Cyprus-Forum.com

[Viewpoint]

the rightful owners will remain the only legal owners of their property on both sides.

Indeed the highlighted part is something that our TC friends seem to be forgetting.
There is a considerable percentage of TCs who own land in the free areas and because they emigrated after or before 1974 got nothing from Denktash. Or others whose land today worths 10th of times of what they were given "on exchange".

I believe the next legal step will be against the TCs themselves. I believe they will be sued in RoC courts and have their properties in the free areas confescated / given to the plaintiffs.
I would personally do that in case someone would sell my property.

I believe Apostolides was wrong in sueing just the Orams. He should sue everyone concerned, the TC who sold, Turkey who is responsible for the occupied, the Orams, and the RoC. Each one for whatever part of responsibility to his own loss.

I agree if you are going to sue then you shoudl sue everyone not just discriminate againsy the Orams. If we go by GC methodolgy, the current owner, previous owners, estate agents, architects TRNC Turkey Denktas Ecevit right through to the pool cleaner should be taken to court and sued.

[stuballstu]

miltiades wrote

Some have said that T/C land in the RoC has been usurped , Larnaca Airport was mentioned along with a number of other areas. Lets condemn any land grabbing whether it comes from T/C or G/Cs , the rightful owners will remain the only legal owners of their property on both sides.

Miltiades good point but its not likely to happen i'm afraid.

It is highly unlikely that any court in any other EU country, outside Cyprus, wants to have to make a judgement on anything to do with Cyprus, even if it is against one of of their own citizens.

What is surprising is that the ROC knows which Cypriot originally sold the land why do they not issue a warrant for them and take them to court. Would they be prepared to do that to one of their own citizens? The problems in cyprus are political and involving the law courts only complicates what is already a delicate and complex issue even further.

One further point on Judge Jacks findings. He was not impressed by the fact that Mr Apostolides, no doubt on the advice of his lawyers, tried to have a judgement registered in the UK prior to the appeal being heard in Cyprus. On Mr Apostolides legal arguements there were many flaws, however i still cant help feeling sympathy towards him and his family. He is told he is the legal owner however he loses his case and gets landed with a huge legal bill. I think he has been ill advised, legally, from the outset and has no found himself to be bigger victim of the Cyprus issue.

How bizarre is this though. If Mr Apostolides looses his appeal, and cant pay his share of the legal costs then can the debtors issue a court order against his property in the ROC. Technically he may end up with less than nothing through something that has not being of his doing. This in itself may be a warning to other GC's thinking of going down the same road not to bother. If the case gets to the ECHR they will just refer it to the immovable property commission in the north, bang goes his appeal.

[Kifeas]

One further point on Judge Jacks findings. He was not impressed by the fact that Mr Apostolides, no doubt on the advice of his lawyers, tried to have a judgement registered in the UK prior to the appeal being heard in Cyprus. On Mr Apostolides legal arguements there were many flaws, however i still cant help feeling sympathy towards him and his family. He is told he is the legal owner however he loses his case and gets landed with a huge legal bill.

I beg you pardon ...but, where did you read all the above in the text of the judgment? Which paragraph(s?)

Out of the 6 arguments that the Orams side presented in her defence, i.e.:
a.) That Apostolides was not the legal owner
b.) That the RoC courts have no jurisdiction in the occupied north,
c.) That the acquisition of land by Orams was made legally in good faith under the laws of the "TRNC" and that their act was not one of trespassing.
d.) That it was contrary to the UK government's public policy to recognise the RoC courts ruling.
e.) That the service of the writ and the time period of 13 days allowed to Orams to acknowledge service by the RoC, were not sufficient under the EU regulation 44/2001 calling for mutual recognition and enforcement of court decisions among EU countries.
f.) That recognition of the RoC court's ruling by in the UK is contrary to the provisions of protocol 10 of the treaty of Cyprus accession in the EU, which calls for the temporary suspension in the occupied north of the EU aqui, under which the above EU regulation (44/2001) falls.

The judge has rejected all the first four arguments, and he based his decision to allow the Orams the appeal on the grounds of only the last 2 arguments (e. & f.) The court rejected argument “a,” and acknowledged that Apostolides is the legal owner. It rejected argument “b,” that the RoC has not jurisdiction in the occupied north. It rejected argument “c,” that the acquisition of the land by Orams was made legally and acknowledged that their act was one of trespassing. And it further found out that recognition would have not been contrary to the UK public policy, “d.”

It based its decision on a mere technicality, “e,” pertaining to the way the writ was served and the fact that no more time was allowed for her to acknowledge service to the RoC court, something which will be surpassed as an obstacle once the pending appeal of Orams in the RoC higher court is tried and decided. Finally, it based its decision to allow Orams appeal on the definition the judge gave to the purpose of protocol 10 of the treaty of Cyprus accession in the EU providing for the suspension of the aqui in the north (argument “f.”)

The real problem here so that recognition and execution of Apostolide's Cyprus court ruling in the UK, lies in the interpretation that Judge Jack gave to protocol 10 of the treaty of accession. If a different interpretation of the above is obtained by the European communities court which is the actual competent authority to do such a thing, since it relate to EU treaties, then the above obstacle will also be removed.

Basically, what the Orams are celebrating is not their vindication as to what they did was not an illegality (trespassing,) or that Apostolides is not the real owner of the property in which they built their villa, but they are celebrating the fact that their act will remain (temporarily) with impunity. They were not vindicated morally, and they were not cleared out legally. They just got away with impunity for the time being, and this is what they celebrate.

The Orams have won absolutely nothing! In fact they lost more than what they thought they had before! Not just the Orams, but more importantly all the crooks in the north that illegally "sell" GC properties to foreigners, and those "buying" them, because now it is also verified by a British court ruling that what they do is illegal, and that the UK government is now obliged to change its travelling advise to its citizens considering to "buy" GC properties in the north.

The UK court in its above ruling fully adopts the ECHR findings that the GCs are the only real owners of their properties in the occupied north, and in paragraph 31 it acknowledges the following:

"I do not think that the case for Mr and Mrs Orams on this aspect of the appeal can be put in any other way. The land is within the Republic of Cyprus. There is no conflict with Article 22.1 of the Regulation. It is not within the territory of another Member State. The cases in the European Court of Human Rights show that the laws of the TRNC cannot be relied on by Mr and Mrs Orams to deprive Mr Apostolides of his title to the land. In any event that would involve a review of the substance of the judgment of the District Court of 19 April 2005, contrary to Article 36. So on these matters I accept the submissions of Mr Beazley."

As for Apostolides bill …do not worry, it won’t come out of his thin pocket!

[Pyrpolizer]

He is told he is the legal owner however he loses his case and gets landed with a huge legal bill.

I heard this argument about the costs be repeated over and over again that I can’t believe how naοve some people are. Noone of you guys is able to understand that the costs are not going to be paid by Apostolides?

Nobody of you can understand that there is someone much stronger and wealthy behind him? How on earth I myself need to wait 2 years for a simple case of a bounced cheque to get my case in Court and another 6 months for the hearing, while he got it in a weak and secured a decision within 11 days?

Nobody of you can understand that even if the Orams would lose they would not pay a single penny out of their pockets? Everybody knew Cherry Plum would be paid directly from Turkey. As for the rest of the costs some others would pay.

The same will happen with the appeal and for the costs if the case finally ends up at the EU.

I hope you understand this case is not just for Apostolides property. It concerns all GC properties and more importantly the huge lands some GC multi millionaires own. Billions are at stake here, not the few pounds worth of oranges that Apostolides orchard produced.

[stuballstu]

Kifeas wrote

stuballstu wrote:
One further point on Judge Jacks findings. He was not impressed by the fact that Mr Apostolides, no doubt on the advice of his lawyers, tried to have a judgement registered in the UK prior to the appeal being heard in Cyprus. On Mr Apostolides legal arguements there were many flaws, however i still cant help feeling sympathy towards him and his family. He is told he is the legal owner however he loses his case and gets landed with a huge legal bill.


I beg you pardon ...but, where did you read all the above in the text of the judgment? Which paragraph(s?)

Out of the 6 arguments that the Orams side presented in her defence, i.e.:
a.) That Apostolides was not the legal owner
b.) That the RoC courts have no jurisdiction in the occupied north,
c.) That the acquisition of land by Orams was made legally in good faith under the laws of the "TRNC" and that their act was not one of trespassing.
d.) That it was contrary to the UK government's public policy to recognise the RoC courts ruling.
e.) That the service of the writ and the time period of 13 days allowed to Orams to acknowledge service by the RoC, were not sufficient under the EU regulation 44/2001 calling for mutual recognition and enforcement of court decisions among EU countries.
f.) That recognition of the RoC court's ruling by in the UK is contrary to the provisions of protocol 10 of the treaty of Cyprus accession in the EU, which calls for the temporary suspension in the occupied north of the EU aqui, under which the above EU regulation (44/2001) falls.

The judge has rejected all the first four arguments, and he based his decision to allow the Orams the appeal on the grounds of only the last 2 arguments (e. & f.) The court rejected argument “a,” and acknowledged that Apostolides is the legal owner. It rejected argument “b,” that the RoC has not jurisdiction in the occupied north. It rejected argument “c,” that the acquisition of the land by Orams was made legally and acknowledged that their act was one of trespassing. And it further found out that recognition would have not been contrary to the UK public policy, “d.”

It based its decision on a mere technicality, “e,” pertaining to the way the writ was served and the fact that no more time was allowed for her to acknowledge service to the RoC court, something which will be surpassed as an obstacle once the pending appeal of Orams in the RoC higher court is tried and decided. Finally, it based its decision to allow Orams appeal on the definition the judge gave to the purpose of protocol 10 of the treaty of Cyprus accession in the EU providing for the suspension of the aqui in the north (argument “f.”)

The real problem here so that recognition and execution of Apostolide's Cyprus court ruling in the UK, lies in the interpretation that Judge Jack gave to protocol 10 of the treaty of accession. If a different interpretation of the above is obtained by the European communities court which is the actual competent authority to do such a thing, since it relate to EU treaties, then the above obstacle will also be removed.

Basically, what the Orams are celebrating is not their vindication as to what they did was not an illegality (trespassing,) or that Apostolides is not the real owner of the property in which they built their villa, but they are celebrating the fact that their act will remain (temporarily) with impunity. They were not vindicated morally, and they were not cleared out legally. They just got away with impunity for the time being, and this is what they celebrate.

The Orams have won absolutely nothing! In fact they lost more than what they thought they had before! Not just the Orams, but more importantly all the crooks in the north that illegally "sell" GC properties to foreigners, and those "buying" them, because now it is also verified by a British court ruling that what they do is illegal, and that the UK government is now obliged to change its travelling advise to its citizens considering to "buy" GC properties in the north.

The UK court in its above ruling fully adopts the ECHR findings that the GCs are the only real owners of their properties in the occupied north, and in paragraph 31 it acknowledges the following:

"I do not think that the case for Mr and Mrs Orams on this aspect of the appeal can be put in any other way. The land is within the Republic of Cyprus. There is no conflict with Article 22.1 of the Regulation. It is not within the territory of another Member State. The cases in the European Court of Human Rights show that the laws of the TRNC cannot be relied on by Mr and Mrs Orams to deprive Mr Apostolides of his title to the land. In any event that would involve a review of the substance of the judgment of the District Court of 19 April 2005, contrary to Article 36. So on these matters I accept the submissions of Mr Beazley."

As for Apostolides bill …do not worry, it won’t come out of his thin pocket!

Kifeas

on points e and f which you made.

with regards to point (e) which you made, if you look at paragraph 54 of Judge Jacks judgement it is quite clear he states that Mrs Orams was lied to by the process server of the court of the ROC. Not very good that and does ask questions of the credibility of law officials in Cyprus as a whole.

with regards to point (f) Judge Jacks interpretation of protocol 10 now has to be challenged. However this may be either up to the EU to change this or require another judge to dis agree with Judge Jacks interpretation of protocol 10. That in itself is not insurmountable but will be, in my opinion, very difficult to do.

If you look at paragraph 11 of the judgement, Judge Jack makes reference to the Orams appeal to the supreme court in Cyprus. Do you think that the judge would be impressed by the ROC trying to register a judgement in the UK whilst an appeal has not been heard?


Anyway for the third time of asking on this board.

In paragraph 4 the land on which the Orams villa is built had been sold by one Turkish Cypriot to another who in turn sold it to the Orams. Why are the ROC not pursuing these men who sold the land which the court have stated still belonged to mr Apostolides. If the Orams could why do they not sell the house and land to someone else then that would be the end of the case as what has happened to the Turkish Cypriots who originally sold the land? Would the ROC dare prosecute one of their own citizens?

[Kifeas]

In paragraph 4 the land on which the Orams villa is built had been sold by one Turkish Cypriot to another who in turn sold it to the Orams. Why are the ROC not pursuing these men who sold the land which the court have stated still belonged to mr Apostolides. If the Orams could why do they not sell the house and land to someone else then that would be the end of the case as what has happened to the Turkish Cypriots who originally sold the land? Would the ROC dare prosecute one of their own citizens?

Stuball, the RoC doesn't recognise the transactions committed by an illegal "Land registry" of an illegal entity. Who, when and how “sold” Apostolide’s land to the Orams, is irrelevant to Apostolides. All those transactions are invalid by default. Orams were caught by Apostolides to commit the trespassing in his property, and they are the ones taken to the court for this act, based on the laws of the RoC. If Orams wish to complain at a RoC police station that they were cheated by a TC who appeared to them as the owner of Apostolides land, and with false representations cheated them in buying someone else’s land, then rest sure when the particular TC will cross to the south one day, he will also be arrested. Apostolides has no reason to do that, simply because those in his property at the moment are the Orams. How they got there is not his concern, but the fact that they are there in his property without his (the owner's) authorisation.

[miltiades]

Stuballstu , read again what Kifeas posted which is the indisputable result of this case , furthermore the advice now emanating from official guidelines in the UK IS BEWARE OF PURCHASING DISPUTED LAND.
May i suggest that you too study carefully the full text , just as Kifeas has and perhaps then offer your views.

"""Basically, what the Orams are celebrating is not their vindication as to what they did was not an illegality (trespassing,) or that Apostolides is not the real owner of the property in which they built their villa, but they are celebrating the fact that their act will remain (temporarily) with impunity. They were not vindicated morally, and they were not cleared out legally. They just got away with impunity for the time being, and this is what they celebrate. """

[Viewpoint]

In paragraph 4 the land on which the Orams villa is built had been sold by one Turkish Cypriot to another who in turn sold it to the Orams. Why are the ROC not pursuing these men who sold the land which the court have stated still belonged to mr Apostolides. If the Orams could why do they not sell the house and land to someone else then that would be the end of the case as what has happened to the Turkish Cypriots who originally sold the land? Would the ROC dare prosecute one of their own citizens?

Stuball, the RoC doesn't recognise the transactions committed by an illegal "Land registry" of an illegal entity. Who, when and how “sold” Apostolide’s land to the Orams, is irrelevant to Apostolides. All those transactions are invalid by default. Orams were caught by Apostolides to commit the trespassing in his property, and they are the ones taken to the court for this act, based on the laws of the RoC. If Orams wish to complain at a RoC police station that they were cheated by a TC who appeared to them as the owner of Apostolides land, and with false representations cheated them in buying someone else’s land, then rest sure when the particular TC will cross to the south one day, he will also be arrested. Apostolides has no reason to do that, simply because those in his property at the moment are the Orams. How they got there is not his concern, but the fact that they are there in his property without his (the owner's) authorisation.

So according to your line of thought the TCs who sells his land given to him by the TRNC for land in the south is not to blame and should not be taken to court?

[stuballstu]

Kifeas wrote

Stuball, the RoC doesn't recognise the transactions committed by an illegal "Land registry" of an illegal entity. Who, when and how “sold” Apostolide’s land to the Orams, is irrelevant to Apostolides. All those transactions are invalid by default. Orams were caught by Apostolides to commit the trespassing in his property, and they are the ones taken to the court for this act, based on the laws of the RoC. If Orams wish to complain at a RoC police station that they were cheated by a TC who appeared to them as the owner of Apostolides land, and with false representations cheated them in buying someone else’s land, then rest sure when the particular TC will cross to the south one day, he will also be arrested. Apostolides has no reason to do that, simply because those in his property at the moment are the Orams. How they got there is not his concern, but the fact that they are there in his property without his (the owner's) authorisation.

Kifeas

If what you say is true then all the Orams have to do is sell their villa in cyprus then there is no case against them. Because like the other 2 Turkish Cypriots who sold the land before them there would be no case to answer unless of course the ROC has issued warrants for the other 2 Turkish Cypriot parties who sold the land then the Orams would face the same fate as them.

miltiades wrote

Stuballstu , read again what Kifeas posted which is the indisputable result of this case , furthermore the advice now emanating from official guidelines in the UK IS BEWARE OF PURCHASING DISPUTED LAND.


May i suggest that you too study carefully the full text , just as Kifeas has and perhaps then offer your views.

Miltiades with the greatest respect to you, I have read all 32 pages of the judgement many times since it was published. No one is disputing who the legal owner of the land is, it is not a point that can be disputed.

What i am saying, in my opinion, is that the legal case has been flawed from start to finish on not only the way the original case was handled, from the courts summons to the registration of the judgement. Why was the judgement registered in the UK prior to an appeal in Cyprus? No judge in the UK or anywhere in Europe would really like to rule on Cyprus Issues as effectively Judge Jack was asked to do. In my opinion the property issue is a political one not one for the legal courts as the only winners, as has just been proved is the lawyers who gain huge fees, and at who's expense?

Further more it has always been the policy of the UK to issue warning guidelines on buying property in the Northern part of Cyprus. The only person going to be disputing the result of the case is Mr Apostolides and his legal team, no doubt backed by the ROC government.

[Kifeas]

In paragraph 4 the land on which the Orams villa is built had been sold by one Turkish Cypriot to another who in turn sold it to the Orams. Why are the ROC not pursuing these men who sold the land which the court have stated still belonged to mr Apostolides. If the Orams could why do they not sell the house and land to someone else then that would be the end of the case as what has happened to the Turkish Cypriots who originally sold the land? Would the ROC dare prosecute one of their own citizens?

Stuball, the RoC doesn't recognise the transactions committed by an illegal "Land registry" of an illegal entity. Who, when and how “sold” Apostolide’s land to the Orams, is irrelevant to Apostolides. All those transactions are invalid by default. Orams were caught by Apostolides to commit the trespassing in his property, and they are the ones taken to the court for this act, based on the laws of the RoC. If Orams wish to complain at a RoC police station that they were cheated by a TC who appeared to them as the owner of Apostolides land, and with false representations cheated them in buying someone else’s land, then rest sure when the particular TC will cross to the south one day, he will also be arrested. Apostolides has no reason to do that, simply because those in his property at the moment are the Orams. How they got there is not his concern, but the fact that they are there in his property without his (the owner's) authorisation.

So according to your line of thought the TCs who sells his land given to him by the TRNC for land in the south is not to blame and should not be taken to court?

If there is a complaint against him for fraudulent representations by another individual, then he is also liable. If he tries to sell someone else's land as his own and this someone reports him to the police or takes him to the court then he will be sentenced for attempting or committing a fraud.