The Apostolides Vs Orams Judgement
Court of Appeal (Civil Division), England
Citation No. [2010] EWCA Civ9
Case No. A2/2006/2114

The Apostolides Vs Orams case judgement should be placed in the perspective of the developing law on property as a result of the situation created by the events in Cyprus of 1974.

Previous to the Orams case the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has established the property rights of Greek Cypriots displaced persons in northern Cyprus through the four recourses of Cyprus Vs Turkey (6780/74, 6950/75, 8007/771 and 25781/94), and through individual cases such as Loizidou Vs Turkey (40/1993/435/514). All of which found against Turkey, and in Loizidou and  subsequently others, the judgement called for compensation for loss of use and restitution of property to the rightful owners.

The Orams case differs in that it is against a British couple, David and Linda Orams that bought land in 2002, and built a house on it, from a Turkish Cypriot who was the then current user of land belonging to a Greek Cypriot displaced person, Meletis Apostolides. The property is located in Lapithos village, in the part of the Republic of Cyprus not controlled by the Government.  Apostolides demanded the vacation of his property and damages and sued in the Cyprus District Court which in 2004 ordered the Orams to demolish the house, deliver possession to Apostolides, and pay compensation and costs of proceedings.
The Orams appealed to the Cyprus Supreme court which dismissed their appeal.

On the basis of Regulation 44/2001 of the European Union, Apostolides registered the case in the UK and applied against assets of the Orams in England. In 2006 the High Court of Justice ruled in favour of the Orams on the grounds that the acquis communaitaire was not in operation in northern Cyprus in accordance with Protocol 10 of the 2003 Treaty of Accession of Cyprus to the EU. When Cyprus joined the EU in 2004 the Government did not have effective control of northern Cyprus, but the whole of the Republic of Cyprus joined the Union, though the acquis is not in operation in the north.

Apostolides appealed against the decision of the High Court of Justice to the Appeal Court, which in turn sought the opinion of the European Court of Justice, which decided that Protocol 10 does not preclude the application of Council Regulation 44/2001 and therefore does not authorize the court of a member state to refuse recognition or enforcement of a judgement given by courts of other member state. On the basis of this the Court of Appeal of England and Wales upheld the appeal by Apostolides, and declared enforceable the Cypriot judgments, because the decision of the Cyprus court was not contrary to British public policy and law.

The Orams case demonstrates the risks involved of acquiring immovable property in the northern part of Cyprus. Prospective purchases of property should, to be safe, make sure that the land involved was Turkish Cypriot owned before 1974. Any other property may be affected either by a Cyprus settlement, or by legal action by Greek Cypriot owners in Cyprus courts, the courts of EU member states or judgements of the European Court of Human Rights.