The long-term action of the Cyprus Bar Association (PDS) and the Bar Association in general on the issue of the British Bases is a scientific and at the same time patriotic action. A legacy that reminds us of our responsibility as a scientific body. To highlight the law and claim its implementation.
The Cyprus Bar Association has highlighted the issue of the Legal Status of the British Bases in various ways. Procedurally before the Courts of the Republic in court cases as well as with public positions of the PDP as a Scientific Body. Particular tension in the relevant scientific and judicial mobility was observed in the early 1990s, a period that for many today remains less known.
On the occasion of the resumption of the debate on the issue of the British Bases more broadly, it is useful to refer to this historical context.
In June 1991, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Graham Thomas Preece v. "Estia" Insurance Company (1991) 1 AAD 568, which was the first substantive judicial review of the legal status of the British Bases.
Although the case initially concerned a claim for compensation for a traffic accident within the Bases, the Supreme Court carried out an extensive analysis of the 1960 Treaty of Establishment and the status of the Bases. The Court ruled that the British Bases are neither a colony nor an independent State, but areas of the island of Cyprus over which the United Kingdom retained sovereignty exclusively for military and defence purposes, subject to the limitations provided for in the Treaty of Establishment.
The Court underlined that the United Kingdom had made specific commitments in relation to the Bases in Cyprus. In particular, it pledged not to develop them as colonies, not to impose customs or border controls with the Republic, not to allow civilian commercial or industrial activities other than those serving military needs, not to disturb the economic unity of the island, not to create commercial or civilian ports and airports, not to allow the permanent settlement of a new population and not to expropriate private property except for military purposes and with payment of reasonable compensation.
At the same time, the Supreme Court ruled that the Bases are not part of the territory of the Republic of Cyprus and, therefore, the decisions of their courts cannot be equated with decisions of the courts of the Republic.
The significance of the decision goes far beyond the facts of the case. It is to date one of the most important judicial analyses of the constitutional and international status of the British Bases and a point of reference for any subsequent judicial discussion and judgment on the matter.
It is worth noting that, due to the importance of the issues raised, the then Attorney General Michalakis Triantafyllidis intervened as amicus curiae, while the Supreme Court rejected a request by the United Kingdom to intervene in the proceedings in the same capacity.
The appellant was represented by Mr. Erotokritou with Ms. Katerina Stamatiou, current President of the Supreme Court, the Respondent by Kyriakos Michailidis with Mr. A. Erotokritou. The Attorney General was flanked by Ms. Papadopoulou and Ms. Lena Dimitriadou, current Judge of the Supreme Court.
In 1993, and in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision, the late lawyer and then president of the PDS, Loukis Papafilippou, published the study entitled "The legal status of the British Bases in Cyprus. Nature and extent of the sovereignty of the British authorities".
With extensive legal analysis, Papafilippou then concludes that the correct legal characterization and legal framework of the status of the British Bases is that of a "quasi" state, a body of self-sufficient state power or self-sufficient "quasi" state power that limits itself with the commitments undertaken through the Treaty of Establishment of the Republic of Cyprus and the documents accompanying it.
Subsequently, and in particular on June 26, 1994, the then trainee doctor from Limassol, Haris Aristidou, while driving his car, refused to stop at the suggestion of the authorities of the Bases of Episkopi. They then stopped his march and arrested him in a violent way. Haris Aristidou insisted on not recognizing any authority in the authorities of the Bases and questioning their sovereignty. Of course, it was preceded in October 1993 by the previous arrest of Aristides by the British during Queen Elizabeth's visit to Cyprus with the well-known episode where Aristidou with the handcuffs he was wearing broke the windscreen of the royal rolls royce.
The Human Rights Committee of the PDP, a committee that today counts 71 years of activity, since the establishment of the PDP in 1955, was called upon to study the issue that arose and which had taken on particularly large dimensions. The Committee was chaired by the former President of the PDP, the late Lefkos Clerides and members were Xenios Xenopoulos, then President of the PDP, Kostas Indianos, Evros Evripidou and Christos Triantafyllidis.
In three consecutive meetings of the Committee on 19 and 27 July and 24 August 1994 the issue was studied and on 29 August it issued its multi-page Report which it presented at a press conference.
The conclusion, which was unanimously adopted by the Board of the PDS, emphasized that Cypriots have freedom of access and transportation to and through the bases.
That the bases are neither a State nor a Colony and any sovereignty of them is significantly limited to their use for military and defense purposes only.
It also noted that under Article 3(1) of Annex O, a check is carried out when there is reasonable grounds to suspect that the vehicle is being used to commit any offence, and therefore the obstruction of Dr Haris Aristidou from continuing his journey to Paphos was an illegal act and that the doctor had no obligation to obey.
An opinion that the British Bases were not sovereign was later issued by Loukis Loukaidis, then Assistant Attorney General, and former Attorney General Michalakis Triantafyllidis.
The arrest of Greek Cypriot farmers and the intervention of the PDP
In October 1994, four Greek Cypriot farmers in Xylofagou were arrested by British Bases police officers for allegedly unlawfully intervening and harassing uniformed police officers in the performance of their duties in fields in the Xylofagou region near a British firing range. The PDS stated that if the four farmers were finally brought to trial by the authorities of the Dhekelia Bases, it would proceed to appoint a group of lawyers to defend them.
Both in the case of Haris Aristides and in that of the 4 farmers, the British did not ultimately advance the cases, fearing that the sovereignty of the Bases and the jurisdiction of their courts would not be questioned and that the issue would take on political dimensions.
In December 1994, Efstathia Maria Kasouri was arrested and detained in the prison of Episkopi as she denied that the court of the British bases had the right to try her for a traffic violation. Kasouri appeared without a lawyer and stated that she is acting on the basis of an opinion of the Human Rights Committee of the PDS that was also adopted by the PDS. The judge remanded Kasouri in custody after she refused to agree to pay £15 bail to reappear in court.
Of course, several renowned lawyers and jurists have dealt with the legal status of the British Bases over time, such as Polys Polyviou, Alekos Markides, Kypros Chrysostomidis, Kriton Tornaritis, Tassos Papadopoulos and others.
A special mention should also be made of Professor Achilleas Emilianidis' study, "A long-winded game of chess: The secret negotiations on the British Bases (1959-1960)" by Hippasus Publications, which was released in 2021 and brings to light many aspects of the issue that were unknown until today.
Judicial activism in relation to the status of the British bases was also attempted in 2015 in the case of Charalambos Chimonas, n. Naqvi, where the applicant, through his lawyer Michalis Paraskevas, requested permission to register an application for the issuance of a Quo Warranto Privileged Warrant, challenging the legality of the exercise of judicial power by Judge R.H. Naqvi, who served in the courts of the British Bases of Dhekelia. He argued that the judge in question was usurping public authority without a legal basis.
The Supreme Court of First Instance rejected the application, ruling that it has no jurisdiction to examine a matter concerning the exercise of judicial power within the British Bases, since these areas are not part of the territory of the Republic of Cyprus.
The applicant appealed, arguing that the Cypriot courts have jurisdiction over the Bases, invoking provisions of the Penal Code and the Courts Law that allow, under conditions, the adjudication of cases involving Cypriots that take place in the Bases.
The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal in 2016, citing the Preece decision.
Incomplete decolonization for Cyprus and incomplete self-determination
The great and substantial development came with the issuance of the Opinion of the International Court of Justice for the Chagos Archipelago in 2019 and since then the PDS has frequently brought back the issue of the British Bases in its actions and positions, as the long-standing positions and claims of the legal world have been clarified and now refer in the case of Cyprus to incomplete decolonization and incomplete exercise of the right to self-determination.
If in the 1990s the debate was primarily about the limits of the jurisdiction of the Bases, today international law raises broader issues of decolonization and self-determination of peoples. In light of developments in the Chagos issue, the debate on the British Bases is no longer just of historical or academic interest, but part of a modern international legal dialogue.
On April 9, 2021, the International and European Law Committee of the PDP. organized an online educational program on "Republic of Cyprus and International Law" where the issue of the Legal Status of the British Bases was presented by Professor Achilleas Emilianides.
Furthermore, the International and European Law Committee of the GPP in a statement on May 6, 2021 pointed out that the decision of the International Court of Justice for the Law of the Sea in the case of the delimitation of maritime zones between Mauritius and the Maldives reinforces the position that the Chagos Archipelago belongs to Mauritius and not to the United Kingdom. The Commission stressed that the decision is linked to the 2019 opinion of the International Court of Justice, according to which the British presence in Chagos violates international law and prevents the completion of Mauritius' decolonisation.
The Association also emphasizes that the case presents significant similarities with the status of the British Bases in Cyprus and considers that recent international developments strengthen the positions of the Republic of Cyprus, which should study and utilize them in relation to the British bases in Cyprus. Finally, the announcement underlined that the purpose of the Republic of Cyprus should be to reach a settlement that is consistent with international law, as it has recently been interpreted by international judicial bodies.
In March 2023, the PDS organized an event on "Cyprus: Quo vadis" in memory of Cyprus Chrysostomides, where the issue of the status of the British Bases was re-presented by Achilleas Emilianides.
This historical retrospective proves that the Cyprus Bar Association has never been limited to the role of observer. With scientific consistency and institutional responsibility, he highlighted an issue related to sovereignty, decolonization and the application of international law.
This legacy binds us.
To continue to defend the law, not only in the courtrooms but also in the public debate, until the principles of international law fully prevail in our country.
*President of the Kyrenia Bar Association – Intervention at the event of the Cyprus Bar Association on "The Legal Status and Future of the British Bases in Cyprus" on 25 June 2026
