|
|
|
Caution regarding property purchases in the occupied erea
Foreign citizens are warmed against the purchase of Greek Cypriot owned
property,
in the part of the Republic of Cyprus which has been under Turkish military occupation
since 1974.
As a result of the Turkish invasion and subsequent occupation of 36.4% of the
territory of Cyprus, 170,000 Greek Cypriots, who constituted 2/3 of the inhabitants of the occupied
area, were forced to flee from their homes. According to the 1964 Land Registry Office Records,
Greek Cypriots owned approximately 78% of the privately owned land in the territory now under
Turkish occupation, while persons belonging to the Turkish Cypriot community owned approximately
21%.
The displaced persons are to this day prevented by the Turkish armed forces
from returning to their homes and peacefully enjoying their properties. However, under Human Rights
Conventions, as well as international and national law, they retain their title to their
property.
The European Court of Human Rights, in its Judgment of 18 December 1996, on the individual
application of the Greek Cypriot displaced owner from Kyrenia, Mrs. Titina Loizidou, against
Turkey, and in the Fourth Interstate Application of Cyprus against Turkey of 10 May 2001, upheld
the rights of the refugees to their properties. In the Loizidou case, the Court ordered the
Government of Turkey to compensate the applicant for the time period of deprivation of use of her
property and to provide full access and allow peaceful enjoyment of her property in Kyrenia. The
right of the displaced owners to their properties was reconfirmed in the most recent decision of
the European Court of Human Rights (Dec. 2005) regarding the application of Myra Xenides- Arestis
v. Turkey.
Greek Cypriot owners may also bring civil action against usurpers of their property before
the competent civil Courts of the Republic of Cyprus. In its judgment of 15 November 2004 in the
case of Meletios Apostolides v David and Linda Orams, the Nicosia District Court found the
Defendants liable for trespass in the property of the Plaintiff, ordering them to demolish the
villa and other buildings erected on the property, surrender vacant possession to the Plaintiff and
pay damages. Pursuant to EC Regulation 44/2001, the judgments of the civil courts of the Republic
of Cyprus can be enforced in any of the Member States of the European Union against the assets of
the Defendants in that state. On 6 September 2006 a Judge of the Queen’s Bench Division of the High
Court of Justice in the UK issued his judgment on the Orams’ appeal against registration and
enforcement in Britain of the Cyprus judgment in favour of Mr. Apostolides.
Although on technical points the British Court avoided getting involved in
enforcing the Cyprus judgment and allowed Orams's appeal, it needs to be stressed that on the
substance of the case the British Court pointed out that, according to the relevant judgments of
the European Court of Human Rights, the property rights of Mr. Apostolides in relation to the
property in question remain in force and Mr. Apostolides remains the lawful owner of his property
in Lapithos. Therefore, it accepts the finding of the Cyprus Court that the Orams are trespassers
on the property of Mr. Apostolides and should be treated as trespassers. Leave to appeal against
this judgment of the High Court has already been granted to Mr. Apostolides, which means that
judicial proceedings in the case are still continuing, ultimately leading to the European Court of
Justice in Luxembourg, which has the final say in matters of interpretation of EU law.
Under the laws of the Republic of Cyprus, the exploitation of property registered in the
name of another, constitutes a criminal offence, for which a European arrest warrant, executable in
any of the 25 EU countries, and an International arrest warrant could be issued.
It is reminded that the regime in the occupied area is an illegal secessionist entity
(United Nations Security Council Resolutions 541 (1983), 550 (1984) called upon all states to
respect the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of the Republic of Cyprus and not
to recognize any state in Cyprus other than the Republic of Cyprus). As stated by the European
Court of Human Rights in its examination of the Fourth Interstate Application of Cyprus v Turkey
(10 May 2001), "§61. it is evident from international practice and the condemnatory tone of the
resolutions adopted by the United Nations Security Council and the Council of Europe’s Committee of
Ministers that the international community does not recognise the "TRNC" as a State under
international law. The Court reiterates the conclusion reached in its Loizidou judgment (merits)
that the Republic of Cyprus has remained the sole legitimate government of Cyprus…"
As such, the illegal secessionist entity in the occupied area of Cyprus does not have
jurisdiction to perform valid transfers of property ownership.
Thus, foreign citizens interested in purchasing property in the area under
Turkish military occupation are strongly advised to thoroughly examine the legal ownership status
of the property concerned, through the Lands and Surveys Department of the Ministry of Interior of
the Republic of Cyprus, in order to ascertain, at first, that no violation of the property rights
of the legal owners will be effected through the transaction, and, second, to safeguard that the
purported seller is the true owner of the property and can transfer a valid title.
Foreign visitors are further advised that, material advertising property offered for sale in
the areas which are not under the effective control of the Government, found in the possession of
persons coming from the areas situated north of the buffer zone to the areas under the effective
control of the Government, can and may be confiscated.
Given that more than 4/5 of the property in the areas situated in the north of the buffer
zone belongs to forcibly displaced owners (the term ‘owners’ includes the Republic of Cyprus), one
can reasonably reach the conclusion that this advertising material relates to illegal activities,
even if at the time of its discovery there is no evidence linking the object of the advertisement
to specific displaced owners.
The material in question could be used as evidence in a future case against usurpers of
property in the areas situated north of the buffer zone. It is also considered material that could
be used in the commission of crimes, such as under Article 281 of the Penal Code – use of land
registered in the name of another without the consent of the registered owner - and Article 14 of
the Law on the Registration of Estate Agents – whereby, no person can exercise the profession of a
real estate agent or project himself as such, unless he is duly registered and in possession of an
annual license issued by the Registration Council of Real Estate Agents.
On the basis of the above, such advertising material can be confiscated, since there is
reasonable suspicion that it is at the core of the illegal sale of property in the areas situated
to the north of the buffer zone. After its confiscation, the said material would be transmitted to
the police for evaluation and appropriate use. It is imperative that complete testimonies be taken
from the persons carrying this material, since they could be potential witnesses in judicial
proceedings. If there is reasonable suspicion that the person in possession of the material is
actively participating in circles promoting illegal property transactions or exploitation of hotels
belonging to displaced owners, an arrest warrant will be issued against him.
Caution regarding property purchases in the occupied erea
For More Information Contact:
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Tel: +357 22 401000, Fax: +357 22 661881
E-mail: minforeign1@mfa.cy,
Web-site: www.mfa.gov.cy/occupiedarea-properties
|
|
Imprint