Sir,
I read with interest your report (October 11) that the government is considering the imposition of so-called “administrative fines” on those EU citizens crossing the Green Line (from the north), who have entered Cyprus via “illegal” ports in the north. This matter was considered by the Cyprus courts in 2004, when it was ruled (et al) that “EU citizens can cross the line to and from the areas not controlled by the government, irrespective of the point of entry”. (Republic of Cyprus vs Neophytos Constantinou, 20/08/04).
This ruling was based on the Green Line regulations, which effectively override the pre-existing law. In addition, the Judge ruled that “the prosecuting authority [had] singled out the defendant from all other EU citizens” and that this was in contravention of the Constitution of the Republic, which provides that “all persons are equal before the law”. In September 2004, the government appealed this case, but the Supreme Court rejected the appeal, and thus the law as it currently stands is in accordance with this ruling, unless and until the law is changed.
If the government plans to change the law to impose administrative (i.e. non-criminal) fines for the offence of illegal entry, firstly it is doubtful if this is legally acceptable under the free movement provisions of the EU, since it would certainly hinder the free movement of the many EU citizens who are resident in the north, as well as EU tourists. In addition, under both the Constitution, and the Green Line regulations, all Cypriot and EU citizens (including Turkish Cypriots) are required to be treated equally, and this would potentially involve the imposition of fines not only on foreign EU citizens, but also on countless Turkish Cypriots, most of whom have utilised “illegal” ports at one time or another to enter and leave the Island.
It would surely be far more productive if the government of Cyprus would adopt a pragmatic approach to the illegal ports issue, and while not recognising the ‘TRNC’ as such, it should accept the reality that the occupied areas are not under its own control, and will never become so unless and until a comprehensive settlement is achieved. It should stop attempting to impose punitive measures which potentially criminalise ordinary citizens, for activities which cause no harm to the Republic or its population. To extend this argument further, such a pragmatic approach should be extended to many other fields of day-to-day public administration, e.g. policing, public health, telecommunications, postal services, etc., where there should be considerably more practical co-operation between the two communities, rather than dogmatic non-co-operation, which I would argue, is counter-productive on the road to a settlement.
Steven Kimberley
Nicosia
