The Case of Apostolides v Orams

Apostolides v Orams is a landmark legal case decided in the European Court of Justice on 28 April 2009. It concerned the right for Greek Cypriot refugees to reclaim land in northern Cyprus, displaced after the 1974 Turkish invasion. The case determined that although Cyprus does not exercise effective control in northern Cyprus, cases decided in its courts are applicable through European Union law.^[1]

Background to the case

In 1974, Meletis Apostolides was displaced with his family from his property in the village of Lapithos as a result of the Turkish invasion and subsequent military occupation of the northern part of the island.

In 2002 David Charles and Linda Elizabeth Orams, from Hove, Sussex, England, invested St£160.000 of their retirement fund to acquire the land from a third party and to construct a villa on the premises of the property which belonged to the displaced Apostolides. The third party claimed to have acquired the property from the so-called 'Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus', an illegal entity which, to this day, has not been recognized by any State except Turkey. The Orams used the property in Cyprus for vacations and maintained a separate property in the UK.

In 2003 the de facto subordinate administration of Turkey in the northern part of Cyprus eased crossing restrictions along the ceasefire line giving the opportunity to displaced Cypriots residing in the south to cross over and visit the northern areas. Mr Apostolides visited his property in Lapithos and confirmed the construction of the house occupied by the Orams.

 Legal Proceeding in Cyprus

Mr Apostolides took his case to the Nicosia District court, demanding the vacation of his property by the Orams. Northern Cyprus, although a de facto subordinate administration of Turkey and an illegal entity, remains an unrecognised state internationally.

Mr Apostolides' case focused around the argument that although following the Turkish invasion the Government of the Republic of Cyprus had lost effective control over the northern part of the island, its laws still applied even if these were not easily enforceable.

In November 2004 the Nicosia District Court 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 the Republic of Cyprus. The appeal was dismissed.

 Legal Proceeding in England and Wales

Due to the island's division, the judgment reached by the Cypriot court was not enforceable, hence Mr Apostolides used EU regulations to have it registered and applied against the Orams' assets in the UK.

The procedure for the enforcement of judgments between Member States of the European Union is provided by Regulation No 44/2001. 

The Orams were represented in the British courts by Cherie Blair, the spouse of the then British Prime Minister!

In September 2006, the High Court of Justice ruled in favor of the Orams.

Mr Apostolides appealed the decision at the Court of Appeal which in turn referred the case to the European Court of Justice (ECJ), in Luxembourg. The ECJ in turn ruled in favor of Mr Apostolides.

The case was then returned back to the Court of Appeal in the UK which decided in favor of Mr Apostolides on January 19, 2010.

Under the current system of the British judicial, this decision is final and no further escalation is possible.

 Legal Proceeding in the EU

The case C-420/07, Apostolides v Orams, was heard by the Grand Chamber of the ECJ in Luxembourg. A panel of judges ruled on April 28, 2009 that British courts were able to enforce the judicial decisions made in the Republic of Cyprus, which uphold the property rights of Cypriots forced out during the 1974 invasion.

Implications

The case has been described as a landmark test case as it sets a precedent for other displaced persons to bring similar actions to court. The importance of the case is illustrated by the fact that the Orams were funded by Turkish property developers and indirectly by the Turkish government.

Both the British High Commission in Cyprus and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have issued warnings regarding the purchase of property in northern Cyprus. Other states have started issuing similar warnings.

Following the final ruling by the Court of Appeal in England, Mr Apostolides' lawyer Constantis Candounas stated to the Press that he was considering similar law suits against foreign tourists using hotels in northern Cyprus owned by Greek Cypriots subsequently lost during the invasion in 1974 (see attached copy of the article by Financial Mirror 27 January 2010).

The Government of the Republic of Cyprus considers this case very important both for those displaced Cypriots affected directly and foreigners who might be thinking to invest in real estate or visit as tourists the island and in particular the northern part of Cyprus due to the legal implications that they might face.