R (Kibris Turk Hava Yollari and another) v Secretary of State for Transport
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE WYN WILLIAMS |
| Judgment Date | 28 July 2009 |
| Neutral Citation | [2009] EWHC 1918 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/3512/2007 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 28 July 2009 |
[2009] EWHC 1918 (Admin)
The Honourable Mr Justice Wyn Williams
Case No: CO/3512/2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Mr Charles Haddon-Cave QC, Mr Robert Lawson QC and Professor Stefan Talmon (instructed by Herbert Smith LLP) for the Claimants
Mr David Anderson QC, Mr Sam Wordsworth (instructed by The Treasury Solicitors) for the Defendant
Mr Richard Gordon QC, Professor Vaughan Lowe QC, Mr Akhil Shah and Ms Amy Sander (instructed by DLA Piper UK LLP ) for the Interested Party
Hearing dates: 18 th -21 st May 2009
Mr Justice Wyn Williams:
Introduction
The First Claimant is a company incorporated in Turkey. It holds an Air Operator Certificate issued by the Minister of Transport of the Republic of Turkey which permits it to operate a fleet of 5 aircraft from a hub at Ercan International Airport in Northern Cyprus. It has been operating for over 35 years.
Since 1999 the First Claimant has operated several scheduled flights each week between the United Kingdom and Turkey pursuant to an operating permit granted by the Defendant. Operating permits are currently granted under Article 138 of the Air Navigation Order 2005. Such operating permits are renewed every six months. The First Claimant has held an operating permit continuously since 1999.
Although the permit relates to flights between the United Kingdom and Turkey it is common ground that some of the flights operated by the First Claimant use Turkey as an intermediary stop between the airport at Ercan and the United Kingdom that is the case whether a flight originates in the United Kingdom or at Ercan.
The Second Claimant is a company registered in England. It was established in 1976. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of the First Claimant. The Second Claimant carries out most of the business activities normally associated with that of a travel agent save that the focus of its operation is the provision of holidays in Northern Cyprus. As part of its business it provides flights to Turkey and Northern Cyprus and when it does so it uses aircraft operated by the First Claimant. The Second Claimant holds an air travel organiser's licence from the Civil Aviation Authority and it is a member of the Association of British Travel Agents.
On 23 November 2006 Herbert Smith LLP, on behalf of the First Claimant, applied to the Defendant to vary the terms of its operating permit. As of 23 November 2006 the operating permit issued to the First Claimant permitted it to operate scheduled passenger services on routes “Points in the Republic of Turkey – Intermediate Points–Points in the United Kingdom – Points beyond” but prohibited the picking up of passengers at intermediate points or in the United Kingdom for setting down at intermediate points. The application made on behalf of the First Claimant was in the following terms:—
“[The First Claimant] hereby applies to vary operating permit IASD/KYV/18/W06–07 so as to permit it to take on board and discharge passengers, baggage and cargo at a point or points in the United Kingdom carried or to be carried on services from the United Kingdom to northern Cyprus and vice versa.”
The letter of 23 November 2006 contained a detailed justification for the grant of the proposed variation. On the same date, Herbert Smith LLP, on behalf of both Claimants made an application under Article 138 of the Air Navigation Order 2005 for an operating permit for specified charter flights. The flights for which permission was sought were specified in detail in the application.
The Defendant's response to both applications was contained in a letter dated 20 February 2007. The Defendant declined to grant the variation sought by the First Claimant to its operating permit; the Defendant also declined to grant to the Claimants the permit to operate the specified chartered flights.
In these proceedings both Claimants seek declaratory relief relating to the Defendant's refusal as contained in its letter of 20 February 2007. In their Claim Form the Claimants also seek a quashing order and a mandatory order. For reasons which I need not detail it is common ground that should I be minded to grant the Claimants relief in these proceedings, declaratory relief would be sufficient. It is also common ground that the precise form of such relief would need to be debated in the light of my judgment.
I should stress at the outset that the Defendant adopts the stance that the decisions contained within the letter of 20 February 2007 are lawful. In that stance he is supported by the Interested Party, the Republic of Cyprus. The position of the Defendant and the Interested Party can be conveniently summarised by reference to the Speaking Note produced by Mr Anderson QC and Mr Wordsworth on behalf of the Defendant (see paragraph 1). They assert that the challenged decisions of the Defendant were decisions he was obliged to make firstly by reason of the domestic law of England and Wales as it relates to the recognition of the acts of foreign authorities and secondly by reason of the obligation of the United Kingdom to respect the rights of the Republic of Cyprus under a Treaty known as the Chicago Convention to which both the United Kingdom and the Republic of Cyprus are signatories.
The two grounds identified by the Defendant raise detailed legal issues. It will be necessary to consider those issues in some detail. They cannot sensibly be understood, however, without first setting out factual material as it relates to the island of Cyprus.
The island of Cyprus
Cyprus was part of the Ottoman Empire for over three centuries until 1878. In that year the United Kingdom assumed de facto control of Cyprus by agreement with Turkey. After the outbreak of hostilities with Turkey in 1914, the United Kingdom annexed the island and, thereafter, Cyprus was a Crown Colony from 1925 to 1960.
In February 1959 the Greek and Turkish Foreign Ministers agreed the basic constitutional structure for an independent Republic of Cyprus. This was endorsed by the United Kingdom and by representatives of the Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities at a conference in London. Cyprus became an independent sovereign republic on 16 August 1960. Section 1 of the Cyprus Act 1960 provides—
“Her Majesty may by Order in Council (to be laid before Parliament after being made) declare that the constitution designated in the Order as the Constitution of the Republic of Cyprus shall come into force on such day as may be specified in the Order; and on that day there shall be established in the island of Cyprus an independent sovereign Republic of Cyprus, and Her Majesty shall have no sovereignty or jurisdiction over the Republic of Cyprus.”
By virtue of section 2 the Republic of Cyprus was declared to comprise the entirety of the island of Cyprus with the exception of two areas – known as the sovereign base areas. These areas have no relevance to the present dispute.
On the same date, 16 August 1960, the United Kingdom, Greece, Turkey and Cyprus were signatories to two Treaties, one of Guarantee and one of Establishment (numbered respectively 5475 and 5476). Under Article 1 of the Treaty of Guarantee the Republic of Cyprus undertook to ensure, inter alia, the maintenance of its independence, territorial integrity and security. Under Article 2 Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom undertook to prohibit, so far as concerned them:
“Any activity aimed at promoting, directly or indirectly, either union of Cyprus with any other State or partition of the island.”
As of 1960 (and for many years previously) the population of the island of Cyprus was, in the main, split between Greek Cypriots (the majority) and Turkish Cypriots. Shortly after the creation of the Republic, hostilities began between the two communities. In 1964, following a bout of hostilities, Nicosia, one of the major cities upon the island, was split along a line separating the north and south of the city. The line, thereafter, was controlled by British troops and a United Nations peace, keeping force.
Despite the presence of the peace keeping force unrest continued. On 20 July 1974 Turkish troops landed on Cyprus and there followed a short military campaign. In his witness statement on behalf of the First Claimant, Mr Sümer Garip says that following the military campaign the Turkish troops “established a Turkish Cypriot safe-haven” in the north of the island. Thereafter the entire Island was divided along a “green line” patrolled by a peace-keeping force that separated the communities in the north from those in the south.
On 30 July 1974 Turkey, Greece, and the United Kingdom issued a joint declaration in Geneva. The declaration called for the restoration of peace and the re-establishment of the constitutional government in Cyprus. The declaration, however, also contained this passage:—
“The ministers noted the existence in practice in the Republic of Cyprus of two autonomous administrations, that of the Greek Cypriot community and that of the Turkish Cypriot community.”
On 13 February 1975 the Turkish Cypriots established the “Turkish Federated State of Cyprus:” Mr Garip says that they enacted a constitution on the model of a separate state with a legislature, an executive and a judiciary. Thereafter the island of Cyprus was governed by two...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R (Kibris) v Transport Secretary [England, Court of Appeal]
...Limited) Appellants and Secretary Of State For Transport Respondent and The Republic Of Cyprus Interested Party [2010] EWCA Civ 1093 [2009] EWHC 1918 (Admin) Mr Justice Wyn Before: Lord Justice Ward Lord Justice Richards and Sir David Keene Case Nos: C1/2009/2250 & 2252 IN THE COURT OF APPE......
-
The Queen (on the application of Hasan Akarcay) v Chief Constable of the West Yorkshire Police Secretary of State for the Home Department (Interested Party) National Crime Agency (Interested Party)
...form part of domestic law rests upon the decisions of the Administrative Court and Court of Appeal in R (Kibris Turk Hava Yolari and CTA Holidays Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport [2009] EWHC 1918 (Admin); [2010] EWCA Civ 1093. The claimants were a Turkish airline and its subsidiary......
-
MM v NA
...75 of R (on the application of Kibris Türk Hava Yollari CTA Holidays) v Secretary of State for Transport and The Republic of Cyprus [2009] EWHC 1918 (Admin) per Wyn Williams 20 The principle which emerges from the Kibris case is that the court cannot take cognizance of a foreign juridical ......
-
Marjolyn Varano v Air Canada
...above its territory: reliance being placed on R (on the application of Kibris Turk Hava Yollari) v Secretary of State for Transport [2009] EWHC 1918 (Admin) at [32]–[33] and [37] and Article 1 of the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation of 1944 to which all EU Members States ......
-
The Orams Case, the Judgments Regulation and Public Policy: An English and European Law Perspective
...states or by other wise engaging state interests or national public polic y.102 Where, however, there is a clash between private 97 [2009] EWHC 1918 (Admin). We will revert to th is important deci sion in sub-paragraph B , infra.98 e justic e-motivated d imension of public polic y has, int......