Brussels, 30/04/2009 (Agence Europe) - In a judgment delivered on 28 April (case C-420/07), the Court of Justice of the European Communities ruled that a judgment of a court in the Republic of Cyprus must be recognised and enforced by the other member states even if it concerns land situated in the northern part of the island. The court found that suspension of the application of Community law in the areas where the government of the Republic of Cyprus does not exercise effective control and the fact that the judgment cannot, as a practical matter, be enforced where the land is located do not preclude the recognition and enforcement of this decision in other member states.
Mr Meletis Apostolides, a Cypriot national, brought an appeal before the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) in the course of a dispute between himself and a British couple, David and Linda Orams, seeking the recognition and enforcement of two judgments from a court in Nicosia. This court, sitting in the southern part of Cyprus, ordered the Orams to vacate land situated in the northern part of the island and to pay various sums. According to the findings of the Cypriot court, Mr Apostolides is the rightful owner of the land.
The national court referred a number of questions to the Court of Justice on the interpretation and application of the Brussels I regulation (regulation (EC) No44/2001 of 22 December 2000) on jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. It asked, in particular, whether the suspension of Community law in the northern part of Cyprus and the fact that the land concerned is situated in an area over which the government of Cyprus does not exercise effective control had an effect on the recognition and enforcement of the judgment. In addition, it asked whether the recognition and enforcement of a default judgment may be refused on account of the fact that the document instituting proceedings was not served on the defendant in sufficient time and in such a way as to enable him to arrange for his defence, where the defendant was able to bring an appeal against that judgment.
To this question, the Court replied that the suspension of Community law in the northern part of the island provided for by the protocol annexed to the Act of Accession does not preclude the application of the Brussels I regulation to a judgment given by a Cypriot court sitting in the government-controlled area, but concerning land situated in the northern area. It added that the ground is located within the territory of the Republic of Cyprus and that the Cypriot court had jurisdiction in this case, given that the relevant provision of the Brussels I regulation relates to the international jurisdiction of member states and not to their domestic jurisdiction.
Furthermore, the Court stated that the recognition and enforcement of a default judgment cannot be refused where the defendant was able to commence proceedings to challenge the default judgment and those proceedings enabled him to argue that he had not been served with the document which instituted the proceedings or with the equivalent document in sufficient time and in such a way as to enable him to arrange for his defence. In this case, the Orams brought such proceedings. Consequently, the recognition and enforcement of the judgments of the Cypriot court cannot be refused in the United Kingdom on that ground. (H.D./transl.rt).