Nicosia, Cyprus. Cyprus’ court of appeal has rejected a €41 million compensation claim filed by displaced Turkish Cypriot owners of land on which Paphos airport and the Andreas Papandreou airbase were built, the legal service said on Friday. The court also ordered the applicants to pay legal costs to the Republic of Cyprus.
Case background
The applicants first filed a lawsuit at the Paphos district court in 2022. After that court rejected their initial application, they filed a suit at the court of appeal.
Alongside compensation, the applicants sought to have the right to use the land transferred from the guardian of Turkish Cypriot properties to them, so they could sell it to the airport’s administrator.
They had requested compensation for what they described as an “illegal intervention” in the land’s usage by the Republic of Cyprus and for the alleged violation of their human rights, among other claims.
Court findings
The court of appeal rejected the applicants’ claim on three grounds. First, it rejected their assertion that they had been “expelled” from the property in 1974.
The court said it did not accept that claim, stating that in 1974 movement was not mandatory for everyone but occurred by the choice of each citizen, and that some Turkish Cypriots continued to live in the free areas after 1974 without having been expelled or forced by the Republic of Cyprus to abandon their property.
Guardianship and land use
On the claim that the Republic of Cyprus had illegally intervened in the property, the court said that while there had been an intervention in the occupation of the property, the exceptional situation declared by the Republic of Cyprus in 1974 remained in force.
It said the intervention was therefore lawful and based on the authority of the guardian under the relevant legislation. The court added that all the appellants were Cypriot citizens, Turkish Cypriots, who did not have their legal residence in areas controlled by the Republic, and that their property had therefore been correctly and legally placed under guardianship.
Heir not included in case
The court also ruled that one of the heirs to the property had not been mentioned in the case. It said the guardian had an obligation to ensure that, if it approved the transfer of the land’s use, the rights of an heir to the property would not be violated, given the applicants’ intention to sell it.