Hostname: page-component-7d684dbfc8-v2qlk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-09-28T10:59:48.182Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "corePageComponentGetUserInfoFromSharedSession": true, "coreDisableEcommerce": false, "coreDisableSocialShare": false, "coreDisableEcommerceForArticlePurchase": false, "coreDisableEcommerceForBookPurchase": false, "coreDisableEcommerceForElementPurchase": false, "coreUseNewShare": true, "useRatesEcommerce": true } hasContentIssue false


Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 October 2009

Trevor Hartley
Professor Emeritus, London School of Economics.


Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Current Developments: Private International Law
Copyright © 2009 British Institute of International and Comparative Law

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)


1 Their view was supported by the European Court of Human Rights, which held in Loizidou v Turkey [1997] 23 EHHR 513 that Greek-Cypriot owners of property in the TRNC were not deprived of their property rights by the Turkish measures. The TRNC subsequently adopted a scheme for compensation: see Apostolides v Orams [2006] EWHC 2226 (QB); [2007] 1 WLR 241 para 22. A comprehensive plan to solve the whole problem in Cyprus was put forward under the auspices of the United Nations (the Annan Plan), but this was rejected by the Greek Cypriots in a referendum in 2004, shortly before Cyprus became a Member of the EU. Since then, negotiations have continued.

2 Here ‘object’ really means ‘subject’, an example of the poor-quality drafting and translation so often found in EC legislation.

3 Apostolides v Orams [2006] EWHC 2226 (QB); [2007] 1 WLR 241. Although it is a principle of the Brussels I Regulation that the jurisdiction of the court of origin cannot be questioned in recognition proceedings, there is an exception regarding cases under art 22. This exception is laid down in Article 35(1), which provides that a judgment must not be recognized if it conflicts with s 6 of Chapter II, that is, with art 22.

4 Case C-281/02 Owusu v Jackson [2005] ECR I-1383.

5 Paragraph 59 of the judgment.

6 Of course, a new judgment might be given in subsequent proceedings, but that would be a different matter.

7 Case 166/80 Klomps v Michel [1981] ECR 1593 (paras 14–16 of the judgment and para 5 of the Ruling).

8 They would probably get short shrift from the Greek-Cypriot courts.