Apostolides v Orams – A Mile Stone for the Cyprus Problem and a Cause of Concern for Foreign Investors
The unfortunate events of 1974 lead to Mr. Meletis Apostolides together with thousands of other refugees to be displaced from their properties as a result of the Turkish invasion and subsequent military occupation of the northern part of Cyprus.
In 2002 David Charles and Linda Elizabeth Orams, from, England, invested a substantial amount of their funds to acquire Mr. Apostolide’s land from a third party and to construct a villa on the premises. The third party claimed to have acquired the property from the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, an entity which, to this day, has not been recognised by any State except the Republic of Turkey.
In 2003, Mr. Meletis Apostolides visited his property and confirmed the construction of the house occupied by the Orams. Mr. Meletis Apostolides proceeded at the District Court of Nicosia against the Orams and in November 2004, the District Court of Nicosia ordered the Orams to:
- demolish the villa, swimming pool and fencing which they had erected on Mr. Apostolides' land
- deliver immediately to Mr. Apostolides free possession of the land
- pay Mr. Apostolides various sums by way of special damages and monthly rental charges (including interest) until the judgment was complied with
- refrain from continuing with the unlawful intervention on the land, whether personally or through their agents, and
- pay various sums in respect of the costs and expenses of the proceedings (with interest on those sums).
The Orams appealed this decision, which was heard at the supreme court of Cyprus. The appeal was dismissed.
Mr. Apostoilides later proceeded to register the judgment in the High Court of Justice in London in October 2005 and sought, on the basis of the European Regulation on recognition and enforcement of judgments, to enforce the decision of the Nicosia District Court. In September 2006 Judge Rupert Jack, in a complex and controversial decision, found that Mr and Mrs Orams were indeed trespassers on Mr Apostolides's property but that the High Court had no jurisdiction to enforce the judgment of the Nicosia District Court. In 2007 the Court of Appeal declined to uphold Justice Jack's judgment but instead referred the case to the European Court of Justice for 5 preliminary rulings on points of law.
The national court referred to the Court of Justice a number of questions concerning the interpretation and application of the Brussels I Regulation. In summary, the Court concluded that the suspension of Community law in the northern area provided for by the protocol annexed to the Act of Accession, did not preclude the application of the Brussels I Regulation to a judgment which is given by a Cypriot court sitting in the Government-controlled area, but concerns land situated in the northern area.
The Court also stated, as regards the public policy of the Member State in which recognition is sought, that a court of a Member State cannot without undermining the aim of the Brussels I Regulation, refuse recognition of a judgment emanating from another Member State solely on the ground that it considers that national or Community law was misapplied. Furthermore, as regards the enforceability of the judgments concerned, the Court stated that the fact that Mr Apostolides might encounter difficulties in having the judgments enforced cannot deprive them of their enforceability. Therefore, that situation does not prevent the courts of another Member State from declaring such judgments enforceable.
Consequently, the recognition and enforcement of the judgments of the Cypriot court cannot be refused in the United Kingdom on that ground.
January 19th 2010 was a mile stone for Cyprus and also for the thousands of refugees who for the last 35 years have been forced to vacate their properties. The Court of Appeal found in favour of Mr. Apostolides and ruled that the judgements emanating from the Republic of Cyprus should be registered in the United Kingdom.
The parties to the case have been battling for various years. The Court of Appeal’s decision however is now final and no further appeal is possible.
The Court of Appeal’s decision is also important as it will make many investors from abroad more alert to the Cyprus problem. Furthermore, people who may have been interested in purchasing a property in the occupied area will now think twice before doing so and would hopefully seek for legal representation prior to making any hasty decisions which could possibly lead them to the same position as the Orams. Thousands of people have been lured into purchasing properties in the occupied areas due to the relatively low prices, many being utterly unaware of the illegality of such transactions and any long term consequences.
In conclusion, it can be clearly stated that the final decision made by the Court of Appeal in the Orams case should not be taken lightly by anyone. This verdict points out certain legal facts, which are very significant and as Mr Markos Kyprianou, the Cyprus Foreign Minister, explained, the ruling “applies throughout Europe, it applies to all European citizens,'' totaling that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is already making clear to all European citizens ''the significance of the ruling, the illegality of purchasing immovable property and the existing risks for the buyers in illegally purchasing occupied property.'' He also pointed out that ''it is a ruling that binds all EU member states and citizens.''
Mr. Apostoilides later proceeded to register the judgment in the High Court of Justice in London in October 2005 and sought, on the basis of the European Regulation on recognition and enforcement of judgments, to enforce the decision of the Nicosia District Court. In September 2006 Judge Rupert Jack, in a complex and controversial decision, found that Mr and Mrs Orams were indeed trespassers on Mr Apostolides's property but that the High Court had no jurisdiction to enforce the judgment of the Nicosia District Court. In 2007 the Court of Appeal declined to uphold Justice Jack's judgment but instead referred the case to the European Court of Justice for 5 preliminary rulings on points of law.
The national court referred to the Court of Justice a number of questions concerning the interpretation and application of the Brussels I Regulation. In summary, the Court concluded that the suspension of Community law in the northern area provided for by the protocol annexed to the Act of Accession, did not preclude the application of the Brussels I Regulation to a judgment which is given by a Cypriot court sitting in the Government-controlled area, but concerns land situated in the northern area.
The Court also stated, as regards the public policy of the Member State in which recognition is sought, that a court of a Member State cannot without undermining the aim of the Brussels I Regulation, refuse recognition of a judgment emanating from another Member State solely on the ground that it considers that national or Community law was misapplied. Furthermore, as regards the enforceability of the judgments concerned, the Court stated that the fact that Mr Apostolides might encounter difficulties in having the judgments enforced cannot deprive them of their enforceability. Therefore, that situation does not prevent the courts of another Member State from declaring such judgments enforceable.
Consequently, the recognition and enforcement of the judgments of the Cypriot court cannot be refused in the United Kingdom on that ground.
January 19th 2010 was a mile stone for Cyprus and also for the thousands of refugees who for the last 35 years have been forced to vacate their properties. The Court of Appeal found in favour of Mr. Apostolides and ruled that the judgements emanating from the Republic of Cyprus should be registered in the United Kingdom.
The parties to the case have been battling for various years. The Court of Appeal’s decision however is now final and no further appeal is possible.
The Court of Appeal’s decision is also important as it will make many investors from abroad more alert to the Cyprus problem. Furthermore, people who may have been interested in purchasing a property in the occupied area will now think twice before doing so and would hopefully seek for legal representation prior to making any hasty decisions which could possibly lead them to the same position as the Orams. Thousands of people have been lured into purchasing properties in the occupied areas due to the relatively low prices, many being utterly unaware of the illegality of such transactions and any long term consequences.
In conclusion, it can be clearly stated that the final decision made by the Court of Appeal in the Orams case should not be taken lightly by anyone. This verdict points out certain legal facts, which are very significant and as Mr Markos Kyprianou, the Cyprus Foreign Minister, explained, the ruling “applies throughout Europe, it applies to all European citizens,'' totaling that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is already making clear to all European citizens ''the significance of the ruling, the illegality of purchasing immovable property and the existing risks for the buyers in illegally purchasing occupied property.'' He also pointed out that ''it is a ruling that binds all EU member states and citizens.''
Therefore the bottom line of this should be that due to the complexity and severity of the Cyprus problem, potential buyers interested in purchasing occupied property should contact a legal practitioner so that they can avoid unwelcome and unpleasant situations.
