Cyprus-Forum.com

[denizaksulu]

The verdict is not known yet. If it is in favour of the Orams (which I doubt) will there still be complaints about the presence of a Greek judge?

[CopperLine]

B25,

Assuming that there was no bias (and I am not saying there was) with the ECJ ruling, can the UK appeal judges still disregard it and rule as THEY see fit ?

The appeal court judges, which in this case also includes Lord Justice Pill the most senior ordinary appeal judge, are not looking at the substantive merits of the case. To lodge an appeal the complainant (in this case the Orams) are complaining that there was some error or failing in procedure in the lower court/s which led to a wrong or perverse judgment. In this case there is the added problem of the jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments of one EU national court in that of another EU state. For this latter reason, the appeal court basically said that this issue - enforceability - was so significant that a definitive ruling from the ECJ was required before the appeal could proceed any further. The ECJ ruled, as we know, and said yes to enforcability of judgments.

For UK appeal judges to reject the ruling of the ECJ would be absolutely astonishing. They can't just say "we don't agree with ECJ"; they would have to come up with some absolutely compelling legal reasoning as to why they'd rejected it. More to the point, the appeal court referred it on to the ECJ precisely because they believed the latter to be the appropriate place for interpretation. It would be odd, to say the least, for the appeal court to refer to ECJ and then reject the ECJ.

In principle the appeal court could reject the ECJ ruling but it could only do so on a matter of law. Bias of the ECJ judges could be such a matter. But it would be, again, absolutely astonishing if the UK appeal court accused the ECJ - the highest European Union court - of bias. You'd have to have an absolutely water-tight legal case and evidence. Saying that just because a judge is a "sympathetic national" is not going to cut it.

do YOU as a legal eagle still think that the whole ECJ ruling could have been made the way it was because of this??

The short answer is 'no'. The longer answer is :

You say "still think" as if I thought this way before ! I didn't. ECJ rulings, like any court rulings are inherently political. I do not believe that the law is somehow clean and neutral and impartial. I do think that the law, including court decisions, are reflections of political power and in particular class power. Having said that, this case is no more "nationally biased" than any other case. I fundamentally disagree with some TCs and Brits who have tried to campaign against the ECJ judgment on the grounds that it is biased. If you can't mobilise political power in law - because you don't understand how the law works - then the fault lies not with your opponents but with ones own naivety or ignorance.

[CopperLine]

The verdict is not known yet. If it is in favour of the Orams (which I doubt) will there still be complaints about the presence of a Greek judge?

No. The Orams' counsel have got this one last chance to persuade the appeal court that the fact that Vassilios Skouris, a Greek judge (not Greek Cypriot), as president of the ECJ, had a material impact on the decision of the court. They are not, as far as I am aware, accusing the other judges - P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas, K. Lenaerts, M. Ilešič and A. Ó Caoimh, R. Silva de Lapuerta (Rapporteur), J. Malenovský, J. Klučka and U. Lõhmus - of bias. So in legal terms, the Orams' counsel have to show three things (i) that there was bias in the whole collective ruling by these 11 multinational judges, (ii) that this bias was orchestrated or determined in some way by just one of these judges, and (iii) this bias was because he was Greek ! It is a monumentally daft claim to make in a court (but they've got nothing else to go on). Desperate times require desperate remedies, as they say.

[YFred]

The verdict is not known yet. If it is in favour of the Orams (which I doubt) will there still be complaints about the presence of a Greek judge?

No. The Orams' counsel have got this one last chance to persuade the appeal court that the fact that Vassilios Skouris, a Greek judge (not Greek Cypriot), as president of the ECJ, had a material impact on the decision of the court. They are not, as far as I am aware, accusing the other judges - P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas, K. Lenaerts, M. Ilešič and A. Ó Caoimh, R. Silva de Lapuerta (Rapporteur), J. Malenovský, J. Klučka and U. Lõhmus - of bias. So in legal terms, the Orams' counsel have to show three things (i) that there was bias in the whole collective ruling by these 11 multinational judges, (ii) that this bias was orchestrated or determined in some way by just one of these judges, and (iii) this bias was because he was Greek ! It is a monumentally daft claim to make in a court (but they've got nothing else to go on). Desperate times require desperate remedies, as they say.

It is customary for a judge to remove themselves from a court case if there is a conflict of interest. Even if there isn't one, there seems to be one. The judges should have known that and closed it by the greek judge removing himself voluntarily. It left it open to challenge.

[CopperLine]

The verdict is not known yet. If it is in favour of the Orams (which I doubt) will there still be complaints about the presence of a Greek judge?

No. The Orams' counsel have got this one last chance to persuade the appeal court that the fact that Vassilios Skouris, a Greek judge (not Greek Cypriot), as president of the ECJ, had a material impact on the decision of the court. They are not, as far as I am aware, accusing the other judges - P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas, K. Lenaerts, M. Ilešič and A. Ó Caoimh, R. Silva de Lapuerta (Rapporteur), J. Malenovský, J. Klučka and U. Lõhmus - of bias. So in legal terms, the Orams' counsel have to show three things (i) that there was bias in the whole collective ruling by these 11 multinational judges, (ii) that this bias was orchestrated or determined in some way by just one of these judges, and (iii) this bias was because he was Greek ! It is a monumentally daft claim to make in a court (but they've got nothing else to go on). Desperate times require desperate remedies, as they say.

It is customary for a judge to remove themselves from a court case if there is a conflict of interest. Even if there isn't one, there seems to be one. The judges should have known that and closed it by the greek judge removing himself voluntarily. It left it open to challenge.

YFred,
I regret to say that this is clutching at straws. Being a Greek national ruling on the enforcability of judgments and the acquis communitaire is not a conflict of interests ! OK, so let's say you think it is or might be : what's the legal argument ? You've got to show that one Greek judge amongst 11 other nationals, in his legal reasoning was biased, and that with such effect that it otherwise altered the decision. This is, in my view, an impossibly tall order. There is nothing prima facie of being a Greek national that entails bias in this case.

[Gregory]

The verdict is not known yet. If it is in favour of the Orams (which I doubt) will there still be complaints about the presence of a Greek judge?

No. The Orams' counsel have got this one last chance to persuade the appeal court that the fact that Vassilios Skouris, a Greek judge (not Greek Cypriot), as president of the ECJ, had a material impact on the decision of the court. They are not, as far as I am aware, accusing the other judges - P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas, K. Lenaerts, M. Ilešič and A. Ó Caoimh, R. Silva de Lapuerta (Rapporteur), J. Malenovský, J. Klučka and U. Lõhmus - of bias. So in legal terms, the Orams' counsel have to show three things (i) that there was bias in the whole collective ruling by these 11 multinational judges, (ii) that this bias was orchestrated or determined in some way by just one of these judges, and (iii) this bias was because he was Greek ! It is a monumentally daft claim to make in a court (but they've got nothing else to go on). Desperate times require desperate remedies, as they say.

It is customary for a judge to remove themselves from a court case if there is a conflict of interest. Even if there isn't one, there seems to be one. The judges should have known that and closed it by the greek judge removing himself voluntarily. It left it open to challenge.

YFred,
I regret to say that this is clutching at straws. Being a Greek national ruling on the enforcability of judgments and the acquis communitaire is not a conflict of interests ! OK, so let's say you think it is or might be : what's the legal argument ? You've got to show that one Greek judge amongst 11 other nationals, in his legal reasoning was biased, and that with such effect that it otherwise altered the decision. This is, in my view, an impossibly tall order. There is nothing prima facie of being a Greek national that entails bias in this case.

don't just leave him like this copperline...you gotta give him something to hold on!

[Bananiot]

I thought Copperline was pro turk ...

[YFred]

The verdict is not known yet. If it is in favour of the Orams (which I doubt) will there still be complaints about the presence of a Greek judge?

No. The Orams' counsel have got this one last chance to persuade the appeal court that the fact that Vassilios Skouris, a Greek judge (not Greek Cypriot), as president of the ECJ, had a material impact on the decision of the court. They are not, as far as I am aware, accusing the other judges - P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas, K. Lenaerts, M. Ilešič and A. Ó Caoimh, R. Silva de Lapuerta (Rapporteur), J. Malenovský, J. Klučka and U. Lõhmus - of bias. So in legal terms, the Orams' counsel have to show three things (i) that there was bias in the whole collective ruling by these 11 multinational judges, (ii) that this bias was orchestrated or determined in some way by just one of these judges, and (iii) this bias was because he was Greek ! It is a monumentally daft claim to make in a court (but they've got nothing else to go on). Desperate times require desperate remedies, as they say.

It is customary for a judge to remove themselves from a court case if there is a conflict of interest. Even if there isn't one, there seems to be one. The judges should have known that and closed it by the greek judge removing himself voluntarily. It left it open to challenge.

YFred,
I regret to say that this is clutching at straws. Being a Greek national ruling on the enforcability of judgments and the acquis communitaire is not a conflict of interests ! OK, so let's say you think it is or might be : what's the legal argument ? You've got to show that one Greek judge amongst 11 other nationals, in his legal reasoning was biased, and that with such effect that it otherwise altered the decision. This is, in my view, an impossibly tall order. There is nothing prima facie of being a Greek national that entails bias in this case.

It is not enough for the law to be fair, it has to be seen to be fair too. This one is blinding, particularly after he was entertained by the good and fair minded preseident of roc. It stinks to kingdom come.

Gregory dear boy, if you want something to hang on to, why don't you just come out and say so, otherwise fuck off.

[Gregory]

The verdict is not known yet. If it is in favour of the Orams (which I doubt) will there still be complaints about the presence of a Greek judge?

No. The Orams' counsel have got this one last chance to persuade the appeal court that the fact that Vassilios Skouris, a Greek judge (not Greek Cypriot), as president of the ECJ, had a material impact on the decision of the court. They are not, as far as I am aware, accusing the other judges - P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas, K. Lenaerts, M. Ilešič and A. Ó Caoimh, R. Silva de Lapuerta (Rapporteur), J. Malenovský, J. Klučka and U. Lõhmus - of bias. So in legal terms, the Orams' counsel have to show three things (i) that there was bias in the whole collective ruling by these 11 multinational judges, (ii) that this bias was orchestrated or determined in some way by just one of these judges, and (iii) this bias was because he was Greek ! It is a monumentally daft claim to make in a court (but they've got nothing else to go on). Desperate times require desperate remedies, as they say.

It is customary for a judge to remove themselves from a court case if there is a conflict of interest. Even if there isn't one, there seems to be one. The judges should have known that and closed it by the greek judge removing himself voluntarily. It left it open to challenge.

YFred,
I regret to say that this is clutching at straws. Being a Greek national ruling on the enforcability of judgments and the acquis communitaire is not a conflict of interests ! OK, so let's say you think it is or might be : what's the legal argument ? You've got to show that one Greek judge amongst 11 other nationals, in his legal reasoning was biased, and that with such effect that it otherwise altered the decision. This is, in my view, an impossibly tall order. There is nothing prima facie of being a Greek national that entails bias in this case.

It is not enough for the law to be fair, it has to be seen to be fair too. This one is blinding, particularly after he was entertained by the good and fair minded preseident of roc. It stinks to kingdom come.

Gregory dear boy, if you want something to hang on to, why don't you just come out and say so, otherwise fuck off.

My My

Starting to feel the heat a little?

[GeorgeV97qaue]

The verdict is not known yet. If it is in favour of the Orams (which I doubt) will there still be complaints about the presence of a Greek judge?

No. The Orams' counsel have got this one last chance to persuade the appeal court that the fact that Vassilios Skouris, a Greek judge (not Greek Cypriot), as president of the ECJ, had a material impact on the decision of the court. They are not, as far as I am aware, accusing the other judges - P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas, K. Lenaerts, M. Ilešič and A. Ó Caoimh, R. Silva de Lapuerta (Rapporteur), J. Malenovský, J. Klučka and U. Lõhmus - of bias. So in legal terms, the Orams' counsel have to show three things (i) that there was bias in the whole collective ruling by these 11 multinational judges, (ii) that this bias was orchestrated or determined in some way by just one of these judges, and (iii) this bias was because he was Greek ! It is a monumentally daft claim to make in a court (but they've got nothing else to go on). Desperate times require desperate remedies, as they say.

It is customary for a judge to remove themselves from a court case if there is a conflict of interest. Even if there isn't one, there seems to be one. The judges should have known that and closed it by the greek judge removing himself voluntarily. It left it open to challenge.

YFred,
I regret to say that this is clutching at straws. Being a Greek national ruling on the enforcability of judgments and the acquis communitaire is not a conflict of interests ! OK, so let's say you think it is or might be : what's the legal argument ? You've got to show that one Greek judge amongst 11 other nationals, in his legal reasoning was biased, and that with such effect that it otherwise altered the decision. This is, in my view, an impossibly tall order. There is nothing prima facie of being a Greek national that entails bias in this case.

It is not enough for the law to be fair, it has to be seen to be fair too. This one is blinding, particularly after he was entertained by the good and fair minded preseident of roc. It stinks to kingdom come.

Gregory dear boy, if you want something to hang on to, why don't you just come out and say so, otherwise fuck off.

So YFRED whats fair about the occupation. Your community still occupy our land illegaly and you say eveyone has to treat TC's fairly. When you start playing by the rules then decisions will go your way until then tuff luck.