A MAN who was barred from Cyprus despite being married to Cypriot has won a court battle to stay in Cyprus.
Armenian Spartak Petrosian and his wife Siranush had launched an appeal at the Supreme Court after the immigration services ordered him to be leave the country.
The court ruling, released yesterday, stated that the rights of Petrosian had been violated because he was married to a woman with a Cypriot passport and therefore could stay, not only in Cyprus, but anywhere in Europe.
The court described the government’s assumption that certain EU laws on free movement did not apply to Cyprus as “illogical”.
The Petrosian couple’s defence lawyer, Yiannakis Erotokritou, had launched the appeal against the government, and more specifically the Interior Ministry and Immigration Services, citing two violations of his clients’ rights:
1) That the husband had received a letter from immigration informing him that he had to leave Cyprus despite being married to a Cypriot woman and having three Cypriot children.
2) That the wife also had her rights as a European citizen violated by the order to have her legal husband deported.
Civil Engineer Spartak and his wife Siranush – a qualified doctor – arrived on the island in December 1993. In October 2001, Spartak was jailed for nine months on pimping related charges. Claiming his innocence, Spartak launched an appeal at the Supreme Court and his conviction was quashed in February 2003. But around a month later he was informed that he would nevertheless be deported, something which eventually happened on May 7, 2003.
While Spartak was out of the country, his wife applied for Cypriot citizenship, which was granted to her in February 2005.
When his wife underwent surgery towards the end of 2005, Spartak was given special permission to come to the island and be by his wife’s side.
But he was later informed by immigration that his application to have his stay extended to be with his recovering wife had been denied.
It was then that the couple decided to take the matter to court.
In his ruling, Judge Frixos Nicolaides observed a bizarre sequence of events.
There appeared to be a string of letters sent to Siranush, in which her husband was being ordered to leave the island, even after he had left.
What was even more puzzling was the fact that the state attorney had argued that Siranush’s request to the immigration authorities to have her husband by her side had been accepted by the services and even presented to the court the letter which had been sent to her.
“On the right side of the letter, dated February 20, 2006, it says ‘extension for residence until February 28, 2006 is accepted’ but it doesn’t state who it is written by,” said Judge Nicolaides. “It is also doesn’t state if it has been approved by a higher authority because it bears no signature.
“Quite the opposite, on February 13, 2006 she [Siranush] was sent a letter informing her that her application had been rejected and that her husband should make arrangements to leave the island because his permit had expired on January 29, 2006.”
The judge continues, “And that it is not all. At the bottom of a letter, dated February 6, 2006, there is the handwritten word ‘he has departed’. Again, no detail as to who wrote the letter was ever given. So the question remains, why did they ask him to leave in the letter dated February 13, 2006, if it was stated [in the previous letter] that he had already left?”
Judge Nicolaides also dismissed an argument from the state which noted that a law not to deport relatives of EU citizens did not apply to Cyprus.
“It is my conclusion to reject the position of the state which noted that the law applies only to relatives of EU member states and not to relatives of Cypriots. Such a thing would be illogical but would also be discrimination towards Cypriot citizens.”
Commenting on the violations of the couple’s rights, with the immigration services not allowing her husband to stay in Cyprus, the judge said: “The law stipulates free movement for EU residents and their families including Cyprus.”
