Summary
The case concerns the recognition and enforcement of a Cypriot judgment rendered against English defendants in default of appearance.
On 21st Oct 2005, Master Eyre ordered registration of the Cypriot judgment in England. The defendants appealed submitting that the Brussels I Regulation does not apply to the area controlled by the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Also, they made an application for the registration order to be set aside on the ground of Article 34(2) of Brussels.
There were two aspects which had to be considered by the English court. First, the Cypriot courts established its jurisdiction on the ground of Article 22(1) of Brussels I. However, the dispute was in respect of land situated in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Secondly, the first instance judgment of the Cypriot court was rendered in default of appearance. Nonetheless, it should be noted that the defendants had the opportunity to challenge the judgment at the court of origin which was an important requirement for the purposes of Article 34(2) of Brussels I.
On 6th September 2006, the High Court judge held that the Cypriot judgment should not be recognised because Brussels I did not apply in this case. The English judge went to hold that, in any case, “Article 34.2 requires that the judgments shall not be recognised.” [66] Mr Justice Jack held that:
“30 I fully recognise the difficulty of the problem. I have concluded, however, that the correct analysis is that the effect of the Protocol is that the acquis, and therefore Regulation 44/2001, are of no effect in relation to matters which relate to the area controlled by the TRNC, and that this prevents Mr Apostolides relying on it to seek to enforce the judgments which he has obtained. Just as, in accordance with Mr Beazley's submission, Mr Apostolides could not rely on the acquis against his own government in connection with his human rights arising from matters relating to the area controlled by the TRNC, he cannot rely on the acquis against Mr and Mrs Orams to enforce his judgments against them. Whether or not that is right is a matter of law. But it is the answer which avoids the conflict which must otherwise arise in cases such as the present between the de facto situation in northern Cyprus and its system of law, and the enforcement of judgments such as the present against the new ‘owners’ of Greek Cypriot property, who have assets elsewhere in the European Union. That, it seems to me, is an international problem ill-suited to be resolved by private litigation. The cases which I have cited in the European Court of Human Rights show that compensation can be obtained at a higher level of litigation, with the State of Turkey as the defendant. They show also the development through the influence of that court of a scheme to provide compensation. These practical considerations support the conclusion that Protocol 10 is to be given the effect I have found that it should have.” [30]
An appeal was made before the Court of Appeal. By an order dated 26th June 2007, the CA made a reference for preliminary ruling.
On 19th January 2010, the Court of Appeal, in the light of the CJEU ruling, reinstate the order of Master Eyre.