The owner of the property located in the Paphos district, a Turkish Cypriot woman had initially agreed to sell to a Greek Cypriot. Both parties were permanent residents of Australia.
However, the Turkish Cypriot owner, decided to call off the deal after discovering the true value of her land.
The prospective buyer, who had already submitted 150.000 Australian dollars as a down payment, demanded that the title deeds be transferred to him.
When the Turkish Cypriot owner refused, the Greek Cypriot sued for breach of contract and the Court ruled in his favour and ordered the owner of the land to transfer it to the buyer.
The said ruling of the District Court was overturned when the Turkish Cypriot woman appealed with the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court decided that the agreement between the two parties had been illegal in the first place, since the property in question falls under the jurisdiction of the Guardian of Turkish Cypriot properties.
The Guardian was set up, by the law 139/1991 as the caretaker of properties belonging to Turkish Cypriot refugees due to the extant circumstances i.e. the continuing division of the island. According to the law: the Guardian takes over the property and when the Cyprus problem is resolved it is handed back to its legal owners in the state it had been received.
However, Turkish Cypriot refugees could reclaim possession and use of their immovable property in the south part of the island, but only if they reside in areas controlled by the Cyprus Government.
According to the Supreme Court’s decision, the Turkish Cypriot woman did not have the right to dispense with her property, because she did not live in the south which is controlled by the Cyprus Government. She should have asked permission from the Guardian to do so, which she did not.
As a result the Supreme Court declared the sale agreement between the parties null and void stating that the contract signed between the parties is contrary to public policy.
Tsitsios & Associates LLC , Friday, 12 September 2008
