or uncertainty and/or difficulty of compliance.
12)	The time of 15 working days in paragraph A is excessive and/or unnecessarily short and is not satisfactory for purposes of full and correct compliance in case the requested decrees are issued. In such a case, a period of at least 30 working days should be allowed from the adoption of the decree.
13)	The application is irregular and/or unfounded and/or contrary to the procedural regulations and/or the case-law and/or the practice of the Court of Justice.
14)
14)	The conditions of Article 32 of the Courts Law 14/1960 and/or the case law on the subject are not fulfilled.
15)	The issuing of the requested decrees should be accompanied by an explicit obligation on the applicant, such as any information, document or information to be brought to its knowledge, knowledge, possession, knowledge, possession or possession of its lawyers, may not be used against the Hellenic Bank in any proceedings, as well as by an obligation on the applicant to fully compensate the Hellenic Bank for any damage it may have suffered as a result of its compliance with any order issued and to pay the Hellenic Bank all costs incurred for compliance purposes, including legal and administrative costs.
Statement of Objection
The complaint is accompanied by a sworn statement of  XXXXX Aristotelous officials  at the Centre of International Banking in the defendant bank.
In the information base enjoyed by the Bank’s lawyers, it reads as follows:
—	The Bank may not give its consent to the form of order sought by the applicant when it is bound by an obligation to give confidence to its clients, as well as to respect the banking secrecy pursuant to Article 29 of the Credit Institutions Act, Law 66 (I)/1997. Furthermore, in the context of its duty to respect the principles of confidentiality, confidentiality and due diligence to its customers, the Bank may not disclose any confidential or confidential information relating to any of its clients and any personal data.
—	The judgment relied on by the Applicants cannot be taken into account since, in order to be able to rely on a party to a court in another Member State, such as Poland, it will have to provide a copy of the judgment which satisfies the necessary conditions of authenticity and confirmation from the court of origin in accordance with the form set out in Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012.
In any event, and on the basis of the legal advice enjoyed by the Bank’s lawyers, the Bank declares:
·	The information requested from the Bank can be obtained in another available way, i.e. XXXXX XXXXX Kusmierz in the context of the judicial procedures which appear to be ongoing in Poland. Therefore, the issuing of the requested Decrees against the Bank is not necessary.
·	There is no finding of anything that would link the Bank in any way with specific actions of XXXXX Moldova Kusmierz to alienate assets and prevent the execution of the judicial decision against it.
·	While the applicant in the Estathioiadou application states that what the applicants want to ascertain is  ‘ to ascertain who the ultimate beneficiary of the companies in question is the ultimate beneficiary of the companies in question (i.e. the companies Casmir Investment Holding Ltd, Ventcomp Limited, Byroneous Holdings Limited, Statabon Limited, Tabernacle LimitedHm Tatorul Limited)  and how Kusmierz receives money from the companies in question, so that the Decision can be enforced’, the application is not limited to the companies in question but is not limited in general and broad.
·	It is not precisely explained how the requested disclosures will help  “ implement the Decision”.
·	Furthermore, there are some ambiguities in the wording of both the application and the Decree, which would create uncertainty and difficulty in complying with the Bank in the event of the issuing/finalisation of the requested decrees such as the phrase ‘ any persons associated with him’ in the Decree and the similar phrase ‘any associated person with the XXXXX Chester Kusmierz’ in paragraph A (ii) of the application.
·	As regards the decree of silencing such nature orders should be in force for a very limited period of time, i.e. as short as possible in the circumstances and certainly not until the hearing of the action to which no statement of claim has yet been registered.
Furthermore, the applicant states that, if the requested Decrees are issued, it will be necessary to increase the compliance time from 15 working days to at least 30 hours, which according to its experience in such cases will be necessary.
Finally, it states on the basis of legal advice that, in the event of the application being approved, the following conditions should be laid down:
i.	Any information, document or information brought to the knowledge of the applicant or its possession, possession, knowledge, possession or possession of its lawyers may not be used against the Bank in any proceedings, and
ii.	The Applicant undertakes to indemnify the Bank in full for any such damage suffered as a result of its compliance with any order issued and for all costs incurred by the Bank for compliance purposes, including its legal and administrative costs.
EXAMINATION IN RESPONSE TO AN APPLICATION
The present application relates to orders disclosing information and treatment which falls within the principles of the Law on the Law of the Land and is directed against a person who, in the present case, is the defendant, which, like the applicant, has been involved in torts or unlawful activities or assisted in the reprehensible activities of other persons and for whom the Applicant has no enforceable right.
On the basis of Article 29 (1) (c) of  the Courts Law on Courts Law 14/60, the Cypriot Courts apply the principles of the marker and in this context have the power to issue an interlocutory order in accordance with  Article  32 of  Law Ν.14/60 which is the substantive law of the issuing of such decrees. Orders which are subject to the Law of the Tax Inspectorate such as the revelations of judge-made rulings in England in the judgments in  Norwich Pharmacal Co and others v. Commissioners of Customs & Excise  (1973) 2 AllE.R 943 and  Banker’s Trust v. Shabira (1980) 1 W.L.R
1274 are covered by this Law and, by extension, are applied by our Courts.
The legal principle of the Norwich case  is a separate cause of action and enables actions to be brought against persons involved in or connected in any way to the illegal act.
The legal principle established in the caserwich has since been followed by the English courts. The legal principle under reference is a separate cause of action and can be promoted by an action — as it has been in the present case — against persons who hold information, because of the involvement or facilitation that they have provided in the commission of the unlawful act, even if they may themselves have no personal responsibility. The duty of those persons was identified, was the provision of assistance to the aggrieved person, and this was done by revealing the information he owns and relating to the tort.
The requirements to be met in order to obtain treatment ^ rwich Pharmal  have been codified in the case of Mitsui & COV.NEXEN Petroleum UK Ltd  (2005) 3 All E.R. 511, p. 518. The relevant passage is reproduced here: —
“[21]  The three conditions to be satisfied for the court to exercise the power to order Norwich Pharmacal relief are: (1) a weak must have been carried out, or with three carried out out, by an ultimate wrongdoer; (II) there should be the need for an order to be action to be against the time? and (iii) the person against whom the order is sure just: (a) be mixed up in so as to have sufficient to allow the appropriate correct.’
In any case as stressed both in  Norwich  (above) and in other subsequent decisions, the treatment of the stripping is provided by the Law of the Authority as a weapon assisting a party to an ongoing judicial procedure against persons who hold information due to the involvement or facilitation of the perpetration of the illegal act, even if they have no personal responsibility.
As mentioned in the  Ashworth Hospital Authority v. M.G.N. Ltd
(2002) 4 All E.R 193 a decree on disclosure may be issued even where the person against whom the order is sought
It had been found guilty of an innocent or unintentional involvement in the tort [1].
Having regard, in particular, to the English decisions, the Court of Justice has the power to issue orders for the purpose of identifying assets and for this purpose there is a large number of English judgments, including the case of Bankers Trust Co. v. Shapira & Others case (1980) 3 All E.R. 353.
See also the judgment  in A.v. C. (1981) 1 Q.B. 629, and I quote the relevant passage from the judgment in A.V.C.  (above):
‘In an action in which the plasteks to move property which in equity belongs to him, the court not only has jurisdiction to grant an alteration redoubling the disposal of that property? it? 
may in addition, at the internet pages of the action, make orders designated to ascertains the whereabouts of that property. In particular, it may order a bank (whether or not to the proceedings) to take the recovery of a defendant? and it may take orders to be resolved by the defendant or their employees or direct.”
(the emphasis is of this Court)
In the case of Bankers Trust  (above), Lord Denning’s Lord Denning was seen on page 358 as follows:
’  The Plainfy, who has been given, has a right in equity to follow the money.
He is entitled, in ATKIN LJs words, the latch of the banke r’s door’ see  Banque Belge Pour L 'Etranger v. Hambrouck [1921] 1 KB 321 at 335.’
In  Bankers Trust Co.  (above) the following was added by Lord Denning:
”  This new jurisdiction must, of course, be extended. It is a strong thing to order a bank to assign the state of its customers’s account and the documents and the correspondence relating to it. It should only be consulted when there is a good ground for the money in the bank is the place when the money in the bank is the customer has taken account at the bank.
For the purposes of obtaining interim relief, both the conditions laid down in Article 32 of Law Ν.14/60 and those recognised, in particular in the case of Mitsui & Co, must be fulfilled.
Introduction of a  port of repurchase
On the basis of all the witness statement made before the Court of Justice in the context of the present application, I satisfied that a tort against the applicants had been carried out in order to defraud them and to defraud them, so as not to be able to recover the money owed to them and not to be able to enforce the judgment in favour of them and against Mr Kusmierz. In particular, it has been found that:
the applicants accepted the personal guarantee of Kusmierz in respect of loans granted to companies linked to it on the basis that it was to be the owner of both the principal debtors and a large number of other companies.
[2]
they were active in the construction sector in Poland. 
however, in the light of the failure of the Kusmierz to comply with the Decision in the context of procedures for implementing the Decision in Poland, it stated that it does not hold any assets to
N	.	 o	 [3]
in the context of the enforcement proceedings of the Decision in Poland, Kusmierz refused to provide information on his assets not in response to the request from the competent bailiff to disclose his assets and from February to June 2019 refrained to appear before the District Court in Warsaw for the purposes of the decision
[4]
The Polish examination procedure.
in the context of the Polish examination procedure, in the context of the Polish examination procedure, Mr Kusmierz, while initially stating that he does not hold any assets which could be used to settle the debt from a decision of his debt, subsequently revealed that the company Casmir has a bank account linked to a credit card which he uses himself and that the company in question constitutes a family trust from which he receives funding and which holds 4 Cyprus.
IDEM.[5]
companies.
Kusmierz still does not disclose the ownership of Cypriot
IDEM.[6] companies.
The financial statements of the Cypriot companies show that they do not reveal the name of their final beneficiary [7].
Need  to issue the orders sought
It follows from what has been put before the Court that the provision of information in the possession of the Bank is necessary in order for the applicants to have and promote judicial proceedings for the enforcement of the judgment against Kusmierz and against persons involved in the entire attempt to deceive the applicants as a result of a decision.
creditors for the recovery of the debt from a decision.
E tow of coal or water and the ability of the applicants for  the payment  of the payment to be made;
As the Casmir company has shown, the Bank of the Bank holds a bank account with a bank card which is linked to a credit card used by it [9].
Kusmiierz.
It is also clear from the financial statements of the Cypriot companies that they cooperate with the Bank. Also from these financial statements show that one of them, Ventcomp Limited, is predominantly used to move money from other related companies to the company’s ultimate beneficiary. Whereas for the others it is found that the use of a non-transparent corporate structure is concealed
The ultimate beneficiary of the number of companies [10].
On the basis of the above, and in view of the fact that the Respondent is the Banking Institution with which the Cyprus Companies and Casmir, the respondent appears to have been guilty of an unlawful involvement in the unlawful acts against the applicants to conceal the assets of Kusmierz and to prevent the execution of the Decision. In addition, the Respondent having the legal obligation to collect and maintain information on the identity of the ultimate beneficial owner of its customers’ companies reasonably
It should be possible for it to provide the requested information [11].
In the present case, it has been demonstrated that: (a)  the commission or, at the very least at first sight, the commission of a tortious act against the applicants, i.e. deception and/or fraudulent evasion so that they cannot recover the money owed to them and cannot enforce the decision taken in favour of them by Kusmierz and/or other persons hiding behind the Cypriot companies.
(b) Applicants need the information requested because they would not be in a position to promote judicial enforcement proceedings against Kusmierz and against persons involved in the entire attempt to deceive the applicants as a decision of creditors for the recovery of the debt from the decision.
(c) The Bank is in a position to supply the applicants with the information they request and which is necessary in order to promote the above judicial steps against the persons who committed against it on the ground that the Respondent is the Bank or the Bank with which the Cyprus Companies and Casmir.
As regards the conditions of  Article 32, it is sufficient for the applicants with the material that they have placed before the Court:
(i)	a questionable case which is not different from the torts allegedly committed against them with the result that they are unable to recover the money owed to them and may not be able to enforce the decision taken in favour of them and against Mr Kusmiierz
(ii)	that they have a visible prospect of being entitled to treatment, that is to say, a decision on the damage resulting from the tort or delict;
(iii)	the Bank is in a position to provide the information requested without which the applicants cannot promote a judicial process and, as a consequence, it will be impossible to assign justice at a later stage.
All the conditions for the adoption of the requested Decrees are therefore satisfied cumulatively.
— Of a verb ‘’
One of the grounds invoked is that the Defendants/Respondents are bound by a contractual relationship of trust and/or bank secrecy and that this application does not fall within any of the exceptions under Article 29 (2) of  Law 66 (1) /97.
Article  29 (2) of the Banking  Law reads as follows:
(2)Paragraph (1) shall not apply in cases where —
(a)The customer or his authorised representatives shall give or give their written consent to that effect; or
(b) the customer has been declared bankrupt or if the customer is a company, the company is in the process of being dissolved; or
(c) a judicial procedure has been initiated between the AHS and the customer or its guarantor relating to the account of the customer; or
(D) the information is provided to the police pursuant to the provisions of any law or to a public official who is properly authorised by the relevant law to obtain such information or a court in the prosecution or trial of a criminal offence under the relevant Act; or
(e) has been served with an injunction to confiscate money in loyalty of a client account; or
The information is required by a colleague who is being employed by the same head of action or its parent company or a subsidiary company of the EAP or its parent undertaking, or an authorised auditor or a legal advisor of the AHS for the performance of their duties; or
(g) the information is necessary for the assessment of the solvent customers in relation to or in relation to a bona fide commercial transaction or future commercial transaction in so far as the information required is of a general nature and in no case related to elements of a specific client’s account; or
The information shall be provided for the purpose of its maintenance and operation pursuant to Article 41 (3) and (4) of the Central Information Archive; or
The information shall be provided in accordance with Article 74 of the Law on Good Documents; or
Information is provided to the Central Body by a MFA that has been linked to it under Article 25a; or
(ZZ) the information shall be provided in a system or mechanism for the exchange of data on credit institutions pursuant to this Act and the instructions issued pursuant to Article 41 (6):
Unless one or more of the cases referred to in this subparagraph is present, it shall be prohibited for any person through a data exchange system or mechanism or by any other means to access the information provided in a data exchange system or mechanism to provide, disclose, disclose, disclose, disclose, disclose, disclose, disclose, disclose, disclose, disclose, disclose, disclose or benefit from any information relating to the account of a specific customer of a credit institution either when the employment or professional relationship, which enabled him or her to gain access to that information, is continued or after the termination of the order; or
(MBA) the information shall be provided to the Information Authority as defined in Article 6 (3) of the Central Bank of Cyprus Act, pursuant to point (a) of Article 14 (5) of Regulation (EU) No 655/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a European Account Preservation Order procedure to facilitate cross-border debt recovery in civil and commercial matters;
Information is provided in accordance with the provisions of Article 59 of the Prevention and Suppression of Money Laundering Activitiesor
(fusi) the information is provided to the Tax Department of the Republic for the purpose of complying with the provisions of multinational or intergovernmental agreements or the provisions of laws; or
(h) the provision of the information is required for reasons of public interest or is necessary for the protection of the response’s interests;
(I) Without any restriction on the other provisions of this subparagraph, the provision of the information is necessary in order to:
(i)	the appropriate evaluation of the AHS or any part of the EAP’s assets with regard to a bona fide commercial transaction or future commercial transaction;
(a) to be sold, whether by concession or otherwise, by the EAP to a potential purchaser, of an issued market share fund of at least one twentieth (1/20) of the total issued share capital of the EAP (calculated at the time of completion of that sale)’; and/or
(b) for sale (whether by assignment or otherwise), by the EAP to a potential purchaser, of any part of the assets of the ASF; and/or
Conclusion, with the AHS, of a participation agreement where a third party (which for the purposes of this paragraph will hereinafter be referred to as ‘the participant’) takes over part or all of the credit facilities risks granted by the AHS and/or
(D) liability by AHS to the benefit of a third party (which for the purposes of this paragraph shall be hereinafter referred to as ‘the counterparty’)’; and/or
(ii)	the commissioning of works and/or services and/or activities of a partner, and/or the acquisition and/or acquisition by the EAP of products and/or services provided by an cooperative; and/or
(iii)	the completion and/or application of any of the acts referred to in subparagraphs (i) and (ii), provided that the information is only supplied, disclosed or disclosed for the purposes of this paragraph;
(a) to a potential or actual acquirer or transferee of a disposal or a participant or a participant or a partner, and/or
(b) the parent undertaking of any of the persons referred to in point (A) of subparagraph (A); and/or
To the subsidiary of either any of the persons referred to in point (A) on attachment (iii) either its parent undertaking’ and/or
(D) to a person providing facilities to any of the persons referred to in point (A) of subparagraph (iii) for the purposes of any of the acts referred to in subparagraphs (i) and (i)’, and/or
(e) to a professional adviser or other staff member and/or any official, agent, manager, manager and/or trustee of any of the persons referred to in point (A) of subparagraph (iii):
For the purposes of this Article, access to and availability of information relating to bank accounts of natural persons which fall within the definition of ‘personal data’ as provided for in Article 4 (1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 shall only be made in accordance with the provisions of that Regulation.
This Article prohibits, except in specific cases, employees or representatives of banks from providing or disclosing any information concerning the account of a specific client in the Bank.
In the present case, taking into account the nature of the information requested, on the basis of what the applicants/Applicants claim, it appears to be such that it serves the public interest which is to suppress fraudulent or unlawful acts and, in such cases, the public interest outweighs the confidential customer relationship.
The principle that the public interest prevails over the client-client relationship was established in  Tournier v National Provincial and Union Bank¬ of England Ltd (1923) All E.R Rep. 550 where page 554 states the following: There apps to be no authority on the point. On principle I think that the queries can be classified under the four heads: Where the disclosure is under consideration by law?(b) where there is a duty to the public to close?(c) Where the interests of the bank request disclosure?(D) where the disclosure is made by the express or implicit consent of the customer.”
On page 558 of the above Decision, it is among the cases that the pursuit of an objective of combating fraudulent acts or crimes can be identified as being in line with the public interest in disclosure.
In the case  of I.B.A.v. planet  (1990) JLR 294, the following should be noted:
”  The issue of permanence was given in the Norwich Pharmacal case.The
Court was entitled to order documents for the purpose of legal proceedings if the public interest in the administration of justice required it. The court found that in the circumstances of the case the public interest in the case of the information was delivered by the interests of justice.
The court designates the essential test in the present case. Of course, we have led confidentiality in the balance in improving our decision. Out of the future of the finance industry, but not shared by Mr O’O ''s’ s’ s’ s’ s’ s’ s’ s’ s’ s’ s’ s’ s’ s’ s’ s’ s’ s’ s’ s’ s’ s’ s’ s’ s’ s’ s’ s’ s’ sConfidentiality dependence upon receipt of legitimate private business affairs in the context of the proceedings before the Court of Justice. Here, there is a strong case to the documentary.”
(the emphasis is of this Court)
In the case of Norwich  (above), it was stressed that the interest of justice as an expression of the public interest outweighs the protection of the insider data.
Consequently, the Bank’s position that it is not able to provide the requested information on the grounds of bank secrecy or as a result of the confidentiality relationship with its client cannot be upheld.
—	Π Personal Data Protection
Another ground for objection raised by the Respondent is that the requested information is personal data of the Bank’s clients who benefit from protection under its provisions
the Protection of Natural Persons Against the Processing of Personal Data and the Free Movement of Data Act of 2018 (Act 125 (I)/2018).
In this respect, it should be noted that, in accordance with  Article 5 (a) of the Law (Law 125 (I)/2018), the processing of personal data is lawful when it is carried out by the courts in the context of their judicial competence for the purpose of the administration of justice.
The relevant article is reproduced here:
Processing of data by the courts and the House of Representatives
5Without prejudice to the provisions of Article 6 (1) (e) of the Regulation, the processing of personal data shall be permitted and lawful where it is carried out;
(a)By the courts in the context of their jurisdiction for the purposes of the administration of justice, including the processing of personal data necessary for the purpose of the publication or the adoption of a decision of any court; and
(b) [ “ I.
In line with what was argued by Mr Erotocrit, reference may be made to the statements made in the Penderhill Holdings Limited and Others’ case, in 319/11 and 320/11, in relation to the primacy of the public interest when there is a need to combat illegal and fraudulent acts. The same applies, mutatis mutandis, in cases where disclosure may constitute processing of personal data, in so far as the administration of justice serves in all circumstances and the protection of the public interest.
—	It is not possible to rely on the  decision of the  Court  of  Justice on 1215 September
Another Plea suggested by the applicants is that the applicants cannot rely on a foreign judgment without first having to comply with the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1215/2012.
I do not agree with the argument put forward by the defence counsel of the respondent. In the present case, as rightly pointed out by the Ombudsman of the Applicants, the applicants do not rely on the decision of the Polish Court of Justice for the purposes of registration or enforcement of the Decision in Cyprus, nor for the purposes of examining or adopting its content by the Cyprus Court. A reference to that Decision is made in the context of the relevant facts surrounding the present case for the purposes of proving that the alleged tort is committed against them.
—  Possibility of  obtaining information under the procedures in Poland
The Respondent also argued against the case and that there was a possibility for the applicants to obtain the information requested from Kusmierz in the context of judicial proceedings in Poland.
On the basis of what has been set out in the Efstathioiadou statement, it appears that the judicial proceedings in Poland are not expected to produce results for the purposes of enforcing the debt by taking into account the attitude which Kusmierz displayed. While the only reliable route is through the Respondent which, on the basis of its legal obligations, is expected to know whether Kusmierz is the ultimate beneficiary of the Cypriot client companies or other companies which have an account with the Respondent.
CLOSING
On the basis of the facts and data before the Court and guided by the legal principles outlined above,  I conclude that it is correct and fair as this Application is approved.
Taking the fact that there has been agreement between the parties on issues concerning the time of compliance  and the limitation of the applicants referred to in paragraph A (ii) of the Decrees, the application is approved and the requested Decrees are issued as paragraphs  A (j)  and  (ii), B, C  and  D  on the basis of the following terms and differences:
(I)In relation to  subparagraph A (ii)  of the application, the Authorising Decrees shall be limited to the companies owned or controlled by Mr Kusmiierz and in withdrawals or transfers from and to Mr Kusmiierz and/or by and to companies owned or controlled by Mr Kusmiierz. 
(ii)	The  Gaguing Order, which was issued as paragraph D  of the application, becomes absolute and will remain in force for  90 days  after disclosure of the information requested or the completion of the action.
(iii)	The  Bank’s time of compliance is extended to  30 days.
(iv)	The applicants undertake not to use the information that will be disclosed in order to raise any financial claim against the Bank.
(v)	The Applicants also undertake to compensate the Bank  for
Any costs incurred as a result of complying with the issued Decrees  up to the amount of EUR 1.000.
(cons.) 	
A. Dimitriadou — Andreou, Greek Permanent Representation to the European Union
Copy
Registrar
/P.D.