Affirmation by the European Court of Justice and the Court of Appeal in England and Wales of simplicity of recognition and enforcement of Cyprus decisions in European Union countries.

On 19 January 2010, the Court of Appeal in England and Wales in the case of Meletios Apostolides –v- David Charles Orams and others, [2010] EWCA Civ 9, in proceedings concerning the recognition of a Cyprus judgement in the United Kingdom reaffirmed that:

•  Pursuant to Article 33 of EC Regulation 44/2001, a judgment given in a Member State such as Cyprus shall be recognised in the other Member States (the United Kingdom in this instance) without any special procedure being required;
• Article 35 of EC Regulation 44/2001 generally precludes any review of the jurisdiction of the court of the member state of origin (the courts of Cyprus in this instance); and
• Article 36 of EC Regulation 44/2001 prohibits any review of the substance of the foreign judgment (in this instance the relevant decision concerned land within the Republic of Cyprus but outside the area over which the Government of the Republic exercises effective control), under any circumstances.

The Court of Appeal’s decisions come after the ruling of the European Court of Justice on 28 April 2009 (Case C-420/07) to the effect that:

"1. The suspension of the application of the acquis communautaire in those areas of the Republic of Cyprus in which the Government of that Member State does not exercise effective control, provided for by Article 1(1) of Protocol No. 10 on Cyprus to the Act concerning the conditions of accession [to the European Union of states including the Republic of Cyprus] and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, does not preclude the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters to a judgment which is given by a Cypriot court sitting in the area of the island effectively controlled by the Cypriot Government, but concerns land situated in areas not so controlled.

2. Article 35(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 does not authorise the court of a Member State to refuse recognition or enforcement of a judgment given by the courts of another Member State concerning land situated in an area of the latter State over which its Government does not exercise effective control.

3. The fact that a judgment given by the courts of a Member State, concerning land situated in an area of that State over which its Government does not exercise effective control, cannot, as a practical matter, be enforced where the land is situated does not constitute a ground for refusal of recognition or enforcement under Article 34(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 and it does not mean that such a judgment is unenforceable for the purposes of Article 38(1) of that regulation."

Further to the simplicity of the process of registration and recognition of judgements within the European Union, EC Regulation 44/2001 assists in the avoidance of initiation of parallel legal proceedings and conflicting judgements while it also provides a useful tool to the ends of justice by allowing Member State Courts to issue interim orders in aid of arbitration or court proceedings in another Member State.