The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by Turkish Cypriot property owners and heirs over 125 plots of land in the Paphos district, including land used for Paphos International Airport and the Andreas Papandreou Air Base.
The appeal, rejected on Thursday, 25 June 2026, concerned an action brought against the Attorney General of the Republic and the Interior Minister, in his capacity as Custodian of Turkish Cypriot Properties. The appellants had sought the return of the properties, as well as compensation amounting to around €41 million.
Part of the disputed land has been used for Paphos International Airport, the Andreas Papandreou military air base and a self-housing settlement, while other plots have been allocated to Greek Cypriot refugees for agricultural use.
The Turkish Cypriot owners and heirs, together with a Greek Cypriot administrator, claimed compensation for alleged unlawful interference by the Republic with the properties, as well as rent, damages for alleged violations of human and constitutional rights, punitive damages and further monthly sums until vacant possession was delivered.
The case had first been heard by the Paphos District Court in 2022. The court dismissed the action, ruling that no unlawful interference by the Republic had been proven and that there had been no violation of the claimants’ human rights.
A key issue before the courts was the request to release and transfer the properties to the Greek Cypriot administrator. The first-instance court found that the Custodian had acted correctly in refusing the request, after it emerged that another heir existed but had not been disclosed or included among the applicants when the request was examined.
According to the Legal Service, the applicants intended to sell the entire disputed property to the Greek Cypriot administrator under an agreement reached between them, without disclosing the existence of the other heir or securing that heir’s consent.
The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s findings, ruling that the Custodian had correctly rejected the request to sell all of the disputed property. It also found that, when examining the request, the Custodian had properly taken into account the residence of the deceased owners and their heirs, as well as the existence of the undisclosed heir.
The court said the Custodian, who is responsible for managing and protecting the rights arising from the properties under his control and holds the powers of an owner, had a duty to carry out checks before approving any transfer.
The Court of Appeal also rejected the appellants’ claim that the deceased owners had been expelled from their properties in areas controlled by the Republic. It noted that, in 1974, arrangements allowed movement by choice rather than through compulsory relocation. The court said this was why some Turkish Cypriots continued to live in the Republic-controlled areas after 1974, without having been expelled or forced by the Republic to abandon either their homes or their properties.
On the claim of unlawful interference by the Republic through the Custodian, the court found that the appellants had failed to prove their case. It noted that while there was interference with possession, the abnormal situation declared by the Republic because of the Turkish invasion and continuing occupation remained in force. As a result, the interference was lawful and based on the powers of the Custodian and the relevant legislation.
The court further stressed that all appellants were Cypriot citizens and Turkish Cypriots who did not have lawful residence in the Republic-controlled areas. It therefore ruled that their property, being Turkish Cypriot property located in areas controlled by the Republic, had been correctly and lawfully placed under the Custodian.
Regarding the alleged violation of human rights, the court said the Custodian had a duty to ensure that no heir’s property rights would be affected if he approved the transfer, particularly since the application had failed to disclose the existence of another heir.
The appeal was dismissed in full, with costs awarded in favour of the Republic.
The case was handled on behalf of the Attorney General by Senior Counsel of the Republic Elli Florentzou.
