Cyprus-Forum.com

[Get Real!]

GR, get the photoshop out again mate, we could make a killing here.....

Photoshop? I've got even better... Ms Paint!

[CopperLine]

Hey just got home and read all the crap posted by the jubliant GCs who have gained another toliet paper victory.

Copperline thank you for some common sense, there is noway anyone can demolish the Orams home,sorry to be a party pooper (not really) the only thing they may be able to enforce in the UK is the compensation, but Copperline what if they do not have any assets in the UK? what will happen then? will they be arrested?

How long did the case take to get to this stage which is not the end just yet? How long will it take other cases to proceed and finalize???

Again another matter of GCs counting their chickens before the hatch or collection resolution and decisions which in reality mean jack shit.

This battle may we won but the war is not over yet, we to will have our day and it wont be a toilet paper victory.

Viewpoint,
What this ECJ judgment does, mainly, is that it simply confirms the principle of enforceability of one EU state's court decisions in the jurisdiction of another EU state. We should not underestate the significance of this judgment.
However, it does not actually say how Apostilides can actually recover the compensation (or enforce the demolition). In that respect there are still more legal hoops to jump through for the actual enforcement if these case judgments. For example, Apostiledes is now free to use the UK courts to apply for compensation etc as specified in the RoC court judgment. The Orams will have to ber served with a writ, a court will have to determine what assets the Orams hold, determine how they must comply with earlier judgments in RoC and so on. Whilst this is a bit of a drag legally speaking it is straightforward. The ECJ ruling clears out any remaining principles of law.

Your question about other cases can be answered in a similar straightforward way : Apostiledes v Orams clears the way for all other property cases. No other claimants will have to go through this long process again. Insofar as the ECJ is the highest court of the EU there is no higher court of appeal. (Only if the ECJ had, in its procedures, abused the human rights of the Orams, could there be a case before the ECHR. But such a suggestion is fantatistical and the Orams have not even hinted at such a complaint). In sum, the legal game is over. I'm afraid that you're mistaken to think that this means 'jack shit'.

But contrary to what some people have implied on this forum, this is not a victory just for GCs. This confirms that any EU citizen, including TCs, can seek enforcement in any other EU state. As I keep saying in this forum the Cyprus question for both TCs and GCs is a choice between being inside the tent and pissing out, or outside the tent pissing in. This judgment makes it a whole lot more comfortable to be inside the tent pissing out.

[YFred]

GR, get the photoshop out again mate, we could make a killing here.....

Photoshop? I've got even better... Ms Paint!

Ms Pain? - Is that a new code name for Horakill when its the wrong time or something?

[Mr. T]

A message to the darkside,you have won nothing !!! When are you going to recognise that this is all your fault ? You are the ones that started all this ,when you wanted Cyprus to join with the Motherland ,most people want independence ,not you,you morons.You started your bully boy tactics on innocent people and when the Turks came to save there people you ran.The only people who bought peace to this Island are the Turkish Army.I think somehow the TCs might be claiming there land back too ,how many of you are sitting in Mehmets front room.

Oh another brightspark...so between you 2 who is the dumb and who is the dumber?...just wondering...

and learn how to spell you imbecille...

thats funny a cypriot teaching a pom how to spell...no wonder they took your money...and laughed all the way to the bank...

If ever there was a case of being hoist by your own petard this must be it.

I appreciate English is obviously your second language but to criticise others for making just one spelling error when your spelling and use of the language is horrific must warrant you changing your forum name to BLOOMERHUNG. It would have been bad enough if you had made such comments only once in one thread but to do so repetitively takes the biscuit.

The following is a tiny sample of basic spelling and grammar errors (American words excluded) taken from your early comments on this thread.



'and hopefully now they can wipe the smirk of the faces

they should sue the blair bitch for leading them a stray while robbing them of their doe...that will be the icing on the cake...

...if vocated before 74 they can claim it immediately

I wonder if bayarak boy is gonna bambusal us with horseshit

but didn't stop you from capitalizing on other peoples misery

get demolished and vocated

if they vocate the occupyied areas

of cource Christina

ehhhh...where is dumb, dumber and dumbest disappeared too...up the flag pole?... '

AND THE BEST OF ALL 'and learn how to spell you imbecille'

Methinks you should stick to what comes within your capabilities and just use words with no more than three letters.

Yu shud bee

[YFred]

A message to the darkside,you have won nothing !!! When are you going to recognise that this is all your fault ? You are the ones that started all this ,when you wanted Cyprus to join with the Motherland ,most people want independence ,not you,you morons.You started your bully boy tactics on innocent people and when the Turks came to save there people you ran.The only people who bought peace to this Island are the Turkish Army.I think somehow the TCs might be claiming there land back too ,how many of you are sitting in Mehmets front room.

Oh another brightspark...so between you 2 who is the dumb and who is the dumber?...just wondering...

and learn how to spell you imbecille...

thats funny a cypriot teaching a pom how to spell...no wonder they took your money...and laughed all the way to the bank...

If ever there was a case of being hoist by your own petard this must be it.

I appreciate English is obviously your second language but to criticise others for making just one spelling error when your spelling and use of the language is horrific must warrant you changing your forum name to BLOOMERHUNG. It would have been bad enough if you had made such comments only once in one thread but to do so repetitively takes the biscuit.

The following is a tiny sample of basic spelling and grammar errors (American words excluded) taken from your early comments on this thread.



'and hopefully now they can wipe the smirk of the faces

they should sue the blair bitch for leading them a stray while robbing them of their doe...that will be the icing on the cake...

...if vocated before 74 they can claim it immediately

I wonder if bayarak boy is gonna bambusal us with horseshit

but didn't stop you from capitalizing on other peoples misery

get demolished and vocated

if they vocate the occupyied areas

of cource Christina

ehhhh...where is dumb, dumber and dumbest disappeared too...up the flag pole?... '

AND THE BEST OF ALL 'and learn how to spell you imbecille'

Methinks you should stick to what comes within your capabilities and just use words with no more than three letters.

Yu shud bee

Now, you are being unfair. You are talking about a hellene goat herder (Vosko) living in the land of the convicts(the outback).

Please make some allowances Mr T.
Boy done well just to be able to scratch his arse, what more do you want.

[CopperLine]

If this judgement does anything else Bananiot it at the very least explains a few of our compatriots who were eager to negotiate away Primary Law and the right that it gives us and our properties in the WHOLE of Cyprus.

The Annan Plan would have made this judgement impossible while 80% of our refugees waited around for 7 years till some committee would decide that they'd receive compensation with a decades old Market Value (not in cash)

The other 20% would have waited for Turkey to honour its signature.

DT,
I don't agree with the bit I've highlighted. The Annan Plan would not have been superior to or displaced EU law or ECHR and therefore even if it had been implemented cases such as Apostilides v Orams could still have been pursued. In fact had the Annan Plan been implemented then there would have been no need for Apostiledes to have gone to the ECJ since the whole of post Annan Cyprus would have been subject to the acquis

[kurupetos]

If this judgement does anything else Bananiot it at the very least explains a few of our compatriots who were eager to negotiate away Primary Law and the right that it gives us and our properties in the WHOLE of Cyprus.

The Annan Plan would have made this judgement impossible while 80% of our refugees waited around for 7 years till some committee would decide that they'd receive compensation with a decades old Market Value (not in cash)

The other 20% would have waited for Turkey to honour its signature.

DT,
I don't agree with the bit I've highlighted. The Annan Plan would not have been superior to or displaced EU law or ECHR and therefore even if it had been implemented cases such as Apostilides v Orams could still have been pursued. In fact had the Annan Plan been implemented then there would have been no need for Apostiledes to have gone to the ECJ since the whole of post Annan Cyprus would have been subject to the acquis

The Annan Plan allowed permanent deviations and derogations from the European acquis.

[Lit]

ECJ – APOSTOLIDES VS ORAMS CASE

http://www.cna.org.cy/website/english/a ... 2.asp?id=1

The European Court of Justice ruled Tuesday that a judgment of a Court in the Republic of Cyprus must be recognized and enforced by the other EU member states even if it concerns land situated in the Turkish occupied areas of Cyprus.

The Court’s ruling refers to the Apostolides vs Orams case and came after a dispute has arisen before the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, which has requested a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice, between Greek Cypriot refugee Meletis Apostolides, and British couple David and Linda Orams, in relation to the recognition and enforcement of a judgment of the District Court of Nicosia.

The court in the government controlled southern areas of Cyprus had delivered a judgment ordering the Orams couple to vacate an area of land in the Turkish occupied north and to pay various monetary amounts.

The British couple had purchased the land from a third party and built a holiday house on it. According to the findings of the court in Cyprus, however, the rightful owner of the land is in fact Apostolides, whose family was forced to leave the north as a result of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974 and the occupation of the island’s northern third.

In statements to CNA, advocate of Greek Cypriot Meletis Apostolides, Constantis Candounas, said that the Court’s decision is 100% in favor of his client.

According to a press released by the European Court of Justice on the Apostolides vs Orams case, the suspension of the application of Community law in the areas where the government of the Republic of Cyprus does not exercise effective control and the fact that the judgment cannot, as a practical matter, be enforced where the land is situated do not preclude its recognition and enforcement in another member state.

The press release says that a judgment of a Court in the Republic of Cyprus must be recognized and enforced by the other member states even if it concerns land situated in the northern part of the island.

“Following the intervention of Turkish troops in 1974 Cyprus was partitioned into two areas. The Republic of Cyprus, which acceded to the European Union in 2004, has de facto control only over the southern part of the island while, in the northern part, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus has been established, which is not recognised by the international community with the exception of Turkey. In those circumstances, the application of Community law in the northern area of the Republic of Cyprus has been suspended by a protocol annexed to the Act of Accession”, the press release adds.

It is noted that Apostolides, a Cypriot national, brought an appeal before the Court of Appeal (England and Wales), in the course of a dispute between himself and a British couple, the Orams, seeking the recognition and enforcement of two judgments from a court in Nicosia. That court, sitting in the southern part of Cyprus, ordered the Orams to vacate land situated in the northern part of the island and to pay various sums.

The Orams had purchased the land from a third party in order to build a holiday home on it.

According to the findings of the Cypriot court, Apostolides, whose family was forced to leave the north of the island at the time of its partition, is the rightful owner of the land. The first judgment, given in default of appearance, was confirmed by another judgment ruling on an appeal brought by the Orams.

The national court referred to the Court of Justice a number of questions concerning the interpretation and application of the Brussels I Regulation.

It asks, in particular, whether the suspension of Community law in the northern part of Cyprus and the fact that the land concerned is situated in an area over which the government of Cyprus does not exercise effective control have an effect on the recognition and enforcement of the judgment, in particular in relation to the jurisdiction of the court of origin, the public policy of the member state in which recognition is sought and the enforceability of the judgment.

In addition, it asks whether the recognition or enforcement of a default judgment may be refused, on account of the fact that the document instituting proceedings was not served on the defendant in sufficient time and in such a way as to enable him to arrange for his defence, where the defendant was able to bring an appeal against that judgment.

First of all, the Court declares that the suspension provided for in the Act of Accession of Cyprus is limited to the application of Community law in the northern area. However, the judgments concerned, whose recognition was sought by Apostolides, were given by a court sitting in the Government-controlled area.

The fact that those judgments concern land situated in the northern area does not preclude that interpretation because, first, it does not nullify the obligation to apply the regulation in the government-controlled area and, second, it does not mean that that regulation must thereby be applied in the northern area, the press release says.

The ECJ therefore concludes that the suspension of Community law in the northern area provided for by the protocol annexed to the Act of Accession, does 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.

Next, the Court states, first, that the dispute at issue in the main proceedings falls within the scope of the Brussels I Regulation and, second, that the fact that the land concerned is situated in an area over which the Government does not exercise effective control and, therefore, that the judgments concerned cannot, as a practical matter, be enforced where the land is situated does not preclude the recognition and enforcement of those judgments in another member state.

In that connection, it is common ground that the land is situated in the territory of the Republic of Cyprus and, therefore, the Cypriot court had jurisdiction to decide the case since the relevant provision of the Brussels I Regulation relates to the international jurisdiction of the member states and not to their domestic jurisdiction.

The Court also states, 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.

The national court may refuse recognition only where the error of law means that the recognition or enforcement of the judgment is regarded as a manifest breach of an essential rule of law in the legal order of the member state concerned.

In the case in the main proceedings, the Court of Appeal has not referred to any fundamental principle within the legal order of the United Kingdom which the recognition or enforcement of the judgments in question would be liable to infringe.

Furthermore, as regards the enforceability of the judgments concerned, the Court states that the fact that 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.

Lastly, the Court states that the recognition or enforcement of a default judgment cannot be refused where the defendant was able to commence proceedings to challenge the default judgment and those proceedings enabled him to argue that he had not been served with the document which instituted the proceedings or with the equivalent document in sufficient time and in such a way as to enable him to arrange for his defence. In the case in the main proceedings, it is common ground that the Orams brought such proceedings.

Consequently, the recognition and enforcement of the judgments of the Cypriot court cannot be refused in the United Kingdom on that ground, the press release notes.

[Oracle]

GR, get the photoshop out again mate, we could make a killing here.....

Photoshop? I've got even better... Ms Paint!

Ms Pain? - Is that a new code name for Horakill when its the wrong time or something?

YFred... I sussed you out from your very first thread

Like "MR-from-NG" ( ) ... you have made a "killing" in the north, from illegally acquiring and selling GC properties ...

You shall be exposed!

[Lit]

GOVERNMENT - ECJ RULING

http://www.cna.org.cy/website/english/a ... 2.asp?id=3

The government of Cyprus has welcomed the Judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Communities on Apostolides vs Orams case.

Government Spokesman Stephanos Stephanou said that the Court of Justice of the European Communities, by implementing the European Law, with its Judgment on the Orams case, has defended the property right of the citizens of the Republic of Cyprus, as EU citizens, irrespective of whether the property is located in the free or in the occupied areas.

Stephanou noted that through its Judgment, the Court of Justice of the European Communities has overthrown the efforts to attach political significance to the case. If such an approach was adopted, while the Cyprus problem remains unresolved, the lawful inhabitants would have been deprived of any international legal measures of protection of their properties, which are located in the occupied areas, he added.

Stephanou noted that the Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities confirms that the suspension of the acquis in the occupied part of the Republic of Cyprus, as envisaged in Protocol 10, does not inhibit the competency of Cypriot courts to decide on property rights in the occupied areas.