Renewal of Memo on property in the buffer zone

?“There is a gap in the new legislation that needs to be addressed”

The amendment to the legislation that took place on 23.2.2024 (Law 9(I)/2024) no longer allows the sale of immovable property located in areas not controlled by the Republic of Cyprus of the judgment debtor through the enforcement procedure. A similar prohibition was placed in the amendment and it is not permitted to register a judgment on immovable property located in these areas, nor is there a right to extend the registration of Memo.

As a result, the Land Registry applies the new provisions of the legislation also in relation to properties located in the buffer zone, considering that they are also located in areas not controlled by the Republic. However, this interpretation raises various issues and problems, and inevitably concerns creditors, their lawyers and the Courts, since a gap is identified that the state and Parliament should address with the appropriate amendment.

The buffer zone regime

There is no legal regime governing the buffer zone which intervenes between the free areas of the Republic of Cyprus and its territory occupied by Turkey. UNFICYP has been a host peacekeeping force in Cyprus since 1964 and the Republic of Cyprus has allowed it to move throughout its territory with the aim of preserving peace and security between the two communities on the island. The Green Line in Nicosia followed, and as a result of the illegal Turkish invasion in 1974 and the ongoing occupation, an area of 3% of the territory of the Republic of Cyprus along the confrontation line, the so-called buffer zone, intervenes. Within this, UNFICYP moves, surveillance and controls the area to avoid incidents, tensions and hostilities.

The buffer zone is the territory of the Republic of Cyprus, as is the occupied territory, and between Turkey and the Republic of Cyprus there is an informal agreement for respect for the buffer zone and the exercise of control by the peacekeeping force with the aim of peace and security between the two sides. The sovereignty of the buffer zone belongs to the Republic of Cyprus and is not considered an area not controlled by it. However, in some areas, it may not have effective access or control, due to the illegal presence of Turkish troops and their threat, with a mandate to UNFICYP for its surveillance and control.

?ECHR judgement

The European Court of Human Rights, in its judgment in the case of Ioannides v. Cyprus, Application No. 32879/18, dated 16.1.2025, decided that the Republic of Cyprus retains jurisdiction in relation to the buffer zone. It distinguished between situations where the absence of effective control over certain parts of the territory of the State creates only positive obligations and situations where the existence of full control over the persons concerned entails its direct responsibility.

It also clarifies the relationship between effective control and the scope of the State's obligations to secure Convention rights to everyone within its jurisdiction, in accordance with Article 1 of the ECHR. Where the State is directly responsible for a violation, the scope of its jurisdiction and obligations will not be limited by the argument that it lacks effective control.

District Court Decision

The Larnaca District Court, in its decision issued on 25.2.2025, concerning a creditor's application for an extension of the validity of a memo encumbering a property located in the buffer zone, examined the issue raised. It ruled that there is a factual and legal gap in relation to whether the area of the buffer zone, within which the property encumbered by the Memo is located, is or is not territory controlled by the Republic of Cyprus.

This gap, however, cannot operate against the rights of the applicants that they have already acquired with the Memo they registered under the previous legislative regime. It approved the application since it is not proven that the area where the encumbered property is located constitutes an area that is not controlled by the Republic within the meaning of the Law.

It pointed out, however, that due to the seriousness of the issue, with the understandable political implications that this entails, but also because there may soon be some legislative or political regulation of the identified gap, it extended the validity of the registration not for a full period of 10 years, but only for one year, in order to give the Legislator and the involved authorities of the Republic the opportunity to clarify the issue.