The criminal court in Nicosia dismissed on Friday three pre-trial objections put forward by the defence of Israeli property developer Simon Mistriel Aykut, questioning the jurisdiction of the criminal court to try the case and the conditions under which her client is being held.

Aykut was arrested in June and is facing charges of usurpation of Greek Cypriot property in the north. He is accused of having developed and sold €43 million worth of property on Greek Cypriot land in the north.

Reading out the decision, judge Christiana Parpotta said it was unanimously decided that the Republic of Cyprus clearly holds the regulative jurisdiction over the north for all issues, including those concerning immovable property.

The court also dismissed the second objection regarding Aykut remaining in custody.

Related Articles

The defence then asked for a fortnight for deliberations with other lawyers involved in the case and advise their client accordingly before the charges against him are read.

The prosecution did not object.

The court approved the request and set 9am on November 22 for the defendant to answer to the charges.

Until then, he will remain in custody.

Referring to the facts of the case, Parpotta said the defendant is facing a total of 242 charges, including offenses of fraudulent dealing in immovable property, illegal possession and use of land and money laundering in relation to immovable property in the villages of Akanthou, Trikomo and Gastria in the Famagusta district and Ayios Amvrosios in the Kyrenia district.

The defence acknowledged that the jurisdiction of the Republic of Cyprus extended to the whole island, however they pointed out that it did not exercise effective control in the north since the 1974 Turkish invasion.

It also argued that the courts of the Republic of Cyprus could not try crimes that were later added to legislation and had taken place in the north.

The defence said trying the case would violate their client’s rights and especially the right to a fair trial, as prosecution was based on “ulterior motives”.

Parpotta said the prosecution totally disagreed with the defence’s positions, dismissing them as “unfounded”.

The prosecution also said that questioning the jurisdiction of the criminal court undermined the Republic of Cyprus and thus the capability of an internationally recognised state to impose its laws in its own territory.

They furthermore said that the authorities of the Republic of Cyprus continued to hold the regulative jurisdiction with regards to the north for all issues for which the occupation force was not justified in exercising authority, under international law on occupation.

The prosecution also supported that the authorities of the Republic of Cyprus, including its courts, had no obligation whatsoever under international law to recognise or respect the actions of the occupation force regarding property in the north, including so-called ‘legislation’ the occupation regime passed in the north.

Although the defence did not question the sovereign rights of the Republic of Cyprus over the whole island, it believed the international community and the European Union upheld that the Republic of Cyprus did not have a regulative jurisdiction over the north.

The court said this was supported neither by the provisions of the accession protocol itself, nor the general principles of the acquis communautaire.

It also said many of the arguments presented by either side in court were too general and vague and cited previous rulings, including those concerning migrants crossing to the south from the north, by which it was evident that “the Republic of Cyprus is nor restricted to implementing its laws only in the government-controlled areas of the Republic of Cyprus.”

In the case of Aykut, Parpotta said the courts of the Republic of Cyprus had the jurisdiction to rule on the criminal offences the defendant is charged with.

Thus, the court dismissed the defence’s position that the de facto ‘authorities’ in the north exercise regulative jurisdiction.

Parpotta said the court also ruled that the Republic of Cyprus clearly holds the regulative jurisdiction over the north for all issues, including those concerning immovable property, and thus dismissed the second objection.

She added that, taking all facts into consideration, the criminal court did have the jurisdiction to try Aykut.

“The two pre-trial objections related to the jurisdiction of the criminal court are dismissed in their entirety,” Parpotta said.

This decision extended to the third pre-trial objection, which was subsequently also dismissed, given that the arguments for the violation of the defendant’s rights were based on the absence of jurisdiction.