The Cypriot wrote:Pax wrote:The significance of the ECJ judgment on Orams is that a court order, including writ or other warrant, can be served and enforced anywhere in the EU. Crucially the ECJ judgment confirms that this principle applies to all court orders issued by any EU national court within any EU national jurisdiction irrespective of whether the offence was committed within that same jurisdiction.
Furthermore the ECJ judgment is notlimited to the Orams, to ex-pat property holders, or to property cases in Cyprus. Much more than this, it confirms the principle of universal enforcement across all the EU. Thus if needs be, a German citizen held liable for an offence in Sweden (by a Swedish court) could find that court order enforced in Cyprus.
Anyone - Turkish Cypriot, Greek Cypriot, British, German, Greek, etc - found by a Republic of Cyprus court in breach of RoC property law in northern Cyprus would be potentially subject to a writ which could be served in any/all EU states. Furthermore, not only are EU citizens subject to this extension of enforcement. Turkish citizens living in the EU, or certainly with assets in the EU, could also be subjected, in principle, to an enforcement order.
Sure this is all political. But the law is political. It is naive to think it to be otherwise.
This would also include the Republic of Turkey itself and assets it has in EU countries, eg. embassies, consuls, trade, tourists and cultural centres.
I don't think so because on the whole, as far as I am aware, the Republic of Turkey (as a legal person) does not claim property rights in northern Cyprus. Certainly it is not claiming legal title to, for example, Apostolides' land. At most the Republic of Turkey was claiming jurisdiction (not the same as title) but even then it insists that the entity known as TRNC is the sovereign jurisdiction. Pushing that particular route is, in my opinion, a non-starter.
The ECJ judgment does not have force over Turkey for two principal reasons :First, obviously, is Turkey not an EU member. Second, and the Republic of Turkey as a sovereign state is not, in legal speak, a
natural person. In the end, a writ has to be issued against a natural person (for example, a company secretary, an executive director, an account holder). However, the Republic of Turkey could of course be subject to an action (state or individual), and has been in the past, through the ECHR.
For more than a few handful of title cases to be resolved stretching out over years there has to be either (a) a massive shift in the effectiveness of the so-called Immovable Property Commission in northern Cyprus or (b) a generalised political settlement.
The ECJ judgment is very important but ironically it is not necessarily good news for either 'side'. For Turkish Cypriots generally it re-confirms that the door is closing firmly and that dependence on Turkey will increase, that much we knew already. But for Greek Cypriots it also confirms that unless there is a a generalised political settlement, the only resolution will come through long-drawn out individual cases which for many of those of the generations that were expropriated will mean "not in our life time".
