Cyprus-Forum.com

[halil]

The case, which is known as the Orams case in the public opinion and which its phase before the Court of Justice of the European Communities (ECJ) has been concluded, has become an extension of the Greek Cypriot initiatives to deem and to indicate the property issue in Cyprus as an issue comprised only of conflicts between individuals.

Until the case has been brought before the ECJ, it has gone though a lengthy judicial process. Although the Presidency and other competent authorities have not become a direct party in this private civil case taking place between Mr. Apostolides and the Orams couple, we have closely followed the process of the case, provided all kinds of support and done our duties in this respect. Despite our interest and support, we preferred - for the sake of the process - not to respond to the statements made often in an accusing tone.

Since the phase of the case before the ECJ is concluded, it will be appropriate to share the recent developments and my views in this respect with the public opinion, spending utmost care not to damage the next phase of the process.

The process has started with the case filed against the Orams couple by Mr. Apostolides in the Greek Cypriot courts. In the case heard in the absence of the Orams couple, the court has ruled that the Orams couple is to pull down the villa they have built on the immovable property which belonged to Mr. Apostolides’ family before 1974 and to return the said property to Mr. Apostolides. It also ruled that the damages, incurred as a result of the fact that the claimant cannot use the said immovable property, to be paid.

Following this decision, the Orams couple appealed in the Greek Cypriot court but the decision remained the same.

Meanwhile, upon the application of the claimant Mr. Apostolides, the British court has confirmed that the decision of the Greek Cypriot court can also be enforced in the UK within the framework of the 44/2001 EU Regulation.

Following this decision of the British court, the Orams couple has applied to the British High Court. Upon this application, the British High Court has ruled that, in northern Cyprus, the EU Law has been suspended under Protocol 10 of the Act of Accession of the Greek Cypriot side to the EU, therefore, the 44/2001 EU Regulation can not be enforced in terms of the issues regarding northern Cyprus; also, the Orams couple were not provided with enough time to appear in person in the Greek Cypriot courts and defend themselves and as a result, the judgment of the Greek Cypriot courts against the Orams couple cannot be enforced in the UK.

After this decision of the British High Court, within the framework of the right included in Article 43 of the EU Regulation, claimant Mr. Apostolides has applied to the Court of Appeal of England and Wales. In accordance with the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Order 2001 which is in force in the UK, Mr. Apostolides, who is not satisfied with the decision of the British High Court, has the right to apply either to the Court of Appeal or to the House of Lords. Mr. Apostolides preferred to apply to the Court of Appeal.

In accordance with Article 44 of the 44/2001 EU Regulation, apart from this right to apply to the Court of Appeal, Mr. Apostolides does not have any other right to apply to another court in the UK.

When the case was brought before the Court of Appeal, the Court has deemed that, before it concludes on the case, it requires referring the case to the ECJ for preliminary ruling on five important issues, primarily Protocol 10, which was the basis of the first instance court’s decision in favor of the Orams couple. In fact, for the Court to deem this way Mr. Apostolides has applied to the court and the court has decided to refer the case to the ECJ upon the application of Mr. Apostolides.

In line with the well known proceedings of the EU Law, if the national courts (in Orams case the Court of Appeal) require the preliminary ruling of the ECJ, the national courts have the right to directly refer to the ECJ even if the parties reject to it. Besides, since the case was before the Court of Appeal, if one of the parties apply, the court is obliged to refer the case to the ECJ in accordance with Article 234 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community.

As a matter of fact, in his evaluation reflected in the records of the court, the Lord Chief Justice of the British High Court stated that Mrs. Cherie Booth, one of the lawyers of the Orams couple, asked the British High court to conclude the case but the primary issue in this respect is the European Law. The Lord Chief Justice said: “This is perhaps a case, as opposed to many, where certainly the primary issue is so much one of European Law and has so little input that this jurisdiction could give as a result of any connection as with this country that it probably would not be profitable for us to attempt to suggest to the European Court what our view of the answer might be. If that were right then the exercise we ought to be involved in is making quite sure that all the issues are identified and, if possible, that we have agreed terms for the reference of the European Court.”

In order to eliminate all kinds of questions in our minds, it should be stated once again that anyone who is at least familiar with the EU Law knows that, if a national court requires the preliminary ruling of the ECJ regarding a case, it has the competence to ask for it independent of the demands of the parties of the issue.

After the case was brought before the ECJ, the hearing took place and during this hearing the parties have stated their views concerning the questions the British Court of Appeal referred to the ECJ. Also, Commission of the European Communities has delivered its views regarding the issue to the ECJ and underlined that, while determining views in such issues “international public policy” should be taken into consideration.

On 18 December 2008, in line with the proceedings of ECJ, the Advocate General Ms. Kokott has announced her views regarding the issue. After her views which in line with the proceedings of the ECJ were not obligatory in terms of law were announced, it appeared that her views are consistent with the views of the claimant Mr. Apostolides.

As the evaluation of the ECJ is announced today, the ECJ phase of the case is over. It is not proper to express views regarding the decision before the full text is read out and a detailed investigation of it is carried out. It is unacceptable that the ECJ has ignored that the case between Mr. Apostolides and the Orams couple has emerged not as a result of an illegal action committed by the Orams couple, but as a direct consequence of the property issue in Cyprus and the fact that there are two different property regimes and two different laws in two sides of the island.

At this point, the important thing is to inform the people of the TRNC correctly regarding the future profile of the issue.

Firstly, it should be acknowledged that the decision of the ECJ does not mean that this case is over. At this stage, the issue will be brought before the British Court of Appeal once again and the Court, taking into consideration the responses of the ECJ to the questions referred to it, will decide whether the decisions of the Greek Cypriot courts regarding the Orams case can be enforced in the UK or not.

While deciding, the British Court of Appeal will take the accordance of the decision with the public policy into consideration. Therefore, before the decision of the Court is announced, the final result of the Orams case will not be determined.

In the meantime, it should not be forgotten that the case the Orams couple have filed in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on the grounds that their right to a fair hearing is violated in the case before the Greek Cypriot courts has not been finalized yet. Provided that the Orams couple wins this case before the ECHR, it will be proven that the proceedings in the Greek Cypriot courts were against the human rights.

However, it should be acknowledged that we consider the property issue in Cyprus not as individual conflicts but as a reflection of the Cyprus problem. Unless the Cyprus problem is solved, it is not possible to solve the property issue comprehensively. In a comprehensive settlement, property issue will be solved taking into consideration not only the rights of the pre 1974 owners but also the rights of the currents users. The issue will be solved not only through return of the properties but through a mechanism where compensation, exchange and return are evaluated together.

During the whole process of the Orams case, we have expressed these facts in all the contacts we have established both in Cyprus and in international arena. We have underlined that the property issue in Cyprus can not be settled through cases such as the Orams case, that such initiatives serve nothing other than straining the relations between the two peoples and that they do not help the comprehensive settlement of the problem. In order to express this position of ours, we have benefited from our friends and received professional service.

Therefore, the Turkish Cypriot people should acknowledge that, regardless of the decision that will emerge from the British Court of Appeal regarding the Orams case, the TRNC Presidency and all the organs of the state will protect the law enforced in the TRNC. Until the Cyprus problem is solved, the Turkish Cypriot side will respond to the tactics of the Greek Cypriot side to undermine our position at the negotiation table via solutions we will produce within the framework of law.

This position of ours should also be taken into consideration by the Greek Cypriot leadership and Greek Cypriot people as well. Our search for a settlement at the negotiation table should not be deemed as a sign of weakness. We will maintain our efforts to reach a settlement regardless of the conditions but we will not refrain from adopting necessary measures required for the well being and protection of the rights of the Turkish Cypriot people.

The recent developments in this process have indicated once again that the EU membership the Greek Cypriot side has unjustly obtained is being exploited against the Turkish Cypriot people. Same developments prove once again that the EU does not have a positive role in the settlement of the Cyprus problem. Everyone interested in the settlement of the Cyprus problem should now comprehend this fact one more time.

As stated in the then UN Secretary General’s 27 May 2005 dated report, these developments confirmed that increase of individual property cases constitutes a serious threat both to the relations between the two peoples and to the negotiation process. It should not be forgotten that in the said report it is also stated that property issue will be closed through a comprehensive settlement.

At this stage, the views stated by the ECJ concerning the Orams case will be evaluated by the competent authorities of the TRNC, their likely effects to the Cyprus problem will be determined and necessary legal and political measures will be taken. Turkish Cypriot people should be aware of this fact and continue their daily lives with peace of mind.

Presidential Press Office

[DT.]

The case, which is known as the Orams case in the public opinion and which its phase before the Court of Justice of the European Communities (ECJ) has been concluded, has become an extension of the Greek Cypriot initiatives to deem and to indicate the property issue in Cyprus as an issue comprised only of conflicts between individuals.

Until the case has been brought before the ECJ, it has gone though a lengthy judicial process. Although the Presidency and other competent authorities have not become a direct party in this private civil case taking place between Mr. Apostolides and the Orams couple, we have closely followed the process of the case, provided all kinds of support and done our duties in this respect. Despite our interest and support, we preferred - for the sake of the process - not to respond to the statements made often in an accusing tone.

Since the phase of the case before the ECJ is concluded, it will be appropriate to share the recent developments and my views in this respect with the public opinion, spending utmost care not to damage the next phase of the process.

The process has started with the case filed against the Orams couple by Mr. Apostolides in the Greek Cypriot courts. In the case heard in the absence of the Orams couple, the court has ruled that the Orams couple is to pull down the villa they have built on the immovable property which belonged to Mr. Apostolides’ family before 1974 and to return the said property to Mr. Apostolides. It also ruled that the damages, incurred as a result of the fact that the claimant cannot use the said immovable property, to be paid.

Following this decision, the Orams couple appealed in the Greek Cypriot court but the decision remained the same.

Meanwhile, upon the application of the claimant Mr. Apostolides, the British court has confirmed that the decision of the Greek Cypriot court can also be enforced in the UK within the framework of the 44/2001 EU Regulation.

Following this decision of the British court, the Orams couple has applied to the British High Court. Upon this application, the British High Court has ruled that, in northern Cyprus, the EU Law has been suspended under Protocol 10 of the Act of Accession of the Greek Cypriot side to the EU, therefore, the 44/2001 EU Regulation can not be enforced in terms of the issues regarding northern Cyprus; also, the Orams couple were not provided with enough time to appear in person in the Greek Cypriot courts and defend themselves and as a result, the judgment of the Greek Cypriot courts against the Orams couple cannot be enforced in the UK.

After this decision of the British High Court, within the framework of the right included in Article 43 of the EU Regulation, claimant Mr. Apostolides has applied to the Court of Appeal of England and Wales. In accordance with the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Order 2001 which is in force in the UK, Mr. Apostolides, who is not satisfied with the decision of the British High Court, has the right to apply either to the Court of Appeal or to the House of Lords. Mr. Apostolides preferred to apply to the Court of Appeal.

In accordance with Article 44 of the 44/2001 EU Regulation, apart from this right to apply to the Court of Appeal, Mr. Apostolides does not have any other right to apply to another court in the UK.

When the case was brought before the Court of Appeal, the Court has deemed that, before it concludes on the case, it requires referring the case to the ECJ for preliminary ruling on five important issues, primarily Protocol 10, which was the basis of the first instance court’s decision in favor of the Orams couple. In fact, for the Court to deem this way Mr. Apostolides has applied to the court and the court has decided to refer the case to the ECJ upon the application of Mr. Apostolides.

In line with the well known proceedings of the EU Law, if the national courts (in Orams case the Court of Appeal) require the preliminary ruling of the ECJ, the national courts have the right to directly refer to the ECJ even if the parties reject to it. Besides, since the case was before the Court of Appeal, if one of the parties apply, the court is obliged to refer the case to the ECJ in accordance with Article 234 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community.

As a matter of fact, in his evaluation reflected in the records of the court, the Lord Chief Justice of the British High Court stated that Mrs. Cherie Booth, one of the lawyers of the Orams couple, asked the British High court to conclude the case but the primary issue in this respect is the European Law. The Lord Chief Justice said: “This is perhaps a case, as opposed to many, where certainly the primary issue is so much one of European Law and has so little input that this jurisdiction could give as a result of any connection as with this country that it probably would not be profitable for us to attempt to suggest to the European Court what our view of the answer might be. If that were right then the exercise we ought to be involved in is making quite sure that all the issues are identified and, if possible, that we have agreed terms for the reference of the European Court.”

In order to eliminate all kinds of questions in our minds, it should be stated once again that anyone who is at least familiar with the EU Law knows that, if a national court requires the preliminary ruling of the ECJ regarding a case, it has the competence to ask for it independent of the demands of the parties of the issue.

After the case was brought before the ECJ, the hearing took place and during this hearing the parties have stated their views concerning the questions the British Court of Appeal referred to the ECJ. Also, Commission of the European Communities has delivered its views regarding the issue to the ECJ and underlined that, while determining views in such issues “international public policy” should be taken into consideration.

On 18 December 2008, in line with the proceedings of ECJ, the Advocate General Ms. Kokott has announced her views regarding the issue. After her views which in line with the proceedings of the ECJ were not obligatory in terms of law were announced, it appeared that her views are consistent with the views of the claimant Mr. Apostolides.

As the evaluation of the ECJ is announced today, the ECJ phase of the case is over. It is not proper to express views regarding the decision before the full text is read out and a detailed investigation of it is carried out. It is unacceptable that the ECJ has ignored that the case between Mr. Apostolides and the Orams couple has emerged not as a result of an illegal action committed by the Orams couple, but as a direct consequence of the property issue in Cyprus and the fact that there are two different property regimes and two different laws in two sides of the island.

At this point, the important thing is to inform the people of the TRNC correctly regarding the future profile of the issue.

Firstly, it should be acknowledged that the decision of the ECJ does not mean that this case is over. At this stage, the issue will be brought before the British Court of Appeal once again and the Court, taking into consideration the responses of the ECJ to the questions referred to it, will decide whether the decisions of the Greek Cypriot courts regarding the Orams case can be enforced in the UK or not.

While deciding, the British Court of Appeal will take the accordance of the decision with the public policy into consideration. Therefore, before the decision of the Court is announced, the final result of the Orams case will not be determined.

In the meantime, it should not be forgotten that the case the Orams couple have filed in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on the grounds that their right to a fair hearing is violated in the case before the Greek Cypriot courts has not been finalized yet. Provided that the Orams couple wins this case before the ECHR, it will be proven that the proceedings in the Greek Cypriot courts were against the human rights.

However, it should be acknowledged that we consider the property issue in Cyprus not as individual conflicts but as a reflection of the Cyprus problem. Unless the Cyprus problem is solved, it is not possible to solve the property issue comprehensively. In a comprehensive settlement, property issue will be solved taking into consideration not only the rights of the pre 1974 owners but also the rights of the currents users. The issue will be solved not only through return of the properties but through a mechanism where compensation, exchange and return are evaluated together.

During the whole process of the Orams case, we have expressed these facts in all the contacts we have established both in Cyprus and in international arena. We have underlined that the property issue in Cyprus can not be settled through cases such as the Orams case, that such initiatives serve nothing other than straining the relations between the two peoples and that they do not help the comprehensive settlement of the problem. In order to express this position of ours, we have benefited from our friends and received professional service.

Therefore, the Turkish Cypriot people should acknowledge that, regardless of the decision that will emerge from the British Court of Appeal regarding the Orams case, the TRNC Presidency and all the organs of the state will protect the law enforced in the TRNC. Until the Cyprus problem is solved, the Turkish Cypriot side will respond to the tactics of the Greek Cypriot side to undermine our position at the negotiation table via solutions we will produce within the framework of law.

This position of ours should also be taken into consideration by the Greek Cypriot leadership and Greek Cypriot people as well. Our search for a settlement at the negotiation table should not be deemed as a sign of weakness. We will maintain our efforts to reach a settlement regardless of the conditions but we will not refrain from adopting necessary measures required for the well being and protection of the rights of the Turkish Cypriot people.

The recent developments in this process have indicated once again that the EU membership the Greek Cypriot side has unjustly obtained is being exploited against the Turkish Cypriot people. Same developments prove once again that the EU does not have a positive role in the settlement of the Cyprus problem. Everyone interested in the settlement of the Cyprus problem should now comprehend this fact one more time.

As stated in the then UN Secretary General’s 27 May 2005 dated report, these developments confirmed that increase of individual property cases constitutes a serious threat both to the relations between the two peoples and to the negotiation process. It should not be forgotten that in the said report it is also stated that property issue will be closed through a comprehensive settlement.

At this stage, the views stated by the ECJ concerning the Orams case will be evaluated by the competent authorities of the TRNC, their likely effects to the Cyprus problem will be determined and necessary legal and political measures will be taken. Turkish Cypriot people should be aware of this fact and continue their daily lives with peace of mind.

Presidential Press Office

sleep well boys

[Kifeas]

I would like to tell Mr. Talat, on the basis of his above communique, that his side is the sole responsible agent in what has emerged as a result of Apostolides actions. Had his side not authorized and /or allowed the unprecedented, relentless, indiscriminate and hostile to the GC community looting (cementing and "selling") of GC properties, after 2004, Apostolides would have never ever felt the need to take any of the actions he took!

It is really very simple. The TC side tried to establish an unethical fait accompli on the ground against the property rights of the GC’s, on the basis of what the A-plan provided and towards a future settlement. That is why they begun to indiscriminately cement and destroy GC properties, with the hope that they will render them unreturnable to their owners. The GC side tried to reverse it, and in this effort, a reversed fait accompli was established. Talat has only himself and his side to blame, and no one else! The GCs (Apostolides) did not have any other option to stop it, a duty he himself had, if he was a pro-peace and pro-settlement man as he retains.

[humanist]

well said kifeas

[eracles]

Agreed Kifeas, these guys have no respect for the property of GCs in the north.

[Oracle]

Mr Talat seems unable to understand that Turkey has violated not only the Rights of individuals, who can seek restitution as such; but also has violated the collective Rights of the Cypriot community as a whole native population, who can similarly and in addition to, continue to seek justice for the entire island.

[halil]

Statement by President Talat Following his Meeting with Political Party Leaders

Following is the common ground reached after the evaluation meeting we had today with the political parties represented in the National Assembly.

With the judgment it has issued on 28 April 2009, the Court of Justice of the European Communities (ECJ) has made a serious mistake by deeming the Orams case as a private civil case between two individuals and ignoring the fact that there are two different laws in force in two sides of Cyprus. It is not possible to accept this judgment which ignores the extraordinary circumstances in Cyprus.

This decision of the ECJ has also caused serious harm to the ongoing negotiation process in Cyprus. If the English Court of Appeal, which will be the last court to conclude the ongoing legal process regarding the Orams Case, reaches a judgment ignoring the facts in Cyprus just as the ECJ did, the negotiation process will be damaged in an irreparable manner.

We would like to stress once again that, initiatives to separate the property issue in Cyprus from the comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem and to solve it through individual litigation, not only damage the relations between the two sides but have negative effects over the negotiation process as well.

International public opinion, the UN, the EU and the Greek Cypriot side should acknowledge that, any process for the settlement of the property issue in Cyprus which takes only the individual preferences into consideration or weakens the principle of bi-zonality will never be accepted by the Turkish Cypriot side under any circumstances.

The Turkish Cypriot people and the EU member state citizens, who own immovable property in the TRNC, should also acknowledge that the Presidency and all the political parties represented in the National Assembly of the TRNC will closely follow this issue and will not refrain from acting in solidarity to adopt all kinds of measures for the well-being and the protection of the rights of our people.

Presidential Press Office.

[Kifeas]

Statement by President Talat Following his Meeting with Political Party Leaders

Following is the common ground reached after the evaluation meeting we had today with the political parties represented in the National Assembly.

With the judgment it has issued on 28 April 2009, the Court of Justice of the European Communities (ECJ) has made a serious mistake by deeming the Orams case as a private civil case between two individuals and ignoring the fact that there are two different laws in force in two sides of Cyprus. It is not possible to accept this judgment which ignores the extraordinary circumstances in Cyprus.

This decision of the ECJ has also caused serious harm to the ongoing negotiation process in Cyprus. If the English Court of Appeal, which will be the last court to conclude the ongoing legal process regarding the Orams Case, reaches a judgment ignoring the facts in Cyprus just as the ECJ did, the negotiation process will be damaged in an irreparable manner.

We would like to stress once again that, initiatives to separate the property issue in Cyprus from the comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem and to solve it through individual litigation, not only damage the relations between the two sides but have negative effects over the negotiation process as well.

International public opinion, the UN, the EU and the Greek Cypriot side should acknowledge that, any process for the settlement of the property issue in Cyprus which takes only the individual preferences into consideration or weakens the principle of bi-zonality will never be accepted by the Turkish Cypriot side under any circumstances.

The Turkish Cypriot people and the EU member state citizens, who own immovable property in the TRNC, should also acknowledge that the Presidency and all the political parties represented in the National Assembly of the TRNC will closely follow this issue and will not refrain from acting in solidarity to adopt all kinds of measures for the well-being and the protection of the rights of our people.

Presidential Press Office.

Sorry Halil, we apologize for not letting your side continue the looting of GC properties so that you effectively eradicate the prospects of any future GC presence in the north, in the name of a proper and complete Turkification of "your" state, just like your motherland "brothers" did in Anatolia where just 80 years back, only 30% of the people were of "Turkish" origin in what today the world regards as modern Turkey.

[halil]

The Turkish Cypriot Bar Council has expressed the view that the ECJ’s judgment of the Orams Case might cause the possible solution of the Cyprus problem to be reached at negotiations be not lasting.
In a statement of the Bar Council jointly issued by its President Hasan Sozmener and the General Secretary Feyzi Hansel, it is said that the Council will examine the critical issue in detail as soon as possible.
The statement stressed the need for the Turkish side to urgently evaluate the developments and take a decision.

`If the conditions reached after years of struggle at negotiations will be repealed by a court’s judgment, and if it’s not legally possible to prevent this from happening, then there is no need to waste time at the negotiations table` the statement said.
The Bar Council stated that politics is involved in the ECJ’s judgment and the right of property is set prior to all other rights, despite of the fact that there are rights which are prior to the right of property.

`It has been proved that individual appeals at international courts, which challenge the solution aspects of the Cyprus problem agreed by political figures in Cyprus, will continue. These courts act with political influence and it’s a high possibility that they will repeal the solution issues agreed on by the two sides` the Bar Council said.

A wide criticism of the ECJ judgment also came from various platforms based in the TRNC.

Platforms expressed the view that the Turkish Cypriot side should immediately withdraw from the negotiations table in order to avoid further derogation.
Making such a judgment, while the two leaders maintain their peace talks, will harm negotiations, they said.

[kurupetos]

To our friends in the north, with a lot of love: