Is the European Commission fair on Cyprus ?
By Dr. Kypros Chrysostomides
THE Apostolides v. Orams case revolves around the question whether a Cyprus judgment obtained by a Cypriot refugee against a British couple who claimed to have bought his land in occupied Cyprus on which they then built their holiday villa, can be enforced in the UK . The case was referred by the Court of Appeal in London to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) for an advisory opinion. From the recent Opinion of Advocate General Ms. Kokkot, of the ECJ, several questions arise as to the views taken by the European Commission.
The Advocate General reiterates that under international law, the Republic of Cyprus is the only recognised state on the island. Its territory encompasses the northern area of the island, in which the land in issue in this case is situated. Protocol No 10 to the Act of Accession shows that the Member States of the EU also regarded the north of Cyprus as part of the territory of the Republic of Cyprus and as part of the acceding territory. Otherwise it would have been unnecessary to suspend the application of the acquis there.
The Advocate General confirmed that the suspension of the acquis in the northern areas of Cyprus was only meant to avoid a situation in which Cyprus would infringe Community law by not being able to enforce it in the area under occupation.
In para. 50 of her Opinion, Ms. Kokkot makes reference to the Loizidou Case and its well known effects. It also refers to the “Immovable Property Commission” established in the occupied part of Cyprus .
The secessionist regime claims that this Commission constitutes a domestic remedy which will need to be exhausted prior to filing a petition at the European Court of Human Rights. This question has yet to be resolved by the ECourtHR and is strongly contested.
Strangely enough, however, the European Commission took the view that: “international practice assigns the resolution of individual property disputes following armed conflict to specialised institutions.” and postulates that: “[t]he compensation regime introduced under the supervision of the ECourtHR can be construed as such a convention” i.e. as a convention offering an alternative legal remedy to an application for the recognition and enforcement of the Cyprus judgment in the UK against the British trespassers.
The view taken by Advocate General Ms. Kokkot in paras. 70 and 73 of her Opinion is crystal clear: “The Commission’s argument that, pursuant to Article 71(1) of Regulation No 44/2001, is overridden by the compensation scheme approved by the European Court of Human Rights is also untenable” and: “It must therefore be concluded that the judgment whose recognition is sought in the main proceedings concerns a civil matter within the meaning of Article 1(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 and thus falls within the scope of the regulation”.
Why, then, has the Commission adopted a position that may show partiality in favour of usurpers of refugees’ properties in the occupied part of Cyprus ? Why has the Commission chosen to disregard the elements of illegal occupation, illegal attempt at secession and dismemberment of the territory of Cyprus , a full member of the European Union? Is this compatible with its pronouncements that a solution to the Cyprus problem should be based on principles on which the very existence of the EU is founded?
Dr Kypros Chrysostomides is President of ‘Epalxi’ and former Minister of Justice and Public Order
http://www.cyprus-mail.com/news/main.ph ... 0&cat_id=1
