The great divide
The split between the Greek and Turkish parts of Cyprus brings no end of difficulties for the island’s lawyers, who say it’s time to unite. By Kit Chellel
For lawyers in Cyprus, there are compelling reasons to end the decades long impasse between the Greek and Turkish sides of the island.
The country was effectively split following Turkey’s occupation of the northern part of the island in 1974 and despite numerous attempts at peace, the schism has remained to this day. As a result, the two parts of the nation are governed by separate legal systems, neither of which recognises the other.
Harris Kyriakides partner Michalis Kyriakides says he has had little cause to work with lawyers from the Turkish side of the island.
“It’s a different world in the northern part, even though the frontiers are now open,” he explains. “There’s not any kind of cooperation between the south and the north.”
But Kyriakides, like many Cypriot lawyers, would like to see the dispute brought to a close as soon as possible. He says the divide effectively makes trade between north and south impossible and damages the entire nation.
“This division in legal systems is a huge problem,” he argues. “Any action in the south is not recognised by the Turkish part. Any action in the Turkish part is not recognised in the republic.”
For an example of the legal difficulties this causes, you need look no further than the case of Apostolides v Oram, which is currently at the UK Court of Appeal.
British couple Linda and David Orams bought land in northern Cyprus and moved in six years ago. But in 2004, a court in southern Cyprus ruled the land belonged to a Greek Cypriot who had been displaced by the invasion. The court ordered the Orams to demolish the home and pay damages to the owner, Mr Apostolides. However, it was unable to enforce its ruling in the Turkish part of the island, for obvious reasons.
In order to apply the judgment, Apostolides took the case to the UK, where he called on Tom Beazley QC from Blackstone Chambers. The Orams and their solicitors, Vahib & Co, instructed Cherie Booth QC of Matrix Chambers.
The case made headlines in the UK and Cyprus. Thousands of Britons own property in northern Cyprus, which was now under threat. In 2006, the High Court ruled in favour of the Orams because EU legislation is suspended in northern Cyprus. However, after a ruling by the European Court of Justice it now looks likely that Apostolides will triumph at appeal.
Whatever the result, the case illustrates the problems facing lawyers in a country that has two conflicted legal systems. Elias Neocleous, head of corporate at Andreas Neocleous & Co, has, like Kyriakides, never dealt with a lawyer from the other side of the island. But he is strongly in favour of finding a solution to the dispute.
“It would be the most marvellous thing if Cyprus were to be reunified. The island is too small to continue to be divided,” he says.
Neocleous argues that a unification pact would help boost the economies of both parts of the island - particularly attractive for the north, which has suffered economic hardship as a result of the divide. He says it would allow the whole of Cyprus to tap into Turkish investment for the first time.
“If it were successful, Cyprus could be used as a base for helping Turkey, which would be fantastic because Turkey is an important power in the region,” he adds.
The issue now is whether the politicians can put aside their differences. Talks are ongoing and Turkey has called for a referendum on the issue by the end of 2009. For Cypriot lawyers, unification cannot come soon enough.
Readers' comments (5)
Andreas E Alexandrou | 20-Jul-2009 1:04 pm
I am puzzled as to allegation that there are legal difficulties in respect of issues relating to the Republic of Cyprus and the Turkish occupied area of northern Cyprus. Neither the European Court of Human Rights nor the European Court of Justice have experienced any real difficulties over the issue and the legal precedents in their judgments set out with great clarity the legal position. In short Turkey illegally occupies the northern part of Cyprus and the Turkish Cypriot administration in the occupied area is nothing more than Turkey’s agent. Turkey is accountable for the actions of that local administration.
The case of the Orams is a striking example. The law in Cyprus is very similar to the law in England, largely because of the previous British colonial history of the island. Accordingly someone who has unlawfully appropriated another’s property cannot give good title to that property. Mr. Apostolides was the true owner. When the Turks invaded they unlawfully appropriated that property and handed the same to a Turkish Cypriot and by a series of transactions, none of which could pass good title, the land ended in the hands of the Orams. The Orams new of suspected that the land was appropriated from Greek Cypriots and took advantage of the discount in price in purchasing that land associated with the fact that the original title deeds could not be given. In the English Court the Judge had no trouble in confirming Mr. Apostolides title to the land. Only technical issues arose in that case which have since been clarified by the European Court of Justice in Mr. Apostolide’s favour.
Difficulties only arise when one tries to look at the legal issues from the eyes of the transgressor and by ignoring basic principals of law and or actual law. The transgressor must ignore the law as it could not otherwise justify its actions, nevertheless there is simply no need for anyone else to do so.
If Turkey, the transgressor, is not given comfort in its presentation of its case, there is more likely to be a realisation of the dream of a united free Cyprus then if it is.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
paul whitmore | 21-Jul-2009 5:02 pm
Was, or is the title of the disputed land TRNC exchange land. If it is TRNC exchange title what is the argument based upon?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 22-Jul-2009 8:26 pm
Has Mr Alexandrou the same view for Israel, occupying foreign soil....or for the people who were displaced more recently in Bosnia and Serbia.
How does the GC plan to repatraite TCs who were thrown from their land, on which now stands Larnaca and Pathos airports?
as I remember it...Turkey went to the aid of it's people with the full knowledge of both the UK and America, whom had the Seventh Fleet in the area at the time, Turkey held back from taking control of the whole island.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
CyprusChill | 23-Jul-2009 11:19 am
Some people appear to readily use the EU offensive.
European Court of Human Rights, European Court of Justice.
This would also suggest further Persecution of people by Prosecution.
And how would the Defence respond to that.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
ANDREAS E. ALEXANDROU | 25-Feb-2010 6:23 pm
In reply to the comments of Anonymous I say as follows:
1. I have no knowledge on land law in Isreal, Bosnia or Serbia. In those circumstances I cannot comment with any accuracy. I suspect that in respect of Isreal stolen property remains stolen property. In respect of Bosnia and Serbia there have been agreements between the parties which may deal with such matters.
2. In respect of the Turkish Cypriots, they were not forced to leave by the Cypriot Government. They were required to move to the Turkish occupied area by Turkey. Their relocation was not forced but voluntary. The land issue is also very different because most transferred their title deeds to the Turkish authorities in return for land (usually stolen) in the occupied area. In those circumstances they have effectively surrendered their interest in what was their land in the free area and are simply not entitled to profit twice by seeking to reclaim what they have already sold. It is because Turkey holds these title deeds that it feels it can negotiate and demand property exchanges.
3. Turkey did not invade the north of Cyprus to protect the Turkish Cypriots. No Turkish Cypriot was in danger at the time of the invasion. It was the actual invasion that changed a conflict between the Greece and the Greek Cypriots into one between Greek Cypriots and Turks. Under the Treaty of Guarantee 1959 Turkey had the right to intervene to end any conflict and restore the sovereignty, terriotorial intergrity and constitution of Cyprus. They did not do this. They carried out a bloody invasion, occupied an area of Cyprus they wanted for their own, ethinically cleansed that area of its Greek Cypriot inhabitants and ordered all Turkish Cypriots south of the Attila Line to relocate to the north and surrender their title deeds.
Nothing I have said is secret or requires any significant research. The Treaty of Guarantee is readily available for inspection on the internet and comprises of two pages with five small paragraphs.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment