By Rebekah Gregoriades
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.
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.
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.
Aykut’s trial, who is accused of having developed and sold €43 million worth of property on Greek Cypriot land in the north, had been adjourned on September 27 to give the prosecutors time to study the defence’s positions.
On October 18, defence lawyer Nikoleta Charalambidou said the court did not have the jurisdiction to try the case, as the offences her client was accused of were not committed in areas under the control of the Republic of Cyprus.
She added that continuing proceedings violated Aykut’s right to a fair trial and that being in custody denied him his right to personal freedom.
Charalambidou said the charges could apply to most people in the north, where the laws of the Republic of Cyprus cannot be applied.
She added that what was being discussed was not the responsibility of Turkey regarding the rights of Greek Cypriot owners of property, but the regulatory jurisdiction and the implementation of Republic of Cyprus legislation in the areas not under its control.
On behalf of the prosecuting authority, attorney Elena Kleopa submitted the dismissal of the defence’s appeals in writing.
She said bringing the jurisdiction of the court into question undermined the Republic, adding that the1974 invasion brought about a temporary hindrance in effective control, however the Republic remained dominant over the whole of its territory.
Kleopa added that the European Court of Human Rights has recognised the obligation of Turkey to protect the property rights of Greek Cypriot owners in the north and that the sovereignty and jurisdiction of the Republic of Cyprus were not questioned.
