The risks & consequences of purchasing property in Northern Cyprus

UN resolutions

Since the 1974 invasion of Northern Cyprus by Turkey, the UN has passed numerous resolutions, including nos. 541 (1983) and 550 (1984) that underline the non-recognition of the military government in Northern Cyprus by the international community, and stating that only the government in the South of the Republic of Cyprus is the internationally recognised one for the entire territory of the island.

The political & legal situation

The British Foreign and Commonwealth Office clearly states on its website www.fco.gov.uk (05.10.2004) that The Republic of Cyprus is a full member of the EU. But the country remains divided by the "Green Line" which separates the so-called "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" from the rest of the island. This republic is not recognised by the British Government. It furthermore warns The non-recognition of theso-called "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" and the possibility of a future political settlement in Cyprus could have implications for those considering buying property in the north. This ultimately means any unlawfully purchased property may be lost, as well as funds paid for it. Over and above that, firstly any "purchase" of such property situated in the North is subject to baseless law. Secondly, the apparent "seller" may not be the true lawful owners at all, despite showing unsuspecting purchasers an unlawful title deed, and thus will not be entitled to sell at all. Furthermore, this can open "purchasers" to prosecution by the lawful Greek Cypriot dispossessed owners, many of whom now live in the UK.

The pitfalls of purchasing property in northern Cyprus

Approximately 88% of the land in the Turkish held area of northern Cyprus is owned by Greek Cypriot refugees who hold the legal title. This leaves only 12% of Turkish Cypriot owned land (prior to the 1974 invasion), thereby drastically reducing the number of "true" titles in northern Cyprus that one can buy/develop/build and sell. As such this land, if sold, is sold at a premium, since it is expected that this land will not be affected in the event of a solution to the Cyprus problem.

The recent Cypriot court decision on the Orams case, and its repercussions, will make anyone who occupies property belonging to a Greek Cypriot in the Turkish occupied area liable to pay damages, demolish any property bought/erected and perhaps end up in prison, not only in Cyprus, but through an international arrest warrant, be arrested abroad. Furthermore, owned property within the purchasers country of origin will be, by extension, blocked. Anyone who has no money to compensate the legal owner might find that his or her property abroad is placed in auction, for the court decision to be effected.

The Cyprus government viewpoint

The government of the Republic of Cyprus is fully committed to ensuring that Greek Cypriots who were forced out of their homes in northern Cyprus in the aftermath of the 1974 invasion have the absolute right to choose either to repossess their family homes, or to claim full compensation for their property. This position is reinforced and supported by the Annan plan. The European Court of Human Rights has also made 4 judgments in the period from 1993 to 1996 underlining the violation of human rights against Greek Cypriots, whose property was taken from them by an unlawful occupying regime.

Case studies & court orders

The Orams case
A Greek Cypriot refugee, Mr. Meletis Apostolides, born in Lapithos village, now under Turkish military occupation, filed a suit against two British citizens, Mr. David and Mrs. Linda Orams for building a villa on his land abandoned under force during the 1974 Turkish invasion.

The Nicosia District Court gave its judgment on November 9, 2004, ordering the Orams to demolish the house and return the property to the rightful owner immediately. Furthermore, the ruling ordered them to pay damages of CY�7,654.83 (13,166.31 Euro) and CY�294.41 (506.95 Euro) a month, starting from December 2004 until the property is returned to Mr. Apostolides, plus court costs. In case of non-compliance to the Cyprus court decision, the Orams will be subject to arrest and their property assets in the UK will be subject to confiscation.

According to the 44/2001 EU Regulation, national court rulings are enforceable in the country of the trespassers. Following a request by a national court of a member state of the EU to have its judgment enforced by the courts in the trespassers country, the latter courts cannot review the merits of the original decision but can only decide on procedural matters. The judgment of the Nicosia Court will be notified to the British High Court. In the case that the British court fails to execute the judgment, then Mr. Apostolides has the right to appeal to the Court of Justice of the European Communities, claiming that the UK failed to comply with the EU regulation.

Those considering buying property in the occupied part of Cyprus, should bear in mind that the accession of Cyprus to the EU offers the possibility to the lawful owners of property located in the occupied territory to pursue their rights on their properties before the Court of Justice of the European Communities. Moreover they risk being arrested by the Police Authorities of the Republic of Cyprus and/or the confiscation of their property in their permanent residence country.

The Loizidou vs. Turkey case
On 28th July 1998, the legal battle of Mrs. Titina Liozidou v Turkey at the European Court of Human Rights came to a successful end. Three judgments held Turkey responsible for human rights violations in the northern part of Cyprus, which is under overall control by the Turkish armed forces. With this unique and important legal recognition of individual human rights in Cyprus established, the road is now open for any similar cases, either in the instance of occupied Cyprus or in those of similar illegal withholding of land by its rightful owners.

While recognising Loizidou as the rightful owner of territory which since 1974 has been under the overall control of the Turkish military, the court ordered Turkey to pay a total amount of CYP 457,000 (GBP 543,600) for the 8 year loss of enjoyment that Loizidou has suffered since Turkey finally recognised the jurisdiction of the ECHR in 1990. Turkey is now responsible for paying the total amount within 3 months of the ECHR judgment.

The first and most important conclusion that this ECHR decision establishes, is the power that the individual may acquire vis a vis the state, and in this specific case a state that abuses one's basic human rights: free movement and settlement, enjoyment of property and exercise of property rights. In the context of the Loizidou v. Turkey decision, a legal precedent is created on a European level, by which 200,000 Greek Cypriot refugees could be offered through similar legal proceedings, compensation for the inability to exercise their property rights in the northern part of Cyprus. Apart from the monetary burden that this could create for the occupying state (the annual cost of its illegal withholding of land in Cyprus is estimated at about 1 billion USD), it also creates a political and moral dilemma: if Turkey accepts to pay, and thus honour the Convention that incorporates human rights in European law (a convention that Turkey legally bound itself by in 1990) it automatically accepts that its presence in the north of Cyprus is indeed illegal, and against European perceptions of human rights. Domestically, the Loizidou v. Turkey judgment serves as a firm legal stronghold in attempts to solve the Cyprus problem: whatever the political solution may be, the rightful owners of land in the northern part of Cyprus can only be absolved of their property rights when they themselves decide to surrender that land.