and hopefully now they can wipe the smirk of the faces along with all the other vermin...
British Couple Must Demolish Cyprus Home, EU Top Court Says
by Jerry » Tue Apr 28, 2009 11:38 am
boomerang wrote:
and hopefully now they can wipe the smirk of the faces along with all the other vermin...
Mr & Mrs phucking fat piggy HA HA HA. Got your comeuppance at last, thieving cheapskate low life scum. Your wanky lager swigging mates on Cyprus 44 are shitting themselves too.
Who in their right mind would buy in the north now?
- Jerry
- Main Contributor
- Posts: 4729
- Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 12:29 pm
- Location: UK
by roseandchan » Tue Apr 28, 2009 11:43 am
just popped in to say conrats to you all.
d.t, you are right the panic has started, lots of humble pie being eaten in the north today i here,lol.
d.t, you are right the panic has started, lots of humble pie being eaten in the north today i here,lol.
- roseandchan
- Regular Contributor
- Posts: 1039
- Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 6:31 pm
- Location: as far away from beetroot man as possible.
by miltiades » Tue Apr 28, 2009 11:43 am
The end of ...cheap housing in the occupied part or rather the end of "back of the lorry" transactions. Serves them bloody right , ignorant mostly of the political scene and could not care less .
I will ring my mate and ask if he wants to sell !!!
I will ring my mate and ask if he wants to sell !!!
Last edited by miltiades on Tue Apr 28, 2009 11:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
miltiades - Leading Contributor
- Posts: 19837
- Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 10:01 pm
by The Cypriot » Tue Apr 28, 2009 11:48 am
Press and Information
PRESS RELEASE No 39/09
28 April 2009
Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-420/07
Meletis Apostolides v. David Charles Orams & Linda Elizabeth Orams
A JUDGMENT OF A COURT IN THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS MUST BE
RECOGNISED AND ENFORCED BY THE OTHER MEMBER STATES EVEN IF IT
CONCERNS LAND SITUATED IN THE NORTHERN PART OF THE ISLAND
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.
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.
Mr 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, Mr 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 Regulation1. 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
1
Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and
enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters
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 Mr 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 Court 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 Mr 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.
PRESS RELEASE No 39/09
28 April 2009
Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-420/07
Meletis Apostolides v. David Charles Orams & Linda Elizabeth Orams
A JUDGMENT OF A COURT IN THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS MUST BE
RECOGNISED AND ENFORCED BY THE OTHER MEMBER STATES EVEN IF IT
CONCERNS LAND SITUATED IN THE NORTHERN PART OF THE ISLAND
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.
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.
Mr 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, Mr 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 Regulation1. 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
1
Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and
enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters
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 Mr 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 Court 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 Mr 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 Cypriot - Regular Contributor
- Posts: 2326
- Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 8:27 pm
by Kifeas » Tue Apr 28, 2009 11:49 am
Jerry wrote:boomerang wrote:
and hopefully now they can wipe the smirk of the faces along with all the other vermin...
Mr & Mrs phucking fat piggy HA HA HA. Got your comeuppance at last, thieving cheapskate low life scum. Your wanky lager swigging mates on Cyprus 44 are shitting themselves too.
Who in their right mind would buy in the north now?
Jerry, those poor idiots should not be blamed. Those that should be blamed are the prostitute British governments that diachronically and deliberately were refusing or "neglecting" to properly and accurately inform their citizens, in their FM traveling advices, regarding the real situation of the occupied part of the RoC and the status of the GC properties there. If I were in their shoes, I would have sued the shit out of the British government, for letting me down in such a scandalous and opportunistic manner. Of course now, after the Orams case emerged in 2005, they somehow fixed a bit their traveling advice (it is still miles away from reflecting the accurate facts,) however, too little too late.
Last edited by Kifeas on Tue Apr 28, 2009 11:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
Kifeas - Main Contributor
- Posts: 4927
- Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 10:19 am
- Location: Lapithos, Kyrenia, now Pafos; Cyprus.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
© 2002 - 2015 Cyprus-Forum.com
