Editing Cyprus problem (section)

==Relevant court cases==
International law contains no prohibition on declarations of independence,<ref>[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-10730573 BBC] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180522102518/http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-10730573 |date=22 May 2018 }} The President of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Hisashi Owada (2010): "International law contains no prohibition on declarations of independence."</ref> and the recognition of a country is a political issue.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=xMvOBAAAQBAJ Oshisanya, An Almanac of Contemporary and Comperative Judicial Restatement, 2016] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221114113130/https://books.google.com/books?id=xMvOBAAAQBAJ |date=14 November 2022 }} p.64: The ICJ maintained that ... the issue of recognition was apolitical.</ref>

* On 2 July 2013, the [[European Court of Human Rights]] (ECtHR) decided that "...notwithstanding the lack of international recognition of the regime in the northern area, a de facto recognition of its acts may be rendered necessary for practical purposes. Thus the adoption by the authorities of the "[[TRNC]]" of civil, administrative or criminal law measures, and their application or enforcement within that territory, may be regarded as having a legal basis in domestic law for the purposes of the Convention".<ref>[https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-122907 ECtHR] The decision of 02.07.2013. paragraph 29</ref>
* On 9 October 2014, the [[United States District Court for the District of Columbia]] stated that "the [[TRNC]] purportedly operates as a democratic republic with a president, prime minister, legislature and judiciary".<ref>[https://www.courthousenews.com/property-spat-over-turk-controlled-cyprus-fails/ Courthouse News Center 13.10.2014] Property Spat Over Turk-Controlled Cyprus Fails</ref><ref>[https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2009cv01967/139002/53 Toumazou v. Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus], No. 09-1967 (PLF) (D.D.C. Oct. 9, 2014).</ref>
* On 2 September 2015, ECtHR decided that "...the court system set up in the "[[TRNC]]" was to be considered to have been "established by law" with reference to the "constitutional and legal basis" on which it operated, and it has not accepted the allegation that the "[[TRNC]]" courts as a whole lacked independence and/or impartiality".<ref>[https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-155000 ECtHR] The decision of 02.09.2015. paragraph 237.</ref>
* On 3 February 2017, the [[United Kingdom]]'s High Court stated "There was no duty in the [[United Kingdom]] law upon the Government to refrain from recognizing [[Northern Cyprus]]. The [[United Nations]] itself works with [[Northern Cyprus]] law enforcement agencies and facilitates co-operation between the two parts of the island".<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20230424173316/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/03/criminals-fleeing-british-justice-can-no-longer-use-cyprus-safe/ The Telegraph 03.02.2017] Criminals fleeing British justice can no longer use Cyprus as a safe haven, judges rule, in landmark decision</ref> and revealed that the co-operation between the United Kingdom police and law agencies in [[Northern Cyprus]] is legal.
* On 25.06.2024, [[The European Court of Human Rights|The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)]] decided that the case of [[Northern Cyprus]] is different from the cases of [[Republic of Crimea (Russia)|Crimea]], [[Transnistria]], and [[Abkhazia]] in terms of judicial perspective:
"930. Whereas the Court held that “TRNC domestic law” was based on the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition and was therefore accepted as “law” for the purposes of the Convention, in cases concerning Transdniestria (the “MRT”), the Court found “no basis for assuming that [in the ‘MRT’] there is a system reflecting a judicial tradition compatible with the Convention similar to the one in the remainder of the Republic of Moldova". The Court has reached similar conclusions regarding the "law" of Abkhazia and the "lawfulness" of Abkhaz courts.{{pb}}
932....Moreover, while the "MRT" and Abkhaz-related cases concerned the "law" of unrecognised entities that did not reflect "a judicial tradition ... similar to the one in the remainder of the Republic of Moldova" or "to the rest of Georgia" respectively, in Cyprus v. Turkey (merits) the Court held that "the civil courts operating in the ’TRNC’ were in substance based on the Anglo‑Saxon tradition and were not essentially different from the courts operating before the events of 1974 and from those which existed in the southern part of Cyprus". This particular aspect makes the latter case similar, yet different from the present case. The Cyprus v. Turkey case concerned the continued application of pre-existing Cypriot law valid in the territory of the "TRNC" before Turkey had obtained actual control of that territory, whereas the present case concerns the application in Crimea of the law of the Russian Federation (or the "law" of the local authorities, as its derivative) replacing the previously applicable and valid Ukrainian law."<ref>{{cite web|title=The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) Grand Chamber, Case of Ukraine v. Russia (Re Crimea), Applications nos. 20958/14 and 38334/18, Judgment|url=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-235139|publisher=The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)|accessdate=27 January 2025}}Ukraine v. Russia Case (Crimea); Applications 20958/14 and 38334/18</ref>