| Conflict of laws — Foreign judgment — Jurisdiction to enforce — Judgments against the appellants obtained in Republic of Cyprus concerning land within Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus — Respondent registering judgments in High Court — Whether judgments enforceable — Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Treaty of Accession to the European Union 2003, Protocol 10
Orams and another v Apostolides
QBD: Jack J: 6 September 2006
Judgments of the courts of the Republic of Cyprus concerning land within the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus were not enforceable in England.
Jack J so held in the Queen’s Bench Division in a reserved judgment when allowing an appeal by the appellants, David Charles Orams and Linda Elizabeth Orams against the registration of judgments by the respondent, Meletios Apostolides, obtained in the Nicosia District Court in Cyprus, in the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court on 21 October 2005 pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.
JACK J said that the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (“TRNC”) was not recognised by the United Kingdom or by any country save Turkey, but had de facto control of the area which it occupied. On 9 November 2004 the respondent obtained a judgment in default of appearance in the Nicosia District of Cyprus against the appellants. On 19 April 2005, a further judgment was delivered in the district court refusing to set aside the earlier judgment on the ground that there was no valid defence to the claim. The judgments related to land in the area controlled by the TRNC, which once belonged to the respondent, a Greek Cypriot, who subsequently had to flee the area as a result of the invasion. The appellants bought the land from a Turkish Cypriot, who was the registered owner under the law of TRNC. The appellants in the appeal against registration submitted that the suspension of the aquis communautaire, ie the entire body of legislation of the European Union, in those areas of the Repubic of Cyprus over which its government did not exercise effective control by Protocol No 10 to the Treaty of Accession to the European Union 2003, had the effect of taking the area in the control of the TRNC out of the application of Regulation 44/2001; it meant that the registration proceedings were misconceived and of no effect because they were made under an instrument which did not apply. The correct analysis was that the effect of Protocol 10 was that the acquis, and therefore Regulation 44/2001, were of no effect in relation to matters which related to the area controlled by the TRNC, and that that prevented the respondent relying on it to seek to enforce judgments which he had obtained. If that conclusion was right, it determined the appeals in favour of the appellants. His Lordship none the less considered the further grounds raised, and held, inter alia, that the period of 13 days between service of the writ and default judgment was insufficient for the purposes of art 34.2 of Regulation 44/2001, and that, further, the appellants were not barred from relying on art 34.2 by reason of their failed application to have the default judgment set aside.
|
