Brussels I Regulation, Arts 1, 34(2), 35(1), 38(1), 72—recognition and enforcement of judgments—public policy—northern Cyprus

The Republic of Cyprus, whilst considered de jure one country under international law, has been de facto two countries since the Turkish invasion of the northern area in 1974. Prior to 1974, Mr Apostolides owned property in northern Cyprus. He fled after the Turkish invasion. The Turkish government deemed all abandoned land in the northern area to be its own and sold it to private persons. Mr and Mrs Orams, an English domiciled couple, later bought from a private party the land which Mr Apostolides had abandoned. Subsequently, Mr Apostolides claimed ownership of the land in the District Court of Nicosia, a Cypriot court located in the Cypriot Government-controlled area. Judgment was given in favour of Mr Apostolides and brought by him to England for recognition and enforcement. A number of questions were referred to the ECJ by the English Court of Appeal. First, did suspension of the acquis communautaire in relation to northern Cyprus preclude a Member State court from recognising and enforcing, under the Brussels I Regulation, a judgment given by a Cypriot court in relation to land situate there? Second, did Art 35(1) of the Regulation in any case entitle or bind a Member State court addressed to refuse to recognise a judgment given by courts of another Member State concerning land in the latter state over which its Government lacks effective control? Third, could such a judgment be refused recognition under Art 34(1) on the grounds of public policy, namely that, as a practical matter, the judgment could not be enforced in northern Cyprus, where the land was situate? Fourth, where a default judgment has been entered against a defendant, which judgment does not fulfil the requirements of Art 34(2) of the Regulation, but the defendant has unsuccessfully challenged the default judgment in the court of origin following a full and fair hearing, can that defendant still rely on the Art 34(2) in the courts of the Member State addressed? Fifth, if so, what factors were relevant to the assessment of sufficient time under Art 34(2)?