Orams V. Apostolides: A Case Study on the Application in English Law of the Brussels I Regulation in the Light of the Act of Accession 2003
| Author | Phoebus Athanassiou |
| Published date | 01 June 2007 |
| Date | 01 June 2007 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X0701400202 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
14 MJ 2 (2007) 119
ORAMS V. APOSTOLIDES:
A CASE STUDY ON THE APPLICATION IN
ENGLISH LAW OF THE BRUSSELS I REGULATION
IN THE LIGHT OF THE ACT OF ACCESSION 2003
P A*
ABSTRACT
is article uses a recent r uling of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales as the
starting point for an enquiry into the inter pretation of Protocol no. 10 to the Act of Accession
200 3 and , mo re pa rti cul arly, into its e ects on requests for the recognition and e nforcement
of Cypriot court judgments for mulated on the basis of the Brussels I Regulation . e High
Court’s ruling is of some signi cance, not only becau se Protocol no. 10 becomes, for the rst
time since its adoption, the subjec t matter of judicial interp retation but, also, because of
its value as a test case on the Europe an judiciary’s perception of the impact of the reforms
wrought by the Brussel s I Regulation on the status quo ante in th is eld and as an illu stration
of the wider legal complications in herent in the participation in the European Union of a
de facto divided Member State. is article also antici pates some of the arguments that the
Court of Appeal and, eventu ally, the European Court of Justice and the European Court of
Human Rights might be faced with in deciding how be st to address the broader legal issues
that this case raises.
Keywords: Cyprus; Act of Accession; Protocol no. 10; Brussels I Regulation; Foreign
judgments; Re cognition; Enforcement.
* Legal Cou nsel, European Centr al Bank (ECB). e v iews expressed in th is article are purely per sonal
and do not represent thos e of the ECB or of the Eurosystem. e author wi shes to express his sincere
thanks t o Dr. Lukáš Bortel for his inva luable comments on an earl ier dra of this article. e revised
manuscript wa s submitted in April 20 07.
Phoebus Athana ssiou
120 14 MJ 2 (2007)
§1. I N TRODUCTION
e High Cou rt of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, ruled in September 20 06 in the case
of Orams v. Apostolides2 t hat a judgment of the Nicosia District C ourt entered for the
unenforceable in the UK against its judgment debtors (the appellants). e case raises
a number of interesting points of Commun ity but also private internat ional law several
of which had, until now, not been explored by a court or t ribunal in anot her Member
State or by the European Cour t of Justice (ECJ) itself. What is similarly of interest i s the
an instru ment for sidestepping the di culties inherent in the domestic enforcement of
Cypriot court judgments, t he subject matter of which is property located in those areas
of the Republic of Cyprus where its Govern ment exercises no e ective control. As the
points of law raised by the Hig h Court’s ruling in Orams v. Apostolides relate to the
interpretation of certa in aspects of the Br ussels I Regulation, as well as to the purpose
of Protocol no. 10 to the Act of Accession 2003 (‘Protocol no. 10’ or ‘the Protocol’)4
and, more broadly, to the sui generis legal implications of the acce ssion to the European
2 Case No: QB/2005/PTA/089 7, David Charles Orams and Li nda Elizabeth O rams v. Meletios Apostoli des,
judgment of 6 September 2 006, High Court of Justic e, Queen’s Bench Division, [2006] EWHC 2226
(QB).
3 Council Regul ation (EC) No. 44/2001 of 22 December 200 0 on jurisdiction and the rec ognition and
enforcement of judgment s in civil a nd commercia l matters, [20 01] OJ L 12, 1, as amended by Commis sion
Regulation (E C) No. 1496/2002, [2002] OJ L 225, 13 and Commis sion Regulation (EC) No. 1937/2004,
[2004] OJ L 334, 3. e provisions of the Br ussels I Regulat ion did not apply to Denmark which, a long
with Ireland a nd the United Kingdom, does not par ticipate in the adoption of measu res taken under
Title IV of the Treaty of A msterdam (visa s, asylum, im migration a nd other policies rela ted to free
movement of persons) but which, un like the aforement ioned two Member States , had indicated its w ish
not to participate i n the adoption and appl ication of the Bru ssels I Regu lation. At the ti me of publication,
relations betwe en Denmark and other Membe r States bound by the Brus sels I Regulation cont inued to
be governed by the Bru ssels I Convention. is is expe cted to change once an Agree ment between the
Community a nd Denmark on jurisdic tion and the recognition a nd enforcement of judgments in civ il
and commercia l matters ([2005] OJ L 299, 62), as approved by Counc il Decision 200 5/790/EC of 20
September 200 5 on the signing, on beha lf of the Communit y, of the Agreement between t he European
Community a nd the Kingdom of Denmark on jurisd iction and the recognition and e nforcement of
judgments in civ il and commercial mat ters, has entered into force ([2005] OJ L 299, 61). is is due to
happen on the rst day of the sixt h month a er Den mark and the Community have a nnounced the
former’s rati cation. e Agreement was rati ed for the Community by C ouncil Decision 2 006/325/EC
of 27 April 2006 conc erning the conclusion of t he Agreement between the Eu ropean Community a nd
the Kingdom of Den mark on jurisdiction and t he recognition and enforcement of jud gments in civil
and commercia l matters ([2006] OJ L 120, 22).
4 Protocol no. 10 on Cyprus, an nexed to the Act concerning the cond itions of accession of the Czech
Republic, the Repu blic of Estonia, th e Republic of Cypru s, the Republic of Lat via, the Repu blic of
Lithuania , the Republic of Hungar y, the Republic of Malt a, the Republic of Poland , the Republic of
Slovenia and the Slov ak Republic and the adjust ments to the Treaties on which t he European Union is
founded ([2003] OJ L 236, 33). e Act of Acc ession 2003 is attached to the Treat y of Accession 2003
([2003] OJ L 236, 17).
To continue reading
Request your trial