UK High court stands by Orams ruling

[brother]

[-mikkie2-]

Well, it seems the British Courts have accepted the case to be heard in a British Court. This will be a very interesting case.

I suspect that if the law is taken literally, then there is a high probablity that Apostolides will win his case.

There is also the outstanding part of the ruling regarding Loizidou. Turkey is supposed to comply with the rest of the ruling - for Loizidou to get access to her property - by the end of the year.

Turkey it seems is running scared and for good reason. The changes being mooted to article 159 of the 'Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus' constitution will only serve to delay the inevitable, as opposed to providing just satisafaction for Greek Cypriot refugees that abandoned their property in the north.

The Cyprus problem will be going through very interesting times indeed!

This is yet another reason why talks will have to begin soon. Politically the Greek Cypriot's may be on the back foot at the moment, but they are certainly way ahead legally. It is very difficult for Turkey to undo 31 years of illegality overnight. The pressure really is on!

[cannedmoose]

Somehow I sense this one's going all the way to the ECHR again. It will certainly be a landmark ruling if the ruling compels the Orams to demolish the property or face the expropriation of their assets in the UK. I agree with the points made in the article, the Orams plea is that they were ignorant of the politics of the situation, which in my view is a poor defence. It's possible for people to holiday in Cyprus with no knowledge or interest in the politics, as most do, but when it comes to buying land or property, you should make yourself fully aware of the circumstances, failure to do so isn't an excuse.

[Crash Test Dummy]

This case will as you said be a landmark if he wins. If it gets some publicity here in the UK Press then maybe people will wise up to buying property in the north.

[PAul]

I am not a legal expert, just someone trying to understand this issue. I gave 'legal arguments' because the discussion is about the 'likelihood' of the UK recognising the ruling re Orams in the Republic of Cyprus and enforcing it as required having recognised it. This is first and foremost a legal issue and my assessment of the likely hood a given ruling is based on my understanding of the legal arguments. The fact is that the Republic of Cyprus lawyers and their paid advisers in the UK may well have studied the legal merits of the case and decided that they are not strong but decided to peruse the case anyway for political and propaganda purposes - all the while maintaining that the case is strong (for that is what a propaganda objective would require). It would be madness to think that the Republic of Cyprus paid lawyers would peruse the case and before it is heard publicly declare that actually the case is very weak from a legal standpoint even if that were true and especially so if the prime objectives were not legal but political and propaganda.

So onto the actual law itself and the case itself.

Below is the EU directive under which the attempt to get the Orams ruling in the Republic of Cyprus recognised and enforced via Uk courts (and potentially against UK assets held by the Ormas) - from the Eupro site, thanks for the link btw.

www.eupro.co.uk/docs%20pd...cement.pdf

Below are sections of this EU directive that lead me to believe that this Republic of Cyprus ruling will not be recognised by UK courts.

Article 34
A judgment shall not be recognised:
1. if such recognition is manifestly contrary to public policy in the Member State in which recognition is sought;
It is not the UK's public policy to prosecute UK citizens for buying land in the Republic of Northern Cyprus, whatever its origins. It is the UK's public policy that the Cyprus issue, including property, is a political problem that requires a comprehensive agreed political solution and that this solution should be sought under the auspices of the UN. 'Your' lawyers may be saying that this article does not matter to the case in hand but to my simple non legal eyes it seems a problem.


Article 34
A judgment shall not be recognised:
1. if such recognition is manifestly contrary to public policy in the Member State in which recognition is sought;
2. where it was given in default of appearance, if the defendant was not served with the document which instituted the proceedings or with an equivalent document in sufficient time and in such a way as to enable him to arrange for his defence, unless the defendant failed to commence proceedings to challenge the judgment when it was possible for him to do so;

This may also cause problems for the Republic of Cyprus's case as they original Republic of Cyprus proceedings were issues only against Mrs Orams, as I understand it. Only Mrs Orams was served notices and yet the Republic of Cyprus ruling is against both Mr and Mrs Orams. there are also grounds to argue that the defendant was not severed documents 'in sufficient time and in such a way as to enable him to arrange for his defence,' as they were severed in Greek in a matter of days before the court was due to hear the case in the Republic of Cyprus. However this may have been overcome in the process of the original Republic of Cyprus cases having been appealed.


Article 35
1. Moreover, a judgment shall not be recognised if it conflicts with Sections 3, 4 or 6 of Chapter II, or in a case provided for in Article 72.
Article 6 of Chapter II reads as follows.


S e c t i on 6
Exclusive jurisdiction
Article 22
The following courts shall have exclusive jurisdiction, regardless of domicile:
1. in proceedings which have as their object rights in rem in immovable property or tenancies of immovable property, the courts of the Member State in which the property is situated.

As I understand this for issue that relates to immovable property, as the Orams ruling in the Republic of Cyprus does, there is exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where the property is - namely (at best the Republic of Cyprus). The UK courts can not recognise jurisdiction of rulings in other member states when they relate to immovable property in those states is what I understand this to mean. Jurisdiction resides exclusively (and solely) in the Republic of Cyprus courts in such a case as this.

These are the articles in the EU directive that to me seem to make this case a very weak one on the part of the Republic of Cyprus - in purely legal terms. I have no doubt that those in the Republic of Cyprus who know the case is weak legally and have perused it for other objectives (political and propaganda) have their spin ready for when the Republic of Cyprus ruling re the Orams ruling is not recognised or enforced in the UK courts.

You have already been 'primed' with this 'spin' and presented it here yourself, before the UK courts have made a determination. Namely that the failure of the case (should this happen) will be nothing to do with its lack of legal merits in law but be entirely the result of UK government interference in the UK judiciary to subvert justice and undermine the Republic of Cyprus.

If and when this happens, the reality of the situation that the case failed because it was legally weak and ill thought out and was actually politically and propaganda driven, will be drowned out under the spin that the failure is yet more proof of the perfidy of the UK government and their conniving efforts to subvert justice and stitch up Greek Cypriot in favour of their friends the Turks and Turkish Cypriot.

No doubt this 'spin' version of events will be lapped up with relish in the Republic of Cyprus.

[-mikkie2-]

This is not the only issue.

Recently, the Foreign Office made its warning about buying property in the north more explicit.

This I thinkis the carrott/stick approach that the British are playing. In this case it is a stick directly pointing to the Turkish side.

On the flip side, the stick for the Greek side is the continued tabling of direct trade with the north.

Basically, whether Turkey or us like it or not, talks will commence sooner, rather than later. Turkey cannot continually hide behind the 'yes' vote and on the flip side we can't keep blocking trade with the Turkish Cypriot's. Effectively, the British are saying to Turkey 'negotiate the plan to make it acceptable to both sides'.

The essence here is that this time around, the Greek Cypriot positions will be taken into account. This does mean that some basic parameters of the plan must be re-negotiated. It will also thankfully mean the end of the 'give and take' process which led to the one sided result of the plan in favour of Turkey.