Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11
View news reports and link to the FINAL JUDGMENT by the British High Court, released on 19th January 2010, available from links at:
http://aspectsofreality.blogspot.com/2010/01/apostolides-v-orams-case-party-is-over.html
--------------------------------------------
"The Apostolides v Orams Case - An Update"
Legal Issues, Political Significance and Practical Implications
A talk by Constantis Candounas
Chairman: Alper Riza, QC
Wednesday 25 March 2009
(see below for the judgement by ECJ on 28th April 2009)
London School of Economics
European Institute
Brief Abstract:
Mr Constantis Candounas was born in Nicosia, Cyprus. He studied law at Queen Mary College, London and returned to Cyprus to practise. In 2004 he took up the case of Mr Meletios Apostolides, a Greek Cypriot architect whose family had been forced to abandon their house, orchard and land in Lapithos, north Cyprus in the wake of the Turkish military operation in 1974. The property was given by the administration in the north to a Turkish Cypriot who in due course passed it on to another Turkish Cypriot, who in turn cut off the trees of the orchard and built the skeleton of a villa. The property was eventually acquired by a British couple, David and Linda Orams who completed and further developed the villa. Mr Candounas represented Mr Apostolides in his action before the Nicosia District Court which ordered that the Orams should demolish the villa, return the land to the rightful owner and pay him damages for trespass, plus interest and legal fees. The Orams failed to comply, and Mr Candounas proceeded to register the judgment in the High Court of Justice in London in October 2005 and sought, on the basis of the European Regulation on recognition and enforcement of judgments, to enforce the decision of the Nicosia District Court.
The case made headlines in the UK as it could affect the legal claims of many Greek Cypriots against British users of their properties in the north of Cyprus. The fact that Mrs Cherie Blair, QC represented the Orams at the High Court hearing in July 2006 added to the public interest. In September 2006 Judge Rupert Jack, in a complex and controversial decision, found that Mr and Mrs Orams were indeed trespassers on Mr Apostolides's property but that the High Court had no jurisdiction to enforce the judgment of the Nicosia District Court. In 2007 the Court of Appeal declined to uphold Justice Jack's judgment but instead referred the case to the ECJ for 5 preliminary rulings on points of law. The judgment of the European Court of Justice is expected later on this year, but in the meantime, the Court's Advocate General, J. Kokot's opinion was given on 18.12.08 upholding all of Mr. Apostolides's arguments. The Advocate General's opinion, though by no means binding on the court, is deemed to bear significant importance.
The political significance and practical implications of the decision were discussed by Mr Candounas, and there was a Question and Answer session.
------------
THE ASSOCIATION FOR CYPRIOT, GREEK & TURKISH AFFAIRS
Dr Zenon Stavrinides
General Secretary,
8 Ganners Mount, Leeds LS13 2PE, Great Britain
Tel: 0113 256 8907 Mobile: 07790 107353
Email: Z.Stavrinides@lineone.net
----------------------------------------------------
THE JUDGEMENT BY THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE
Source:
http://curia.europa.eu/en/actu/communiques/cp09/aff/cp090039en.pdf
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 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.
[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]
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2007:297:0020:0021:EN:PDF
======================================================================
See also the following YouTube Playlist:
Apostolides v Orams case - ECJ Decision Explained
14 videos
This case upholds the rights of Greek Cypriot property owners to enforce judgments against those illegally occupying or profiting from their lands in the Turkish occupied areas of Cyprus.
19th June 2009 Meeting chaired by Mr Haris Sophoclides, President of the International Federation of Cypriot Organisations, with main speakers being Mr Costantis Candounas lawyer for Mr Apostolides in his case against David and Linda Orams, Mr Meletis Apostolides Plaintiff in the case against the Orams's, Mr Costas Frangeskides as a Partner in the Law Firm which represented Mr Apostolide's interests in the UK and at the ECJ, and Mr Nick Kounoupias on behalf of Lobby for Cyprus as organisers of this event and a long-standing Cypriot Lobby Group in London ( http://www.lobbyforcyprus.org )
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=E863780A3CB01CF4
Υπόθεση Όραμς - Αποστολίδη
-----------------------
The Apostolides vs Orams Case: An Update
J116, Cowdray House
London School of Economics
6.30pm, 25 March 2009
Speaker: Constantis Candounas
Chair: Alper Ali Riza QC
***(Watch Online)***
http://www.archive.org/details/ConstantisCandounasApostolidesvOrams-UpdateandJudgement
Cyprus Settlement: Who Benefits?
The 2nd Keith Kyle Memorial Lecture
London School of Economics
Speaker: Caroline Flint, MP
Minister for Europe
Chair: Dr James Ker-Lindsay, LSE
25 February 2009
***(Watch Online)***
http://www.archive.org/details/CarolineFlintMPCyprusSettlement-WhoBenefits
Cyprus: Progress so Far
Canada Blanch Room (J116)
London School of Economics
6 February 2009
Speaker: Mr Andrew Dismore MP
***(Watch Online)***
http://archive.org/details/AndrewDismoreMPCyprus-ProgresssofarreporttoACGTAbyAndrewDismoreMP-6Feb2009
America, Britain and the Cyprus Crisis of 1974: Calculated Conspiracy or Foreign Policy Failure?
Canada Blanch Room (J116), First Floor, Cowdray House
London School of Economics
21 November 2008
Speaker: Dr Andreas Constandinos
Chair: Dr James Ker-Lindsay, LSE
***(Watch Online)***
http://www.archive.org/details/AndreasConstandinosAmericaBritainCyprusCrisis1974
The Security Dimensions of a Cyprus Settlement
Joint event with the Hellenic Observatory, LSE
Canada Blanche Room (J116) , 1st Floor, Cowdray House
London School of Economics
10 October 2008
Speaker: Dr James Ker-Lindsay, LSE
Chair: Dr Zenon Stavrinides
***(Watch Online)***
https://youtu.be/KqJjSp1LRTU
The State of Greek-Turkish Relations
Canada Blanche Room (J116) , 1st Floor, Cowdray House
London School of Economics
11 July 2008
Speaker: Robert MacDonald
Chair: Alper Riza QC
***(Watch Online)***
https://youtu.be/N3IbPeNilmU
===================
Other Cyprus-related videos from this source available online at archive dot org are detailed by links at:
http://www.archive.org/bookmarks/grokked
and at the YouTube profile:
http://www.youtube.com/grokked
http://aspectsofreality.blogspot.com/2010/01/apostolides-v-orams-case-party-is-over.html
--------------------------------------------
"The Apostolides v Orams Case - An Update"
Legal Issues, Political Significance and Practical Implications
A talk by Constantis Candounas
Chairman: Alper Riza, QC
Wednesday 25 March 2009
(see below for the judgement by ECJ on 28th April 2009)
London School of Economics
European Institute
Brief Abstract:
Mr Constantis Candounas was born in Nicosia, Cyprus. He studied law at Queen Mary College, London and returned to Cyprus to practise. In 2004 he took up the case of Mr Meletios Apostolides, a Greek Cypriot architect whose family had been forced to abandon their house, orchard and land in Lapithos, north Cyprus in the wake of the Turkish military operation in 1974. The property was given by the administration in the north to a Turkish Cypriot who in due course passed it on to another Turkish Cypriot, who in turn cut off the trees of the orchard and built the skeleton of a villa. The property was eventually acquired by a British couple, David and Linda Orams who completed and further developed the villa. Mr Candounas represented Mr Apostolides in his action before the Nicosia District Court which ordered that the Orams should demolish the villa, return the land to the rightful owner and pay him damages for trespass, plus interest and legal fees. The Orams failed to comply, and Mr Candounas proceeded to register the judgment in the High Court of Justice in London in October 2005 and sought, on the basis of the European Regulation on recognition and enforcement of judgments, to enforce the decision of the Nicosia District Court.
The case made headlines in the UK as it could affect the legal claims of many Greek Cypriots against British users of their properties in the north of Cyprus. The fact that Mrs Cherie Blair, QC represented the Orams at the High Court hearing in July 2006 added to the public interest. In September 2006 Judge Rupert Jack, in a complex and controversial decision, found that Mr and Mrs Orams were indeed trespassers on Mr Apostolides's property but that the High Court had no jurisdiction to enforce the judgment of the Nicosia District Court. In 2007 the Court of Appeal declined to uphold Justice Jack's judgment but instead referred the case to the ECJ for 5 preliminary rulings on points of law. The judgment of the European Court of Justice is expected later on this year, but in the meantime, the Court's Advocate General, J. Kokot's opinion was given on 18.12.08 upholding all of Mr. Apostolides's arguments. The Advocate General's opinion, though by no means binding on the court, is deemed to bear significant importance.
The political significance and practical implications of the decision were discussed by Mr Candounas, and there was a Question and Answer session.
------------
THE ASSOCIATION FOR CYPRIOT, GREEK & TURKISH AFFAIRS
Dr Zenon Stavrinides
General Secretary,
8 Ganners Mount, Leeds LS13 2PE, Great Britain
Tel: 0113 256 8907 Mobile: 07790 107353
Email: Z.Stavrinides@lineone.net
----------------------------------------------------
THE JUDGEMENT BY THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE
Source:
http://curia.europa.eu/en/actu/communiques/cp09/aff/cp090039en.pdf
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 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.
[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]
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2007:297:0020:0021:EN:PDF
======================================================================
See also the following YouTube Playlist:
Apostolides v Orams case - ECJ Decision Explained
14 videos
This case upholds the rights of Greek Cypriot property owners to enforce judgments against those illegally occupying or profiting from their lands in the Turkish occupied areas of Cyprus.
19th June 2009 Meeting chaired by Mr Haris Sophoclides, President of the International Federation of Cypriot Organisations, with main speakers being Mr Costantis Candounas lawyer for Mr Apostolides in his case against David and Linda Orams, Mr Meletis Apostolides Plaintiff in the case against the Orams's, Mr Costas Frangeskides as a Partner in the Law Firm which represented Mr Apostolide's interests in the UK and at the ECJ, and Mr Nick Kounoupias on behalf of Lobby for Cyprus as organisers of this event and a long-standing Cypriot Lobby Group in London ( http://www.lobbyforcyprus.org )
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=E863780A3CB01CF4
Υπόθεση Όραμς - Αποστολίδη
-----------------------
The Apostolides vs Orams Case: An Update
J116, Cowdray House
London School of Economics
6.30pm, 25 March 2009
Speaker: Constantis Candounas
Chair: Alper Ali Riza QC
***(Watch Online)***
http://www.archive.org/details/ConstantisCandounasApostolidesvOrams-UpdateandJudgement
Cyprus Settlement: Who Benefits?
The 2nd Keith Kyle Memorial Lecture
London School of Economics
Speaker: Caroline Flint, MP
Minister for Europe
Chair: Dr James Ker-Lindsay, LSE
25 February 2009
***(Watch Online)***
http://www.archive.org/details/CarolineFlintMPCyprusSettlement-WhoBenefits
Cyprus: Progress so Far
Canada Blanch Room (J116)
London School of Economics
6 February 2009
Speaker: Mr Andrew Dismore MP
***(Watch Online)***
http://archive.org/details/AndrewDismoreMPCyprus-ProgresssofarreporttoACGTAbyAndrewDismoreMP-6Feb2009
America, Britain and the Cyprus Crisis of 1974: Calculated Conspiracy or Foreign Policy Failure?
Canada Blanch Room (J116), First Floor, Cowdray House
London School of Economics
21 November 2008
Speaker: Dr Andreas Constandinos
Chair: Dr James Ker-Lindsay, LSE
***(Watch Online)***
http://www.archive.org/details/AndreasConstandinosAmericaBritainCyprusCrisis1974
The Security Dimensions of a Cyprus Settlement
Joint event with the Hellenic Observatory, LSE
Canada Blanche Room (J116) , 1st Floor, Cowdray House
London School of Economics
10 October 2008
Speaker: Dr James Ker-Lindsay, LSE
Chair: Dr Zenon Stavrinides
***(Watch Online)***
https://youtu.be/KqJjSp1LRTU
The State of Greek-Turkish Relations
Canada Blanche Room (J116) , 1st Floor, Cowdray House
London School of Economics
11 July 2008
Speaker: Robert MacDonald
Chair: Alper Riza QC
***(Watch Online)***
https://youtu.be/N3IbPeNilmU
===================
Other Cyprus-related videos from this source available online at archive dot org are detailed by links at:
http://www.archive.org/bookmarks/grokked
and at the YouTube profile:
http://www.youtube.com/grokked
Reviews
There are no reviews yet. Be the first one to
write a review.
