Archive

Featured

Conor O’Dwyer arrested outside AG’s office

Protest Outside Attorney General's office

A British man who has been involved in a long and exhausting property dispute in Cyprus that lasted over 15 years, was arrested on Monday outside the attorney-general’s office in Nicosia, but was later released without charge.

Armed with a megaphone, Conor O’Dwyer was protesting the court’s failure to compensate him for the expenses he accumulated over the years when he was the witness and victim in an assault case brought against two developers in 2008.

According to O’Dwyer’s lawyer, Yiannos Georgiades, O’Dwyer was only offered €1,000 as compensation for his numerous journeys to Cyprus from the UK at the time. He also had to pay for his own accommodation, as well as his family’s.

“Conor has been protesting for days outside the Attorney-general’s office,” Georgiades told Cyprus Mail. “Today, he decided to step up his protest and moved to the main entrance of the building when police intervened and placed him under arrest, officially for blocking the attorney-general’s main entrance.”

Georgiades, who believes the arrest was a warning sign sent by the authorities, said O’Dwyer’s reasons to protest are absolutely justified.

“He spent thousands of euros travelling back and forth to Cyprus, as he had to appear in court several times. He eventually won the assault case, but nevertheless he was never properly compensated,” the attorney said.

Georgiades said he was also informed that the police are investigating O’Dwyer for allegedly mocking the Supreme Court in 2019, when he was protesting outside the premises holding a placard reading “Kangaroo Court”.

Back in February, the Supreme Court rejected O’Dwyer’s defamation appeal. He had appealed the case filed by developer Christoforos Karayiannas and Son Ltd accusing him of breach of contract and of defamation.

The Supreme Court also reaffirmed the initial €60,000 in damages to the company, a national record, for calling the developers ‘liars’ on his blog.

Around 15 years ago, O’Dwyer sold his house in the UK when he decided to buy property in Cyprus.

According to O’Dwyer, after having already paid €113,000 for the property in the Famagusta area, the developer decided to sell his house to another British family at a higher price.

He was then forced to rent a flat in London and undergo a lengthy legal battle with the developers.

Georgiades said O’Dwyer has no intention of stopping his fight for justice and confirmed that last week he filed a case against Cyprus in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

By Jonathan Shkurko | Cyprus Mail | November 16, 2020

See the original article on the Cyprus Mail for comments from the expat community.

Briton loses appeal in property dispute, vows to take case to ECHR

The Supreme Court on Friday rejected the appeal against a defamation by Conor O’Dwyer, a British man who has been involved in a lengthy court battle over a property he bought in the Famagusta district in 2005.

O’Dwyer was also ordered to pay a €3,000 in legal fees. He had appealed the case filed by developer Christoforos Karayiannas and Son Ltd accusing him of breach of contract and of defamation.

The supreme court overruled O’Dwyer’s appeal and reaffirmed the initial €60,000 in damages to the company, a national record, for calling the developers ‘liars’ on his blog.

In addition to that, the court denied the Briton compensation for the many trips to Cyprus he has had to take over the years to fight his case, as well as for the rent on his flat in London.

Around 15 years ago, O’Dwyer sold his house in the UK when he decided to buy property in Cyprus.

According to O’Dwyer, after having already paid €113,000 for the property in the Famagusta area, the developer decided to sell his house to another British family at a higher price.

He was then forced to rent a flat in London and endure a lengthy legal battle with the developers.

He eventually received compensation. But his lawyer Yiannos Georgiades said: “The compensation the court gave my client is very small because the judges chose the lowest evaluation for the property, refusing to evaluate it when the developers resold it to another client,” he said.

Georgiades said had the judges decided to evaluate the house at the time the case was heard, which would have come in a €398,200, O’Dwyer would have received compensation of €119,000 on top of the €113,000 he paid to the developers, instead of just the €28,000 he received as compensation.

With regards to the defamation suit, O’Dwyer’s lawyer said that “one of the staples of a free society is that people should be able to speak freely. Statements that express opinion are not actionable as defamation no matter how offensive, vituperative and unreasonable they may be”.

“Moreover, in the context of statements pertaining to issues of consumer advocacy, personal opinions about goods and services, like the ones Conor published on his blog, are matters of legitimate public concern and protected speech,” Georgiades added.

The lawyer called the situation “absurd”. He said a UK citizen decided to buy a property in Cyprus and sold his home there to do so but ended up seeing his hard-earned money kept by the developers, forcing him to rent a flat in London because his dream of having a house in Cyprus didn’t happen. He said they then resold the house that he paid for and beat him up twice. Despite being found guilty of assault, the developers never went to prison.

“But the worst thing is that not only did he suffer all these things and the wrongdoers never went to prison, they were also awarded by our justice system a huge reward of €60,000 because my client dared to complain about what our court decided he was right to complain about.”

Georgiades said the next step was to take the matter to the European Court of Human Rights, saying there were more than enough grounds to do so.

O’Dwyer called the verdict “a blatant miscarriage of justice.”

“The highest court in Cyprus should have thrown the book at what is a dangerous, criminal and infamous property developer, but it didn’t,” he said. “It’s taken us 14 years to exhaust the due process in Cyprus but they haven’t exhausted us. We will now have to take Cyprus to the European Court of Human Rights.

The Briton said this was just another court ruling designed to have a chilling effect on property victims and foreigners on the island. “Today, the highest civil court ruled that selling the same house twice is not only legal, it’s also a profitable venture. There’s no deterrent to stop any other developer from doing the same to another buyer,” he added.

O’Dwyer questioned whether the judges had examined all the evidence provided in just 16 days, the time span between the first hearing into the appeal, and the issuance of the verdict. The appeal alone has taken nearly eight years to be heard at all, having been filed in 2012.

“I will never stop telling how they kept our money and sold the same house twice. I will never stop telling how they assaulted me twice, put me in hospital and got away with it all. And I will never stop telling how the entire justice system, from the policemen in the streets to the supreme court judges, have abused my rights,” said O’Dwyer.

“The last 14 years of my life have been for nothing, even worse than nothing. The judiciary has done more damage than the developers. It has been hell.”

On the other side, the Karayiannas brothers’ lawyer Andrianna Klaedes praised the judges’ decision regarding the defamation appeal filed by O’Dwyer.

“All grounds of appeal were dismissed by the supreme court today. The blog in which O’Dwyer published his defamatory claims was established long before the matter was taken to court. The defamation which O’Dwyer has been found guilty of has been going on for many years, hence the decision of imposing such a high fine for his actions.”

Klaedes said O’Dwyer never compiled with the court ruling that ordered him to remove the offending website, nor did he ever apologise for defaming her client’s name and destroying the company’s reputation.

She rejected the claims that the court could not have examined all the evidence they were presented with in just the short time frame between the appeal and the verdict.

“That is simply not true,” she said. “The judges have been examining the evidence in their possession long before the appeal and to say the opposite is simply untrue.”

Called to comment on O’Dwyer’s decision to take the matter to the ECHR, Klaedes said her clients were legally on sound footing and not concerned. “We won the case in Cyprus and we will win it again at the European Court of Human Rights,” she said.

Marios Karayiannas, one of the developers, also broke his silence on Friday after the verdict was issued and said he was “extremely grateful the whole matter is now over.”

“The name of my company has finally been restored. I want to make clear that these 14 long years of legal battles cost me an enormous amount of business, which I will never get back,” he said. “This case damaged me financially and I am glad that thanks to today’s verdict I can finally clear my name.”

Karayiannas echoed his lawyer’s comments on O’Dwyer’s decision to take the case to the ECHR, saying: “He can take the matter wherever he wants. He lost once, he will lose again.”

By Jonathan Shkurko | Cyprus Mail | February 21, 2020

See the original article on the Cyprus Mail for comments from the expat community.

Conor O’Dwyer loses Supreme Court appeal

JUST 16 working days after the Supreme Court heard British man Conor O’Dwyer’s appeal against the 2012 ruling of the case filed by property development company Christoforos Karayiannas and Son Ltd in 2006, he was in Court this morning to hear from the judge that his appeal had been rejected.

Given the complexity of the case and the volume of evidence to be reviewed, which dates back over more than a decade, it was considered that it would take the judge much longer to arrive at a decision. The judicial system in Cyprus is notoriously slow.

During this morning’s brief court hearing the judge delivered the verdict and handed the 35-page judgement to Mr O’Dwyer’s lawyer; the full judgement was not read to those present in court.

Mr O’Dwyer will continue his fight for justice and plans to take his case to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

I spoke with Mr O’Dwyer’s lawyer, Yiannos Georgiades, for his thoughts on the ruling of the Supreme Court. He said that he was very disappointed with the handling of the case; he believes there are grounds for proceeding with the ECHR for the infringements of Conor’s right to a fair trial and his right to freedom of speech. (These rights are guaranteed by Article 6 and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.)

The people who are clearly in the wrong have been rewarded for their wrong-doings. They were convicted of assault (twice) but haven’t gone to prison, despite selling his house unlawfully they’ve been allowed to keep Conor’s money. But the court failed to compensate Conor the full amount because they awarded the other side damages of €60,000 by penalising him for defamation because he dared to call the wrong-doers ‘liars’ and ‘crooks’ on his website.

It’s appalling. It’s as if they were rewarding the wrong-doers!

Mr Georgiades explained the ECHR has ruled that consumers should be free to express their opinion and complain about the way they’ve been treated by a company, even if they use strong and insulting words. The right to protect one’s reputation gives way to one’s right to free of speech as it’s in the public interest for an individual to freely express their opinion about the way they’ve been treated.

What message is this giving to people who come to our country to buy property or invest? If they’re unlucky enough to have a dispute, it will drag on for 14 years – and if they dare to complain about what’s happened to them, they will run the risk of being penalised and end up paying a fortune to the people who wronged them!

By Nigel Howarth | Cyprus Property News | February 21, 2020

See the original article on the Cyprus Property News for comments from the expat community.

The long road to justice

Conor O’Dwyer is nothing if not tenacious. The British man has fought a 15-year battle with Cyprus’ justice system

“Unfortunately, I don’t think I will ever be able to live in Cyprus, not after what’s happened to me,” Conor O’Dwyer told the Sunday Mail this week.

“It breaks my heart because this country was the one where me and my family chose to build the house of our dreams. How can I see a future here after what I had to go through?”

It is a sad but completely legitimate question posed by the British man who bought a property in the Famagusta district back in 2005. The dream ended in a bitter legal dispute when the developer resold his house to another British family at a higher price.

Into the mix came two assault cases brought against the developers when O’Dwyer fought his corner, insisting the house was his. The ensuing legal battles brought O’Dwyer face to face with Cyprus’ justice system whose wheels grind notoriously slowly. According to O’Dwyer, it is also stacked against foreigners.

Fifteen years after the fight for his house began, O’Dwyer this week appeared before the supreme court in Nicosia, which was finally hearing his appeal into the 2012 verdict of the case filed by developer company Christoforos Karayiannas and Son Ltd, who accused him of breach of contract and of defamation, after O’Dwyer called them “liars” on his blog, called “Beyond Contempt”.

“Before buying the house in 2005, my wife and I were doing really well in life,” O’Dwyer said.

“Cyprus has always been my and my family’s holiday destination, we came to the island many times and I even served time in the military here,”

Cyprus had joined the EU in 2004 and this, combined with the property boom at the time, persuaded the family to buy a house here.

“It was a great opportunity for us. Even if things weren’t going to work out, we could always sell it at a terrific price, considering the property boom at that time,” O’Dwyer says.

“We were cash buyers, we would have lived here with no mortgage and, according to the contract we signed at the time, I would have had my title deeds within three years. It was the ideal situation. I had no doubts that buying a house in a EU country would present no challenges.”

However, shortly after depositing the contract for the house at the land registry, O’Dwyer started to disagree with the developers over some alleged changes they had made to the plans, some of which he claimed breached the contract and others were misrepresentations at the point of sale.

At this stage, the property was midway through construction and he had already paid €113,000 to the developers.

That’s when O’Dwyer decided to start a blog and tell the story behind the problems he was facing. Within a week of starting the blog, he claims he was assaulted for the first time and decided to close it down.

“It was crazy, I never expected such a thing to happen. The website stayed down for a whole year after the incident.”

He pressed charges for the assault.

In February 2007, O’Dwyer then discovered that his house had been sold at a higher price to another British woman, who had already taken up residence in the now-completed house, despite his contract still in the land registry.

The higher price was reflective of the property boom at the time but his money was never returned.

O’Dwyer decided to re-open his blog, which triggered another serious incident in 2008.

“I was assaulted for the second time, and it was even worse than the first time. I had returned to Cyprus in January 2008 for meetings and to take photos of my house for the civil action.

“Christoforos Karayiannas and his son were alerted to my presence in the village and at the busy junction and in front of dozens of witnesses rammed my car and together with an employee, the three men assaulted me again.”

O’Dwyer was hospitalised for five days and pressed charges again.

After returning to the UK, in August 2008 O’Dwyer decided to camp outside the Cyprus High Commission in London for two months. Thus began his one-man battle to highlight what he came to believe were the perils awaiting foreigners buying property in Cyprus.

“I did that for two reasons. I wanted to get attention after I was assaulted for the second time and I wanted to warn people interested in buying property in Cyprus of the potential risks they might have faced.”

O’Dwyer eventually ended his protest in October 2008 on the promise that his court case would be heard in January 2009.

The developers walked free for the first assault after the prosecutor failed to call O’Dwyer to court and the case was discontinued in his absence.

The developers and their employee were then found guilty for the second assault, but were given a suspended sentence, after a two-year court battle.

The developers then sued O’Dwyer for breach of contract and defamation for what he had written on his blog.

O’Dwyer and his lawyers made a counterclaim for breach of contract.

In 2012, the Larnaca district court ruled that O’Dwyer had not breached any contract and that Karayiannas had unlawfully cancelled it and retained his money. It was also ruled that the house was sold again without his knowledge. However, the court failed to award him any damages.

Instead the court went on to fine O’Dwyer a national record for defamation of €50,000.

“I made 64 flights back and forth from UK to Cyprus to attend lower courts, an absurdity! I spent an absolute fortune. On top of that, it took two years to process my second assault case.”

O’Dwyer said there are striking similarities in the way his case was handled with false rape claim trial of the British woman in Ayia Napa at the end of 2019 which has received such criticism in the British press.

“Firstly, the length of both trials was excruciating. Neither of the two cases needed that much time to be processed, it’s unacceptable.

“Secondly, I can see that in both cases there was a clear victimisation of foreigners, I think it’s a sadly common practice in Cyprus.

“I was the victim of a crime and, somehow, I ended up having to appeal to the supreme court and defend myself. At the same time, the people who assaulted me were found guilty, but were both handed suspended sentences. How is this justice?”

O’Dwyer’s lawyer Yiannos Georgiades claims his client’s case could eventually prove to be useful for the Cypriot justice system.

“I am firmly convinced Conor is doing a favour to our country,” he told the Sunday Mail.

“It motivates us to stand up to those people who give a bad name to our country. It makes us fight for what’s right.

“Conor came here to pursue his dreams, because he loves this country. He did not come here to fight. It’s not him who is making Cyprus look bad.

“Every person who comes here should be treated with respect and have the utmost trust in our justice system. We have the right to protect those who come and invest in our country, just like Conor was planning to do.”

So does O’Dwyer feel he will finally receive justice at the supreme court?

“I hope that they will rule in a way that will allow me to close this horrible chapter of my life. If not, I am fully prepared to take the matter to the European Court of Human Rights.”

He insisted his battle is not just for the benefit of foreigners.

“I want to make things better for everyone in Cyprus, a country that I love, but where, unfortunately, I will never be able to live.”

By Jonathan Shkurko | Cyprus Mail | January 26, 2020

See the original article on the Cyprus Mail with comments from the ex-pat community

Supreme court hears British man’s appeal in lengthy property dispute

Conor O’Dwyer, a British man who has been involved in a lengthy and exhausting court battle over a property he bought in the Famagusta district in 2005, presented his appeal to the supreme court in Nicosia on Friday morning.

O’Dwyer appealed the case filed by developer company Christoforos Karayiannas and Son Ltd, who accused him of breach of contract and of defamation.

The appeal alone has taken nearly eight years to be heard, having been filed in 2012.

According to O’Dwyer, after having already paid €113,000 for the property, the developer decided to sell his house to another British family at a higher price.

O’Dwyer claimed not only was the original sale to him registered with the land registry department, but the developer also kept the money he had paid.

O'Dwyer claimed he was also assaulted by the two directors of the company in 2006 and in 2008 and pressed charges.

Christoforos and Marios Karayiannas walked free for the first assault after the prosecutor failed to call O’Dwyer to court and the case was discontinued in his absence. The former attorney-general Petros Clerides refused to refile the case.

The developers and their employee were then found guilty for the second assault, but were given a suspended sentence, after a two-year court battle.

The developers then sued O’Dwyer for breach of contract and defamation after he published his story on his blog and called the developers “liars”.

O’Dwyer and his lawyers made a counterclaim for breach of contract.

The judge at Larnaca district court ruled that O’Dwyer had not breached any contract and that Karayiannas had unlawfully cancelled it and retained his money. It was also ruled that the house was sold again without his knowledge. However, the court failed to award him any damages.

In addition to that, despite the verdict agreeing that Karayiannas’ breach of contract claim was untrue, the court went on to fine O’Dwyer a national record for defamation of €50,000.

O’Dwyer then launched an appeal in 2102 which was finally heard by the supreme court on Friday. No date has been set for the verdict.

“We will patiently wait for the judges’ verdict, like we did throughout the past years,” O’Dwyer’s lawyer Yiannos Georgiades told the Cyprus Mail after they left the court.

“We have strong grounds for our appeal and we made our voices heard today. Conor deserves justice.”

Georgiades stressed that O’Dwyer’s freedom of speech was not respected when the judge found him guilty of defamation.

After Friday’s hearing, former High Commissioner of Cyprus to the UK Euripides Evriviades also showed his support for O’Dwyer’s by tweeting on his official Twitter profile.

“Good luck Conor,” the tweet said. “(I am) with you in spirit. Hope and pray that all works out. Remember vividly our meeting in London. I have the greatest respect for you and for anyone who relentlessly pursues his or her rights within the law and due process.”

Since 2005 O’Dwyer has become active in various groups advising Britons not to buy properties in Cyprus. In March 2019 he organised a protest outside a major property exhibition in London and warned about purchasing houses on the island.
In November the British government upheld its advice of exercising “extreme caution” when buying a property in Cyprus if the title deeds are not readily available.

Jonathan Shkurko | Cyprus Mail | January 24, 2020

See the original article on the Cyprus Mail for comments from the expat community.

After 15 years, British man hopes property fight is finally over

A tortuous 15-year fight over a dodgy property sale and defamation case may finally be coming to an end this Friday when the supreme court is due to hear a British man’s appeal.

The appeal alone has taken nearly eight years to be heard.

In 2005, Conor O’Dwyer bought a property in the Famagusta district which ended in a bitter legal dispute when the developer resold his house to another British family at a higher price.

He has arrived nearly a week early in anticipation of the case and is protesting outside the supreme court in Nicosia. Pictures O’Dwyer posted on Twitter show he has turned up well prepared with posters, toothpaste and a toothbrush, a tent with placards criticising Cypriot justice and other gear to see him through until Friday.

According to O’Dwyer not only was the original sale to him registered with the land registry department, but the developer also kept the money he had paid.

‘This protest is about legal aid, I have spent a fortune on legal fees, travel expenses and translators etc. and now despite being ‘granted’ EU legal aid (Council directive 2002/8/EC) to continue my fight I have never received any funding. My appeal is on Friday, there is nothing translated. I am here to camp outside to expose this injustice because this is not what legal aid should look like.’ C.O’Dwyer

In 2012 courts ruled in favour of O’Dwyer on the grounds of the resale of his home, but also found him guilty of defamation of the developer and he was fined 60,000 euros.

“What we are fighting against is twofold. First is the issue that O’Dwyer won the case but was not awarded all the damages and legal fees he should have got,” his lawyer Giannos Georgiades told the Cyprus Mail on Monday. “And also that his freedom of speech was not respected when the judge found him guilty of defamation.”

Georgiades also says that O’Dwyer is a family man who was dragged into a drawn-out legal battle and went up against property developers at the height of their powers during the building boom of the early 2000s.

Since 2005 O’Dwyer has become active in various groups advising Britons not to buy properties in Cyprus. In March 2019 he organised a protest outside a major property exhibition in London and warned about purchasing houses on the island.

In November the British government upheld its advice of exercising “extreme caution” when buying a property if the title deeds are not readily available.

People buying property in Cyprus in some cases have become “trapped buyers”.

The British High Commission’s advice page still warns that developers take out mortgages on land or property and that signing a contract under these conditions makes the buyer ultimately liable for the loan.

Lawyers are not required to check for mortgages automatically.

While a law in 2015 attempted to solve the incredibly complex issue, as of 2018 there were still as many as 70,000 trapped property buyers without title deeds.

However, member of the House interior committee Andreas Kyprianou told the Cyprus Mail last month that “the 2015 law is working very well and many people have had their title deeds restored, the bill is being enforced.”

“The British government has been warning of this issue for a while, and perhaps there are some people with outstanding issues – but to my knowledge the bill is working well,” Kyprianou concluded.

By Nick Theodoulou | Cyprus Mail | January 21, 2020

See the original article on the Cyprus Mail for comments from the ex-pat community.

Our story so far

This letter from January 2019 to the High Commissioner for the Republic of Cyprus in London, is a comprehensive account of our plight.

Dear Sir,

Thank you for communicating on Twitter, for expressing interest in our situation and willingness to discuss in person. Below is a history of what led me to tell our story on social media and on my website BeyondContempt.com. I’ve detailed what went wrong with our property purchase, the assaults I suffered, the investigations, the court actions thus far and have included some conclusions.

1) When the Republic of Cyprus joined the EU, my wife and I saw an opportunity to move our young family there and start a business. Cyprus had long been our favourite holiday destination and we loved the people we met. Before choosing Cyprus, my wife and I were doing well in life, we were cash buyers for a house with no mortgage and we thought we were safe buying within the EU.

2) In August 2005 we bought a house from Christoforos Karayiannas and Son Ltd. It was an ‘off plan’ property with a delivery date of July 2006. We used an independent lawyer and our contract was deposited in the land registry for specific performance.

3) In February 2006 we disagreed with the developers over changes they had made to the plans, some of which breached the contract and others were clear misrepresentations at the point of sale. At this stage, the property was midway through construction and we had paid €113,000 in payments. We continued as contracted and kept up stage payments.

4) During an inspection trip to the development, I was assaulted by Christoforos Karayiannas and his son Marios Karayiannas, both directors of the company. I captured the assault on camera and they were arrested. After their arrest, they then claimed that I had breached our contract and they stated that they will keep all our money as compensation. A civil case for breach of contract was started by them in 2006 (case 365/2006).

5) In February 2007, we discovered that our house had been sold at a higher price to a British lady Mrs Michelle McDonald who had already taken up residence. This had happened in 2006 despite our contract still in the land registry. The higher price was reflective of the property boom at the time. When we discovered our house was occupied by another family, we wrote to Mrs McDonald but got no response.

6) A letter from our lawyer was then sent and a reply came back from her lawyer George Pittadjis stating “I am writing to you in answer to your letter to my client Michelle McDonald…” “She bought it in good faith and after she was told that a previous contract had been cancelled…” This was a lie; our contract had not been and could not be unilaterally cancelled. It was still lodged in the land registry for specific performance and we were the beneficial owners of the house.

7) It is worth noting that George Pittadjis was also at that time, the lawyer for Christoforos Karayiannas and Son Ltd. Years later in the private criminal prosecution, George Pittadjis committed perjury. Despite writing the above letter he stated under oath that he was not Mrs McDonald’s lawyer, that he had never met her before and he had no knowledge of any document of sale between Mrs McDonald and Christoforos Karayiannas and Son Ltd. This was reported to the Judge, the Chief of Police and the former Attorney General Petros Clerides and a year later the response came back that no criminal action would be taken.

8) In mid-2007, our lawyer began writing letters to the Police, the Attorney General and The Minister of Justice urging them to act against the developers, the lawyers involved and the unlawful occupant under section 303a of the criminal code. The authorities took no action.

303A.-(1) Any person who, with intent to defraud, deals in immovable property belonging to another is guilty of a felony and is liable to imprisonment for seven years.

(2) For the purposes of the present section a person shall be deemed to be dealing in immovable property where

(a) [that person] Sells to another, or rents to another, or mortgages to another or encumbers in any way, or makes available for use by another immovable property, or

(b) advertises or otherwise promotes the sale or renting out or mortgaging or charging in any way to another of immovable property or the use thereof by another, or

(c) concludes an agreement for the sale to another, or the renting out to another, or the mortgaging to another, or the charging in any way to the benefit of another, or the use by another of immovable property, or

(d) accepts the immovable property which is the object of the dealing as this is defined in the present subsection.

9) In late 2007, Christoforos and Marios Karayiannas walked free from court for my first assault. The local prosecutor didn’t call me to court and the case was discontinued in my absence. This wasn’t a mistake but a deliberate act by the prosecutor. That prosecutor had told my lawyer that they were going to adjourn the case as the court is too busy and that I’m not to show up. Then two days later in our absence, they filed a motion for nolle prosequi and the case was discontinued. The former Attorney General Petros Clerides refused to refile the case.

10) Just 3 months later, in January 2008 I was assaulted again. I had returned to Cyprus for meetings and to take photos of my house for the civil action. The developers were contracted to build a detached house and had instead built a link-detached house. This and other breaches needed to be documented for the court. Christoforos Karayiannas and his son Marios Karayiannas were alerted to my presence in the village and at the busy junction and in front of dozens of witnesses rammed my car and together with an employee, the three men assaulted me again. This assault was so severe, that I was in the hospital for five days, and it took six months till I was back to full health.

11) Months went by and despite letters to the Government, the former Attorney General Petros Clerides and the Police, no one would do anything against my developers. No one would investigate the unlawful selling of my house and no indictment or court date for my second assault was forthcoming. I was determined that this assault would not go the same way as the first, so in August 2008 I camped outside your High Commission in St James’s Square and remained there for 74 days and nights protesting my abuse and your government's inaction. I only left that pavement when finally, I was assured that a court date was set for my second assault and that an investigation into the unlawful selling of my house would take place.

12) Not long after leaving that protest, we got a response from the former Attorney General’s office stating that they will take no action as they have found no criminal offence in the selling my house to another. When asked for clarification of that three lined letter, the reply came back, that the Attorney General does not have to provide clarification. When pressed by the Cyprus Mail, Paulina Evthyvoulou–Evthymiou, the Counsel for the Republic said:

“This is a civil case and not a matter for the Attorney General,” she said. “If he had a judgement from a civil case that he was the owner, it would be different. The civil case is unresolved. I don’t have an owner and I’m not in a position to decide who the owner is,”

It seems that the former Attorney General Petros Clerides decided that in Cyprus, criminal law is now subordinate to civil law, whereas the long-standing position has been the reverse.

13) In January 2009 I began attending court in Cyprus which lasted four years and exhausted all our finances. While undergoing around 30 trips and spending months away from my family, I had about every right to a fair trial abused.

14) As the former Attorney General saw no criminal offence in selling the same house twice, we had little choice but to proceed with a private criminal prosecution against Christoforos Karayiannas and Son Ltd, the two directors and Michelle McDonald (case 1912/09). At Larnaca District Court, the judge accepted evidence from the Department of Lands and Surveys who confirmed our contract had been duly signed and lodged with the land registry for specific performance. The court heard evidence that we made stage payments of €113,000 until the developer refused to accept any further payment. The judge accepted that the property was resold to another without our consent or applying for a court order to withdraw the contract from the land registry.

15) The judge ruled that there was a case to answer. However, the defendants chose not to give any verbal or written testimony and the judge proceeded to find them not guilty. She acquitted them from all charges and ordered us to pay costs. The ruling stated that although we submitted a sales contract to the land registry, that did not mean, we automatically and in perpetuity had become the owners of the residence and that the civil courts must first decide who the beneficial owner of a property is.

16) Therefore, upon that judgement the situation remained unchanged, our money was still with the developer and our house still occupied. We appealed the verdict and disturbingly, in October 2013 the Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s decision in full, acquitting the developers and the occupant of all criminal charges.

17) It is clear then, that according to this judgement, a contract deposited at the land registry no longer means you are the beneficial owner of that property. In July 2009 while addressing the title deeds issue, Mr Neoclis Sylikiotis, the former Minister of the Interior stated:-

“It must also become clear that the ownership status of a buyer-owner of immovable property in Cyprus is definitely secured and cannot be challenged, as long as the buyer-owner has submitted the buying-contract to the Department of Lands and Surveys.”

This statement is now false. The Supreme Court has made it clear that it is no longer a criminal offence for a developer to sell the same property repeatedly. This is now a civil issue and the buyers must first prove to the civil courts any claim over the property. The current time scale for a civil case is 13-14 years. Our case turns 13 years old in March.

18) In January 2011 for the civil action in the first assault, Christoforos and Marios Karayiannas were found liable, but the damages awarded did not cover my legal fees, let alone my expenses for attending court and barely covered the damage to the video camera that recorded the assault.

19) In the criminal case for the second assault (case 4155/2008) Christoforos and Marios Karayiannas and their employee were found guilty but given a suspended sentence. A suspended sentence after a two-year court battle. My cross-examination alone took fourteen court days, not consecutive days but spread over months. I endured over twenty hours of cross-examination for an attack that took less than ten minutes.

20) I was forced by the court to fly back and forth and spend months away from my family, all at my expense. I was abused on the stand and through exhaustion, I broke down many times. I begged the judge not to do this as I was the victim of the crime. What I went through in court over those two years was worse than the assault itself and it cost me tens of thousands of pounds. During one abusive session, Karayiannas’ lawyer Efthimios Flourentzou shouted “You deserved what you got” as I showed pictures of my injuries. Apparently, I deserved what I got because I told my story on the internet. In court, the judge sought no apology for the comment. I complained about this abuse at the highest levels, which resulted in a meeting at the Presidential Palace with Mr Christos Christofides, Director of the President’s Office. Nothing was done to help although soon after Mr Efthimios Flourentzou was made Minister of Communications.

21) The verdict and sentencing made no sense, not in the law of Cyprus or English Common Law. The judge misapplied case law that can reduce murder to manslaughter and said that the defendants suffered a sudden and temporary loss of self-control when they attacked me. That case law was misused first to reduce the sentence and then misused again to suspended it entirely, another legal error. The prosecution appealed the sentence.

22) The appeal was heard without the lower court transcripts, so the Supreme Court did not hear that this was my second assault or that the accused had phoned the police ahead of the attack to say they were on their way to do it. This assault was premeditated and not a sudden and temporary loss of self-control. Without any court transcripts, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the lower court’s decision in full and made the comment that the suspended sentence was appropriate because the accused were always willing to plead guilty. The accused put up a two-year fight in court and were never willing to plead guilty to any charge.

23) Karayiannas father and son then put up another two-year fight in the civil case where again they were found liable for the assault and again, I was awarded virtually nothing. Nothing for my legal fees, nothing for the four years of flights and accommodation, not even the money for the car they rammed or the camera they smashed was awarded. I was granted legal aid under EU directive 2002/8/EC which deals with cross border disputes, but this was never paid. This case is being appealed and it’s now over 11 years since this assault.

24) September 2012 saw the judgement for the civil case 365/2006. This lawsuit by Karayiannas was claiming breach of contract and defamation for publications on my website. We had a counterclaim for breach of contract. The judge at Larnaca District Court ruled that we did not breach our contract and that Karayiannas had unlawfully cancelled it and had unlawfully retained our money. It was ruled that the house was sold again without our knowledge. However, in another atrocious decision, the court failed to award us any damages. We got nothing for our legal fees which by then exceeded the amount they stole. Nothing for the rise in the value of the house. Nothing for our expenses in attending court, flying back and forth for years. Nothing for the years in rented accommodation and of course no punitive damages or any penalty to prevent another developer doing the same again to another British buyer.

25) Despite the verdict agreeing that Karayiannas’ claim, that I breached the contract was untrue, the court went on to fine me a national record for defamation of €50,000 for merely calling my developers liars on my website. I have been telling my story on the internet since 2006 of how I’ve been treated as a customer and there was no defamation on my website. The company showed no damages for defamation as they refused to bring their financial accounts to court, but €50,000 was awarded to them anyway. On top of that record-breaking fine for defamation, I was also fined €10,000 for the use of a word. For calling the company Karayanus instead of Karayiannas on a page on my website. I used that derogatory name as a customer against this company, only after my second assault, after I’d been hospitalized and after the fraud of reselling our house had already been exposed.

26) This ruling was given by a judge who refused to recuse himself. Our case had fallen into the lap of a Judge Tefkros Economou. We asked the judge to recuse himself because of an unusual action he had personally taken against me in favour of Karayiannas some years earlier. In 2008, Judge Economou had personally handed over a file to the Attorney General for an investigation of criminal liability against me, for the publication of the audio of my business conversations with Karayiannas. The Attorney General found no criminal liability.

27) We knew we wouldn’t get a fair hearing with Judge Tefkros Economou and that something was very wrong from the outset, so we asked him to recuse himself and he refused. Now a Supreme Court Judge, Tefkros Economou is in the news this week for presiding over a case against the Bank of Cyprus. Many people are unhappy because his wife worked for the bank. I waited 6 years for my day in the district court and it is a terrible feeling, standing before a judge you know is against you from the outset.

28) There were many things wrong in the courtroom. The lawyer representing Christoforos Karayiannas and Son Ltd was Ms Adrianna Klaedes. Ms Adrianna Klaedes was previously known as Mr Andrew Klydes. Mr Andrew Klydes once represented me in this same case and was key in early litigation. I was horrified when he swapped sides. This was brought to the attention of Judge Economou who did nothing except wave away any related testimony and refused to accept any evidence showing this to be the case. Judge Economou made no comment to this in his verdict.

29) In this case, I was granted legal aid under EU directive 2002/8/EC which deals with cross border disputes within the EU (see attached Cyprus Mail article). To be granted this in Cyprus was not a simple form filling exercise but many trips and a mini-trial to prove I could no longer afford to continue. In a few short years, we went from buying a house in cash to debt and living in rented accommodation. Our life savings had gone to the property developer, my lawyer and years of expenses in attending court in the criminal actions where I was a witness for the state.

30) However, although I was ‘granted’ this legal aid it was never paid, hampering my case in court. No official court translator would work the case for fear the court would not pay them. Without legal aid, I could not afford a trained translator so instead, I had to rely on a bilingual expat. I could not afford any documents translated nor bring in any expert witnesses. I walked out of court several times in protest of no translator and ceased proceedings. My lawyer walked out too because he was not paid and only returned on the promise he would be paid at the end, but he never was.

31) We are appealing on many grounds including the refusal of the judge to step aside and have a hearing date of 10th April 2019 (appeal 435/2012). This is the last opportunity for the Judiciary of Republic of Cyprus to resolve the issue.

32) For a fair hearing on 10th April 2019 (appeal 435/2012) we need the legal aid that was granted under EU directive to be paid, so we can afford to attend court and pay for a professional translator (see paragraphs 29 & 30).

33) For the appeal, we also need all transcripts of the lower court’s proceedings (case 365/2006) to be given in English or in a digital format so that I can translate them electronically. It is unfair to deny us both the funds to translate paper documents and the digital copies. It has been six years since proceedings and these transcripts have not been produced in any form. Remember, the lower court transcripts were not produced at the criminal appeal for my second assault and the case was lost without them (see paragraphs 21 & 22). I do not want history to repeat itself.

34) I also need my expenses for attending court in the criminal case refunded (case 4155/2008). Although the victim of the crime I was merely a witness for the state and gave my receipts to the prosecutor for attending court. I undertook many trips and had to spend eight weeks away from my family just to complete my testimony for a ten-minute attack. The court forced me to do this and assured me that my expenses would be paid at the end (see paragraphs 19 & 20).

35) Unfortunately, I have been following property cases for thirteen years now and no British individual has ever got justice in Cyprus. No one has ever won their case and been awarded real damages, expenses including their legal fees back. It has never happened. If a court case of fourteen years isn’t chilling enough for a British citizen, the truth is, not one property developer or crooked lawyer has ever been truly punished. We British, as I have shown above, win our court cases but loose outright

36) I fervently believe that our nationality has affected the way in which our cases have been dealt with and pursued. If action had been taken early against our property developer, then much of what happened could have been avoided. We have found no solace in the legal system, the courts have been viciously uneven and after thirteen years of litigation, our property developer remains unpunished.

37) Legal precedent established the rule that a contract in the land registry secures your rights as the beneficial owner of that property. I have now proved in the civil courts that I did not breach my contract and that our house was sold to another. If a house is sold twice then that should be a criminal fraud and you cannot prevent a customer from sharing his experience online. I have little doubt that we are heading to the ECHR where the conduct of my property developer will be defended by the state and the burden placed on the taxpayers. This will not concern Christoforos Karayiannas and Son Ltd nor their lawyer Ms Adrianna Klaedes, who have both been in court on several occasions for not paying their taxes.

38) I have laid out our abuses and they all stem from the Republic of Cyprus and are continuing today. Despite our letters, our protests, the press and my online campaign, I regret to say, that in thirteen years we have had no help from any government authority or industry body.

39) We have lost everything and this whole situation and the time taking to resolve, has had a terribly detrimental effect on us and our family life. It has ruined our lives, but we will never give up in our pursuit of justice.

40) I have given a brief outline of our thirteen-year plight here, tried to stick to court ascertained facts and I’ve kept my opinion to a minimum. I have however, excluded some serious issues which cannot be explained away by accident, oversight or overwork, all of which have led us to believe that corruption and collusion have been at play. This sensitive and controversial area is more difficult to demonstrate in a letter and I would like to take you up on your offer to meet in person where we can discuss my situation and I can share my concerns.

Yours sincerely,
Conor O’Dwyer

 

Another try with the Ministry of Energy, Commerce, Industry and Tourism

Vassilis Sergiou
Commerce and Industry Officer
Ministry of Energy, Commerce,
Industry and Tourism
6, Andreas Araouzos street,
CY-1421, Nicosia,
Cyprus
Tel: +357 22867191 Fax: +357 22375120
vsergiou@mcit.gov.cy

16th April 2015

RE: The double selling of our house

Dear Ms Sergiou,
Thank you for your recent correspondence where you expressed willingness to reopen an investigation into our complaint. We have copied this letter to your counterpart agencies in the UK and will write to them directly in the hope that you can work together collectively towards a resolution for our case and better protection for others.

Kindly note, that since submitting our complaint in June 2011, we have moved address and it took a while for your letter to reach us.

Since 2011 we’ve proceeded with court action, we are awaiting an appeal and your assistance is still desperately required. So far, we have found no solace in the legal system, the courts have been viciously uneven, the property developer remains unpunished and continues to advertise the same false claims today.

Dangerously, one of our cases outlined below, made precedent at the Supreme Court and has now exposed consumers to a high risk that is unique to Cyprus and which needs addressing. In brief, a contract deposited at the Land Registry, no longer means you are the beneficial owner of that property. It is no longer a criminal offence for the developer to sell that same property over and over again. This is now a civil issue and the buyer must first prove to the civil courts any claim over the property. This, as our plight shows, will take over a decade to resolve and all that time with the buyers funds in the developers bank account.

Following the format of your attached complaint form.
A. Consumer Information
Mr Cornelius O’Dwyer
[home address]

Β. Company or Trader Information against whom the complaint is lodged
Christoforos Karayiannas & Son Ltd
Karayiannas Shopping Center
1st Floor, Office No.1
152 Griva Digeni
5281 Paralimni-Cyprus
Telephone: +357 23743553
Fax: +357 23730793
Email : info@karayiannas.com.cy

C. Description of the complaint
(Please write a clear description of the complaint. Attach additional pages, if necessary)

We bought a house from the above company to be built with a delivery date of July 2006. We deposited our sales contract in the Land Registry for specific performance. The company unlawfully disregarded that contract and kept all our money. The company immediately sold the same house at a higher price to another family without informing them of our existence.

False Advertising

When buying property in Cyprus, we, like everyone else, believed that the deposit of our contract in the Land Registry secured our rights and protected our interests. This is still the message from every estate agent, lawyer and developer in the industry. Here are some examples specific to our case:-
From Christoforos Karayiannas and Son Ltd’s own promotional material

“From the minute your contract of sale is registered at the land registry department the property is officially yours and you can sell your property the next minute.”

From the brochure of the Pittadjis Law Firm of Paralimni. The lawyers involved in selling our house to another without our knowledge

“By having the purchase contract deposited at the L.R.O. The buyer not only secures his interest in the property but he also prevents the owner of land/vendor from transferring the property to a third party without his knowledge”

Dangerously, this rhetoric also comes from the highest levels of government. Mr Neoclis Sylikiotis,Minister of the Interior stated in July 2009.

“It must also become clear that the ownership status of a buyer-owner of immovable property in Cyprus is definitely secured and cannot be challenged, as long as the buyer owner has submitted the buying-contract to the Department of Lands and Surveys”

Had we known that our developer can sell our house to another and keep our money despite our contract in the Land Registry, then we would never have bought in Cyprus.

Continue reading “Another try with the Ministry of Energy, Commerce, Industry and Tourism”

Chr. Karayiannas & Son Developers v. Υπουργείο Οικονομικών Φ.Π.Α: Case 1407/11

ΑΝΩΤΑΤΟ ΔΙΚΑΣΤΗΡΙΟ ΚΥΠΡΟΥ
ΑΝΑΘΕΩΡΗΤΙΚΗ ΔΙΚΑΙΟΔΟΣΙΑ

(Υπóθεση Αρ. 1407/2011)

20 Μαρτίου, 2015

[ΠΑΜΠΑΛΛΗΣ, Δ/στής]

ΑΝΑΦΟΡΙΚΑ ΜΕ ΤΟ ΑΡΘΡΟ 146 ΤΟΥ ΣΥΝΤΑΓΜΑΤΟΣ

CHR. KARAYIANNAS & SONS DEVELOPERS  LTD
KARAYIANNAS SHOPPING PLAZA,

Αιτητές, 

ν.

ΚΥΠΡΙΑΚΗΣ ΔΗΜΟΚΡΑΤΙΑΣ, ΜΕΣΩ ΤΟΥ
ΥΠΟΥΡΓΕΙΟΥ ΟΙΚΟΝΟΜΙΚΩΝ ΚΑΙ/Ή ΤΜΗΜΑΤΟΣ
ΤΕΛΩΝΕΙΩΝ ΚΑΙ/΄Η ΥΠΗΡΕΣΙΑΣ ΕΦΟΡΟΥ
ΦΟΡΟΥ ΠΡΟΣΤΙΘΕΜΕΝΗΣ ΑΞΙΑΣ,

 

Καθ’ων η αίτηση. 

Α. Κλαίδη (κα), για τους Αιτητές.
Ε. Καρακάννα (κα), Δικηγόρος της Δημοκρατίας Α΄, εκ μέρους του Γενικού Εισαγγελέα, για τους Καθ’ων η αίτηση.

Α Π Ο Φ Α Σ Η

ΠΑΜΠΑΛΛΗΣ, Δ.: Οι αιτητές, ως επιχειρηματίες ανάπτυξης γης, δραστηριοποιούνται σε ιδιόκτητα τεμάχια ή σ’ άλλα που αποτελούν αντικείμενο αγοράς από τρίτα πρόσωπα, με τη μέθοδο της αντιπαροχής.

Σε διενεργηθέντα έλεγχο από Λειτουργούς του Εφόρου Φόρου Προστιθέμενης Αξίας, στα γραφεία των αιτητών, που διεξήχθη από το Σεπτέμβριο του 2010 μέχρι τον Οκτώβριο του 2011 και εξετάστηκαν οι φορολογικές περίοδοι από την 1η Μαΐου 2006 μέχρι 30 Νοεμβρίου 2010, διαπιστώθηκε ότι, οι αιτητές δεν απέδωσαν ΦΠΑ (Φόρο Εκροών) για συναλλαγές που αφορούσαν πωλήσεις κατοικιών και διαμερισμάτων, όπως επίσης και εργολαβικές εργασίες ανέγερσης κατοικιών.

Ταυτοχρόνως διαπιστώθηκε ότι οι αιτητές είχαν διεκδικήσει, λανθασμένα, φόρο εισροών.

Συγκεκριμένα διαπιστώθηκε ότι: 

Α. Παράλειψη απόδοσης φόρου εκροών.

  1. Για την κατοικία Α34, στο συγκρότημα ANDRIANI, ο τρόπος αποπληρωμής του τιμήματος ήταν, η καταβολή χρηματικού ποσού και ανταλλαγή ακίνητης ιδιοκτησίας. Οι αιτητές είχαν καταβάλει φόρο εκροών, μόνο για τη χρηματική αντιπαροχή χωρίς ν’ αποδώσουν φόρο εκροών για την ανταλλαγή της ακίνητης ιδιοκτησίας. Το ύψος του φόρου εκροών ανήρχετο σε €22.286,09.
  1. Η κατοικία αρ. 2 στο συγκρότημα AMASIS, πωλήθηκε στα πλαίσια διακανονισμού με άλλη εταιρεία. Τέθηκε στη διάθεση του τελικού ιδιοκτήτη τον Ιούλιο του 2010 και δεν καταβλήθηκε από τους αιτητές ο φόρος εκροών για ολόκληρο το ποσό.
  1. Οι αιτητές παρέλειψαν να αποδώσουν φόρο εκροών, για το υπόλοιπο ποσό 20 κατοικιών τις οποίες παρέδωσαν πριν την τελική εξόφληση. Κρίθηκε δε από τους καθ’ων η αίτηση ως ημερομηνία παράδοσης, η ημερομηνία της πρώτης κατανάλωσης ηλεκτρικού ρεύματος.
  1. Οι αιτητές παρέλειψαν να αποδώσουν φόρο εκροών για το κόστος ανέγερσης κατοικίας στο συγκρότημα BANA.
  1. Οι αιτητές, σύμφωνα με τις πρόνοιες συμφωνίας αντιπαροχής θα παραχωρούσαν 20 κατοικίες στους ιδιοκτήτες της γης. Οι έξι από αυτές είχαν ολοκληρωθεί, 11 ήταν ημιτελείς και τρεις δεν είχαν κατασκευαστεί. Οι καθ’ων η αίτηση έκριναν ότι, η αξία της αντιπαροχής ήταν ίση με την αξία του ήδη μεταβιβασθέντος, από τους ιδιοκτήτες γης προς τους αιτητές, μεριδίου, καθορίζοντας ως φορολογικό σημείο την ημερομηνία μεταβίβασης του εν λόγω μεριδίου στους αιτητές, οι οποίοι παρέλειψαν να αποδώσουν τον φόρο εκροών που αντιστοιχούσε στην εν λόγω αντιπαροχή.
  1. Οι αιτητές παρέλειψαν να αποδώσουν φόρο εκροών για την πώληση του διαμερίσματος D21 στο συγκρότημα KING EVAGORAS στο Παραλίμνι.
  1. Σύμφωνα με τις πρόνοιες της συμφωνίας για ανέγερση του συγκροτήματος GEORGIA στη Λευκωσία, θα παραχωρούνταν τέσσερα διαμερίσματα στους ιδιοκτήτες της γης. Οι καθ’ων η αίτηση, έκριναν, ότι, ενόψει του γεγονότος της υπό εξέλιξη ανέγερσης του συγκροτήματος, η αξία της αντιπαροχής ήταν ίση με την αξία της γης που μεταβιβάστηκε στους αιτητές και ως φορολογικό σημείο κρίθηκε η ημερομηνία μεταβίβασης στο Κτηματολόγιο. Υπολογίστηκε ο φόρος εκροών, που αντιστοιχούσε στην πιο πάνω αντιπαροχή, τον οποίο οι αιτητές παρέλειψαν να αποδώσουν.
  1. Οι αιτητές δεν απέδωσαν φόρο εκροών αναφορικά με το συγκρότημα SALAMINA στο Φρέναρος στο οποίο έγινε ανταλλαγή τεμαχίου.

Β. Εσφαλμένη διεκδίκηση φόρου εισροών.

  1. Οι αιτητές εσφαλμένα διεκδίκησαν φόρο εισροών για τιμολόγια για τα οποία δεν παραχωρείτο δικαίωμα έκπτωσης φόρου.
  1. Διεκδίκησαν φόρο εισροών, για το συγκρότημα KING EVAGORAS, το συγκρότημα KING MENELAOS και AMASIS για τα οποία υπήρχε εξαιρούμενη ανάπτυξη προς την οποία δεν παραχωρείται δικαίωμα έκπτωσης φόρου.

Έχοντας υπόψη τις πιο πάνω διαπιστώσεις, κρίθηκε από τον Έφορο ΦΠΑ ότι, οι φορολογικές δηλώσεις που υποβλήθηκαν από τους  αιτητές για την περίοδο 1η Μαΐου 2006 μέχρι 30 Νοεμβρίου 2010 ήταν ελλιπείς και/ή περιείχαν σφάλματα. Ενόψει τούτου, προχώρησε σε βεβαίωση φόρου με βάση το άρθρο 49 του περί Φόρου Προστιθέμενης Αξίας Νόμου του 2000. Οι αιτητές ενημερώθηκαν για το θέμα αυτό με επιστολή ημερ. 10 Οκτωβρίου 2011, στην οποία περιέχετο και η βεβαίωση φόρου ύψους €558.013,31.

Οι αιτητές πρόβαλαν ότι η εν λόγω βεβαίωση φόρου ήταν αποτέλεσμα εσφαλμένης εφαρμογής του Νόμου και ελλιπούς έρευνας λαμβάνοντας υπόψη ότι οι καθ’ων η αίτηση παραγνώρισαν ουσιώδη στοιχεία που τους είχαν υποβληθεί.

Κατοικία αρ. 34 στο συγκρότημα ANDRIANI

Αναφορικά με την εν λόγω κατοικία, οι αιτητές εισηγήθηκαν ότι οι καθ΄ων η αίτηση εσφαλμένα δεν έλαβαν υπόψη τους ότι, το ποσό της πώλησης συμπεριλάμβανε και ΦΠΑ. Αντιθέτως, οι καθ΄ων η αίτηση ισχυρίζονται ότι κατά τον υπολογισμό του φόρου εκροών είχαν λάβει υπόψη τους ότι στο ποσό της αντιπαροχής συμπεριλαμβανόταν και ΦΠΑ και γι’ αυτό είχαν προβεί στον υπολογισμό με εσωτερική υφαίρεση, πράξη με την οποία υπολογίζεται ο ΦΠΑ που περιλαμβάνεται στην αντιπαροχή για την απόκτηση ενός αγαθού ή περιουσίας που επιβαρύνθηκε με ΦΠΑ.

Το τίμημα πώλησης ήταν €281.919,00. Ο τρόπος αποπληρωμής είχε προσδιοριστεί ως ακολούθως: Καταβολή χρηματικού ποσού €111.059 και το υπόλοιπο του τιμήματος συμφωνήθηκε όπως αποτελέσει το αντικείμενο ανταλλαγής ακίνητης ιδιοκτησίας ύψους €170.860. Ο φόρος εκροών που οφείλετο, σύμφωνα με τους υπολογισμούς των καθ’ων η αίτηση ήταν €22.296,09 (€170.860 Χ 15/115).

Σε συνάρτηση με τον προβληθέντα ισχυρισμό της αιτήτριας ότι οι καθ’ων η αίτηση δεν έλαβαν υπόψη ότι το ποσό της πώλησης περιλάμβανε και ΦΠΑ, κρίνω ότι δεν ευσταθεί. Στην επιστολή ημερ. 10 Οκτωβρίου 2011 γίνεται αναφορά στο ποσό των €281.919 και για το ΦΠΑ. Με αυτό το δεδομένο οι καθ’ων η αίτηση είχαν προβεί στη συγκεκριμένη πράξη υπολογισμού του φόρου εκροών.

Δεδομένης της φύσης του ΦΠΑ ως αυτοβεβαιούμενου φόρου, η βεβαίωση και πληρωμή του, αποτελεί ευθύνη του επιχειρηματία. (Δημοκρατία ν. Tyrimos Tavern Restaurant Ltd (2000) 3 Α.Α.Δ. 679).

Σύμφωνα με το άρθρο 49(1) του περί Φόρου Προστιθέμενης Αξίας Νόμου του 2000 (95(Ι)/2000) (ο “Νόμος”). 

̎49.—(1) Όταν οποιοδήποτε πρόσωπο παραλείψει να υποβάλει οποιεσδήποτε φορολογικές δηλώσεις που απαιτούνται δυνάμει του παρόντος Νόμου (ή δυνάμει οποιασδήποτε διάταξης που καταργήθηκε με τον παρόντα Νόμο) ή να τηρήσει οποιαδήποτε έγγραφα και να παράσχει τις διευκολύνσεις τις απαραίτητες για να επαληθευτούν τέτοιες δηλώσεις ή όταν ο Έφορος κρίνει ότι τέτοιες δηλώσεις είναι ελλιπείς ή ανακριβείς, ο Έφορος δύναται να βεβαιώσει κατά την καλύτερη κρίση του το ποσό του Φ.Π.Α. που είναι οφειλόμενο από αυτό το πρόσωπο και να γνωστοποιήσει το ποσό στο πρόσωπο αυτό.”

Διαπιστωθέντων λαθών στις φορολογικές δηλώσεις ο Έφορος έχει υποχρέωση να προβεί καλόπιστα, και με τον καλύτερο δυνατό τρόπο, στη βεβαίωση φόρου.

Το κατά πόσο, ο Έφορος ΦΠΑ, χρησιμοποίησε, κατά τον καλύτερο δυνατό τρόπο την κρίση του, είναι ζήτημα πραγματικό που εξετάζεται στα πλαίσια της συγκεκριμένης φορολογικής διαφοράς. Η επί τούτου σχετική απόφαση δεν ανατρέπεται αν, μέσα στα πλαίσια του Νόμου, ήταν ευλόγως επιτρεπτή.

Το πιο κάτω απόσπασμα από την Kokos Athanasiou Motors Ltd v. Δημοκρατίας (2000) 3 Α.Α.Δ. 21, είναι σχετικό:

“Ο μόνος περιορισμός που τίθεται στον Έφορο είναι να προβεί στην πράξη υπολογισμού του οφειλόμενου φόρου χρησιμοποιώντας “κατά τον καλύτερο δυνατό τρόπο την κρίση του”. Παρέχεται διακριτική ευχέρεια στον Έφορο να επιλέξει τη μέθοδο υπολογισμού του φόρου με βάση βέβαια τα στοιχεία τα οποία έχει ενώπιόν του. 

Καθοδήγηση ως προς την ερμηνεία του όρου “κατά τον καλύτερο δυνατό τρόπο την κρίση του” μπορούμε να αντλήσουμε από την αγγλική νομολογία επί του θέματος και ειδικότερα από τις αυθεντίες:Van Boeckel (πιο πάνω) και Argosy v. Inland Revenue Commissioner [1971] 1 W.L.R. 514. 

Σύμφωνα με την Van Boeckel “αυτό που προϋποθέτουν οι λέξεις της διάταξης είναι ότι ο Έφορος θα εξετάσει δίκαια όλο το υλικό που τέθηκε ενώπιόν του και να καταλήξει σε απόφαση η οποία είναι εύλογη και όχι αυθαίρετη ως προς το ποσό του οφειλόμενου φόρου. Από τη στιγμή που υπάρχει κάποιο υλικό που ο Έφορος μπορεί εύλογα να ενεργήσει δεν απαιτείται από αυτόν να προβεί σε διεξαγωγή έρευνας η οποία μπορεί να έχει ή να μην έχει σαν αποτέλεσμα την προσαγωγή περαιτέρω υλικού ενώπιόν του.”.

Η παρεχόμενη εξουσία προς τον Έφορο, αναφορικά με τον τρόπο υπολογισμού του φόρου, είναι ευρεία. Στην Υπ. Αρ. 303/2003, Vasilis Christodoulou Snacks Ltd v. Δημοκρατίας, ημερ.                  7 Ιουνίου 2004, αναφέρεται:

“Σε τέτοιου είδους υποθέσεις, αναγνωρίζεται στον Έφορο ευχέρεια επιλογής της μεθόδου υπολογισμού με βάση τα στοιχεία που έχει ενώπιον του. Αν με βάση το υλικό που έχει ενώπιόν του ο Έφορος εύλογα μπορεί να ενεργήσει, δεν απαιτείται να προβεί στη διεξαγωγή περαιτέρω έρευνας. Ακολουθείται διαδικασία πιθανολόγησης σε σχέση με το ποσό της υποχρέωσης. Οι πιο πάνω αρχές πηγάζουν τόσο από την αγγλική νομολογία όσο και από δικές μας αποφάσεις. (Θεοδοσίου ν. Δημοκρατίας, υποθ. αρ. 75/94 ημερ. 13.6.96, Argosy v. Inland Revenue Commissioner(1971) 1 W.L.R. 514.” 

Κατά το στάδιο των διευκρινίσεων προβλήθηκε από τους αιτητές            ότι, λαμβάνοντας υπόψη το γεγονός ότι το ακίνητο παρέμεινε εγγεγραμμένο στο όνομα της ιδιοκτήτριας της γης, δεν θα μπορούσε να επιβληθεί ΦΠΑ. Οι καθ’ων η αίτηση έλαβαν ως φορολογικό σημείο για σκοπούς ΦΠΑ, “την ημερομηνία κατά την οποία η εν λόγω κατοικία περιήλθε στην κατοχή του ιδιοκτήτη της αφού υπήρχε ουσιαστική κατανάλωση ηλεκτρικού ρεύματος με βάση τις πληροφορίες που λήφθηκαν από ΑΗΚ”. 

Η διαφορά μεταξύ των αιτητών και των καθ’ων η αίτηση έγκειται ουσιαστικώς, στο χρόνο παράδοσης της κατοικίας, για φορολογικούς σκοπούς.

Τα άρθρα 5(1) και 7(1) του Νόμου, καθορίζουν πότε επιβάλλεται ΦΠΑ σε παράδοση αγαθών ή παροχής υπηρεσιών.

Το άρθρο 5(1) προβλέπει ότι: 

“1) Φόρος προστιθέμενης αξίας επιβάλλεται, σύμφωνα με τις

διατάξεις του παρόντος Νόμου— 

(α) Επί της παράδοσης αγαθών και της παροχής υπηρεσιών στο εσωτερικό της Δημοκρατίας (συμπεριλαμβανομένου οτιδήποτε θεωρείται ως τέτοια συναλλαγή)·”

και

Το άρθρο 7(1) αναφέρει ότι: 

“Φ.Π.Α. επιβάλλεται επί οποιασδήποτε παράδοσης αγαθών ή παροχής υπηρεσιών που πραγματοποιείται στο εσωτερικό της Δημοκρατίας, όταν είναι φορολογητέα συναλλαγή που πραγματοποιείται από υποκείμενο στο φόρο πρόσωπο μέσα στα πλαίσια ή για προώθηση οποιασδήποτε επιχείρησης που ασκεί.”

Το τι αποτελεί “παράδοση” προσδιορίζεται στο άρθρο 3 του Δευτέρου Παραρτήματος το οποίο αναφέρει ότι:

“Αποτελούν παράδοση αγαθών— 

(α) Η μεταβίβαση ακίνητης ιδιοκτησίας·

(β) η μεταβίβαση εξ αδιαιρέτου ιδανικής μερίδας επί ακίνητης ιδιοκτησίας·

(γ) η μεταβίβαση της κατοχής ακίνητης ιδιοκτησίας—

(i) δυνάμει σύμβασης ή συμφωνίας πώλησής της, ή

(ii) δυνάμει συμφωνίας που ρητά προβλέπει ότι θα μεταβιβαστεί και η ακίνητη ιδιοκτησία σε κάποιο χρόνο στο μέλλον.” 

Αναφορικά με το χρόνο παράδοσης και πότε θεωρείται ότι γίνεται, σχετικό είναι το άρθρο 9 του Νόμου, που προβλέπει:

9.—(1) Οι διατάξεις του παρόντος άρθρου εφαρμόζονται τηρουμένων των διατάξεων των άρθρων 13Β και 13Γ για να καθορίζεται ο χρόνος που μια παράδοση αγαθών ή παροχή υπηρεσιών θεωρείται ότι λαμβάνει χώρα για τους σκοπούς επιβολής του Φ.Π.Α.

(2) Τηρουμένων των διατάξεων των εδαφίων (4) μέχρι (14) πιο κάτω, μια παράδοση αγαθών θεωρείται ότι λαμβάνει χώρα—

………

(β) αν τα αγαθά δεν πρόκειται να μεταφερθούν, κατά το χρόνο που τίθενται στη διάθεση του προσώπου προς το οποίο παραδίδονται.” 

Η συμφωνία μεταξύ αιτητών και ιδιοκτήτριας της γης, πρόβλεπε για ανταλλαγή της γης με την οικία. Η μεταβίβαση θα λάμβανε χώρα σε μεταγενέστερο στάδιο. Το γεγονός ότι το κτήμα παρέμενε επ’ ονόματι της ιδιοκτήτριας, τούτο δεν εξυπακούει ότι η κατοικία δεν παραδόθηκε στους αιτητές.

Σε έρευνα στην οποία προέβηκαν οι καθ’ων η αίτηση διαπιστώθηκε ότι, ουσιαστική κατανάλωση ρεύματος έγινε και ορθώς κρίθηκε ότι η εν λόγω κατοικία περιήλθε στην κατοχή του αγοραστή της, συνεπώς  υπήρξε παράδοση με βάση τις πρόνοιες του Νόμου. Τούτου δοθέντος, ορθώς κρίθηκε ότι η ημερομηνία έναρξης της κατανάλωσης ηλεκτρικού ρεύματος, ως η ημερομηνία καθορισμού της επιβολής φόρου εκροών.

Κατοικία αρ. 2 στο συγκρότημα AMASIS

Αναφορικά με την εν λόγω κατοικία και τα οφειλόμενα υπόλοιπα από την πώληση 20 κατοικιών, οι αιτητές επανέλαβαν και πάλι τον ισχυρισμό ότι οι καθ’ων η αίτηση δεν έλαβαν υπόψη ότι στο οφειλόμενο ποσό συμπεριλήφθηκε ΦΠΑ. Ο υπολογισμός του φόρου εκροών, όπως αναφέρθηκε πιο πάνω, έγινε με εσωτερική υφαίρεση, χρησιμοποιώντας το συντελεστή 115%. Από αυτό συνεπάγεται ότι           οι καθ’ων η αίτηση χρησιμοποίησαν τη μέθοδο υπολογισμού στηριζόμενοι στη βάση του ότι, το οφειλόμενο ποσό συμπεριλάμβανε ΦΠΑ. Τέτοιος υπολογισμός βρίσκεται εντός του πλαισίου της διακριτικής ευχέρειας του Εφόρου.

Περαιτέρω, για τις 20 κατοικίες, προβλήθηκε ότι οι καθ’ων η αίτηση, εσφαλμένα θεώρησαν ότι υπήρχε παράδοση, στηριζόμενοι σε στοιχεία της ΑΗΚ, λόγω κατανάλωσης ηλεκτρικού ρεύματος. Στην απαντητική τους αγόρευση, οι αιτητές ισχυρίστηκαν ότι, τα πιο πάνω στοιχεία αφορούσαν κατοικίες άλλες από τις επίδικες και επισύναψαν προς τούτο στοιχεία από την ΑΗΚ.

Κατ’ αρχήν πρέπει να σημειώσω ότι, κατά το στάδιο των αγορεύσεων, δεν είναι επιτρεπτό να προσάγεται μαρτυρία. Εν πάση, όμως, περιπτώσει, τα επισυναφθέντα έγγραφα δεν αποδεικνύουν τα όσα πρόβαλαν οι αιτητές, καθότι δεν καταδεικνύεται ότι πρόκειται για άλλες κατοικίες. Στο διοικητικό φάκελο (τεκμήριο 1) υπάρχουν τα παραρτήματα 15-19 στα οποία αναφέρονται οι 20 κατοικίες που λήφθηκαν υπόψη και η έρευνα που διεξήγαγαν οι καθ’ων η αίτηση.

Δοθέντος ότι, υπήρχε παράδοση, όπως έχω αναλύσει πιο πάνω, η επιβολή του φόρου ήταν εντός του πλαισίου του Νόμου.

Κατοικία στο συγκρότημα ΒΑΝΑ

Με βάση τις πρόνοιες της συμφωνίας αντιπαροχής των ιδιοκτητών με τους ιδιοκτήτες γης, παραχωρήθηκαν δύο κατοικίες και οι αιτητές ανέλαβαν να ανεγείρουν μια κατοικία σε τεμάχιο των ιδιοκτητών στο συγκρότημα ΒΑΝΑ. Οι ιδιοκτήτες είχαν παραχωρήσει τη γη, για ανέγερση του συγκροτήματος STONE MEADOWS. Οι καθ’ων η αίτηση προέβηκαν σε υπολογισμό των υπηρεσιών ανέγερσης και του αντίστοιχου φόρου εκροών. Ο Έφορος υπολογίζει το φόρο, όπως αναφέρθηκε πιο πάνω, χρησιμοποιώντας κατά τον καλύτερο δυνατό τρόπο την κρίση του και δεν έχω διαπιστώσει οτιδήποτε το οποίο να δεικνύει ότι ο εν λόγω υπολογισμός δεν ήταν εύλογος. Σημειώνω περαιτέρω ότι, δεν προβλήθηκε οποιοσδήποτε ισχυρισμός αναφορικά με τη συναλλαγή αυτή. 

Συγκρότημα ANDRIANI (BLOCK I&II)

Προβλήθηκε από τους αιτητές ότι εσφαλμένα επιβλήθηκε φόρος εκροών για 20 κατοικίες στο πιο πάνω συγκρότημα, έχοντας υπόψη ότι οι κατοικίες αυτές θα παραχωρούντο στους ιδιοκτήτες δυνάμει συμφωνίας αντιπαροχής. Όπως αναφέρθηκε στις διευκρινίσεις ο αριθμός των κατοικιών ήταν 17 και όχι 20. Σύμφωνα με το παράρτημα 19γ, όντως, υπάρχει κάποια διαφορά, ως προς τέσσερις κατοικίες (αρ. 2,3,4,5) οι οποίες είχαν συμφωνηθεί να δοθούν και στους δυο ιδιοκτήτες της γης. Αυτό, όμως, δεν θεωρώ ότι επηρεάζει την αξία της αντιπαροχής, εφόσον αυτή υπολογίστηκε με βάση την αξία του μεριδίου που δόθηκε ως αντιπαροχή.

Οι καθ’ων η αίτηση διαπίστωσαν ότι είχαν ολοκληρωθεί έξι κατοικίες, 22 ήταν ημιτελείς και τρεις δεν είχαν εκτελεστεί. Κρίθηκε, από πλευράς Εφόρου, ότι, η αξία της αντιπαροχής ήταν ίση με την αξία της γης που μεταβιβάστηκε προς τους αιτητές από τους αρχικούς ιδιοκτήτες. Τούτο έγινε με βάση τη δηλωθείσα αξία στο Κτηματολόγιο. Ως φορολογικό σημείο καθορίστηκε η ημερομηνία μεταβίβασης στο Κτηματολόγιο.

Το άρθρο 14(3) του Νόμου προβλέπει ότι:

Αν η συναλλαγή πραγματοποιείται έναντι αντιπαροχής μη χρηματικής ή μη εξ ολοκλήρου χρηματικής, η αξία της λαμβάνεται ότι είναι τόσο χρηματικό ποσό όσο, με την πρόσθεση του επιβλητέου Φ.Π.Α., είναι αντίστοιχο προς την αντιπαροχή. 

Οι καθ’ων η αίτηση στη βάση της Ερμηνευτικής εγκυκλίου 105 θεώρησαν ότι η αξία της αντιπαροχής ήταν ίση με την αξία του μεριδίου της γης που τους μεταβιβάστηκε. Η πιο πάνω προσέγγιση ήταν εύλογη και δεν παρέχεται πεδίο επέμβασης.

Αναφορικά με το χρόνο παροχής των υπηρεσιών, το άρθρο 9(4) του Νόμου προβλέπει ότι αν η πληρωμή έγινε, πριν την παράδοση των αγαθών, τότε η παροχή θεωρείται ότι λαμβάνει χώρα κατά το χρόνο που λαμβάνεται η πληρωμή. Στην υπό κρίση περίπτωση η πληρωμή ήταν υπό μορφή μεταβίβασης της γης. Συνεπώς ορθά θεωρήθηκε ως φορολογητέο σημείο ο χρόνος μεταβίβασης της ακίνητης ιδιοκτησίας.

Τα όσα αναφέρει η αιτήτρια, περί εξαιρούμενης συναλλαγής, δεν τυγχάνουν εφαρμογής μετά την τροποποίηση του Νόμου το 2004. Ο φόρος που είχε επιβληθεί δεν αφορούσε την παράδοση της γης, η οποία είναι εξαιρούμενη συναλλαγή, αλλά την παροχή υπηρεσιών ανέγερσης των κατοικιών. Ούτε και τα όσα ισχυρίζεται η αιτήτρια αναφορικά με τα έγγραφα αρ 335-339 του παραρτήματος 2                          (συμφωνίες πώλησης), έχουν σχέση με την επιβολή του φόρου, καθότι τούτα δεν λήφθηκαν υπόψη από τους καθ’ων η αίτηση

Διαμέρισμα D21, συγκρότημα KING EVAGORAS

Επιβλήθηκε από τους καθ’ων η αίτηση φόρος εκροών για την πώληση του πιο πάνω διαμερίσματος. Η τιμή πωλήσεως ήταν €126.500 και ο φόρος εκροών ήταν €16.500. Από το εν λόγω ποσό αφαιρέθηκε το ποσό των €2.608,70, το οποίο πληρώθηκε μεταγενέστερα από τον ιδιοκτήτη της κατοικίας. Παρόλο που οι αιτητές δεν προβάλλουν οτιδήποτε συγκεκριμένο, για την εν λόγω επιβολή, θεωρώ ότι ο Έφορος, εφαρμόζοντας ορθά, τις πρόνοιες του Νόμου προέβηκε στο σχετικό υπολογισμό με βάση τα στοιχεία που είχε.

Διαμερίσματα στο συγκρότημα GEORGIA

Οι καθ’ων η αίτηση επέβαλαν φόρο εκροών για την ανέγερση τεσσάρων διαμερισμάτων στο πιο πάνω συγκρότημα. Τα εν λόγω διαμερίσματα είχαν παραχωρηθεί δυνάμει συμφωνίας αντιπαροχής. Η αξία της αντιπαροχής κρίθηκε ότι, ήταν ίση με την αξία της γης που μεταβιβάστηκε από τον ιδιοκτήτη της γης προς τους αιτητές. Καθορίστηκε, επίσης, ως η ημερομηνία μεταβίβασης, για σκοπούς φορολογίας. Σε σχέση με την αξία της αντιπαροχής και τον χρόνο υπολογισμού της, επαναλαμβάνω και υιοθετώ όσα ανέφερα πιο πάνω.

Οι αιτητές εισηγήθηκαν ότι δεν λήφθηκαν υπόψη τα έξοδα μελέτης για τα αρχιτεκτονικά σχέδια, καθώς και άλλες δαπάνες για την ανέγερση των εν λόγω διαμερισμάτων. Οι όποιες δαπάνες έγιναν δεν αποτελούν μέρος της αντιπαροχής και δεν υπολογίζονται. Αυτό αποτελεί θέμα έκπτωσης φόρου. Οι αιτητές είχαν δικαίωμα να υποβάλουν αίτημα, προσκομίζοντας τα απαραίτητα στοιχεία, για διεκδίκηση έκπτωσης.

Κατοικία αρ. 13, συγκρότημα SALAMINA

Επιβλήθηκε επίσης φόρος αναφορικά με την ανταλλαγή της πιο πάνω κατοικίας. “Ανταλλαγή” – “exchange” είναι η αμοιβαία μεταβίβαση ιδιοκτησίας.

Στη βάση των στοιχείων που συνέλεξαν οι καθ’ων η αίτηση από το Κτηματολόγιο διαπιστώθηκε ότι έγινε ανταλλαγή γης για το ποσό των €310.000 και αφορούσε την πιο πάνω κατοικία. Οι αιτητές επαναλαμβάνουν και εδώ ότι, οι καθ’ων η αίτηση δεν υπολόγισαν την έκπτωση φόρου εισροών επί των τιμολογίων αναφορικά με τις αρχιτεκτονικές υπηρεσίες. Όπως ανέφερα πιο πάνω η έκπτωση φόρου δεν υπολογίζεται στην κάθε συναλλαγή.

Φόρος εισροών.

Οι καθ’ων η αίτηση, κατά το διενεργηθέντα έλεγχο, διαπίστωσαν ότι οι αιτητές εσφαλμένα διεκδίκησαν δικαίωμα έκπτωσης φόρου σε σχέση με δυο τιμολόγια. Δεν παρουσιάστηκε οποιαδήποτε στοιχείο το οποίο να αποδεικνύει ότι η πιο πάνω διαπίστωση ήταν εσφαλμένη.

Επίσης διαπιστώθηκε ότι είχε διεκδικηθεί φόρος εισροών σε σχέση με την αγορά κλιματιστικών για καταστήματα που ενοικιάζοντο. Τέλος, οι καθ’ων η αίτηση κατά τον έλεγχο τους διαπίστωσαν ότι οι αιτητές είχαν διεκδικήσει φόρο εισροών για την ανέγερση του συγκροτήματος KING EVAGORAS, KING MENELAOS και ΑMASIS, ενώ μέρος των διαμερισμάτων είχαν ενοικιαστεί.

Το άρθρο 21 του Nόμου προνοεί ότι, πρόσωπα υποκείμενα σε ΦΠΑ δικαιούνται να εκπέσουν το ποσό του φόρου εισροών από φορολογητέες συναλλαγές. Το άρθρο 7(2) του Νόμουπροκαθορίζει ως φορολογητέα συναλλαγή, κάθε παράδοση αγαθών ή υπηρεσιών, η οποία δεν είναι εξαιρούμενη συναλλαγή.

Σύμφωνα με το άρθρο 1 του Όγδοου Παραρτήματος η μίσθωση ακίνητης ιδιοκτησίας αποτελεί εξαιρούμενη συναλλαγή.

Συνεπώς, οι καθ’ων η αίτηση ορθώς δεν αποδέχτηκαν τη διεκδίκηση του φόρου εισροών που υποβλήθηκε από τους αιτητές εφόσον αυτή αφορούσε εξαιρούμενη συναλλαγή. (Υπ. Αρ. 218/2008,Jacomino Enterprises Ltd ν. Δημοκρατίας, ημερ. 5 Μαρτίου 2010).

Στην περίπτωση διεκδίκησης έκπτωσης φόρου οι διατάξεις του Νόμου ερμηνεύονται στενά.

Στην Υπ. Αρ. 50/2008, St. George Hotel Enterprises Ltd ν. Δημοκρατίας, ημερ. 29 Μαρτίου 2010 αναφέρθηκαν τα πιο κάτω με τα οποία συμφωνώ:

“Η επίκληση από την αιτήτρια νομολογίας που αναφέρει ότι οι φορολογικοί νόμοι όταν επιβάλλουν φόρο πρέπει να ερμηνεύονται αυστηρά και σε περίπτωση αμφιβολίας αυτή αποφασίζεται υπέρ του πολίτη, είναι ορθή. Όμως εκεί που ο φορολογούμενος ζητά έκπτωση και/ή απαλλαγή φόρου, τότε οι σχετικές νομοθετικές πρόνοιες ερμηνεύονται αυστηρά εναντίον του φορολογούμενου (βλ. μεταξύ άλλων Μάτσης ν. Δημοκρατίας (1995) 3 Α.Α.Δ. 404, 408 με αναφορά και σε προηγούμενη νομολογία). Παρατίθεται εκεί και το ακόλουθο απόσπασμα από το σύγγραμμα Μ.Δ. Στασινόπουλος «Μαθήματα Διοικητικού Διοικητικού Δικαίου» 3η έκδοση, 1966, σελ. 246: 

«Στενή ερμηνεία επιβάλλεται αναμφιβόλως εις τας διατάξεις, αίτινες θεσπίζουν φορολογικάς απαλλαγάς ή εξαιρέσεις, διότι η φορολογική εξαίρεσις ή απαλλαγή, αποτελεί παρέκκλισιν από τον κανόνα της καθολικότητος του φόρου και άρα αι θεσπίζουσαι εξαιρέσεις ή απαλλαγάς διατάξεις είναι διατάξεις εξαιρετικαί, αι δε εξαιρετικής φύσεως διατάξεις, συμφώνως προς γενικούς ερμηνευτικούς κανόνας, δέον να ερμηνεύωνται στενώς̎.

Με γνώμονα τα πιο πάνω βρίσκω ότι η έρευνα στην οποία είχαν προβεί οι καθ’ων η αίτηση ήταν, υπό τις περιστάσεις, η δέουσα και αναλυτική η εξήγηση της συγκεκριμένης κατάληξης τους.

Δεν διαπιστώνεται οποιαδήποτε πλάνη, ώστε να δικαιολογείται επέμβαση του Δικαστηρίου, το οποίο, όπως νομολογιακά καθορίστηκε, δεν μπορεί να εξετάσει και να επέμβει στην ουσιαστική κρίση της διοίκησης – (βλ. Γεωργιάδης ν. Εφόρου Φόρου Εισοδήματος (2000) 3 Α.Α.Δ. 106). 

Με γνώμονα τα πιο πάνω η προσφυγή αποτυγχάνει και απορρίπτεται. Ποσό €1200 έξοδα επιδικάζονται υπέρ των καθ’ων η αίτηση και εναντίον των αιτητών.

Κ. ΠΑΜΠΑΛΛΗΣ,

Δ.

Source

Cyprus top 50 tax laggards

By George Psyllides

Fifty people and companies, including developers and football clubs, owe the state over €163 million in taxes it emerged on Monday, following the leak of a confidential finance ministry list submitted to parliament.

The list includes first division clubs, developers, hoteliers and other businesses that owe the state between €1.5 million and €14.7 million – the highest amount.

The state has filed lawsuits against most and has made collection arrangements with others. Restrictions have also been placed on immovable property.

Nicosia football clubs Omonia and APOEL owe around €7 million and €6 million respectively. AEL of Limassol and Anorthosis Famagusta owe €2.2 million and €3.1 million respectively. The list includes a second entry for Anorthosis, which owes €2.4 million. All the clubs have made arrangements with the state for repayment of the amounts.

The state has also filed a lawsuit against APOEL and restrictions have been placed on property.

Included in the list is NK Shacolas Group LTD, which owes €6.8 million, Miltiades Neophytou LTD, €5.7 million, Athienitis developers, €4.2 million, Giovani developers, €3.6 million, Venus Rock Estates, €2 million, Aristo developers, €1.8 million, Pafilia, €1.7 million, and Christophoros Karayiannas and Son Ltd, €1.5 million.

The list does not include amounts which have been appealed nor the names of individuals and companies who have gone bankrupt or are under administration.

It was submitted after Green party MP Giorgos Perdikis accused Finance Minister Harris Georgiades of providing cover to tax evaders.

Perdikis had asked for the names of the people and companies who owed the most to the tax department.

Georgiades said it was a matter of confidentiality, clearly stipulated in tax legislation.

“Fully respecting the right of every MP to exercise critic, I consider the references unfair and excessive, especially when restrictions arise from legal provisions that parliament has passed,” Georgiades said in a letter accompanying the list.

Confidentiality can be lifted for reasons of public interest, the minister said, but the tax commissioner decided no such reason existed in relation with the MP’s request.

However, the law also afforded the minister the power to have the final say and allows him to give the list to the house president, exclusively for parliamentary oversight reasons, with the proviso that it would be handled confidentially and its publication would be avoided so as not to hurt public trust.

Link to the list [Greek only] here: lista.pdf

1. R.X. Processing 14, 747,554
2. Mediterranean Holiday Res LTD 9, 750, 222
3. Omonia Football Club 7, 034, 885
4. N. K. Shacolas-Holdings LTD 6, 855, 827
5. APOEL Football club LTD 6, 151, 892
6. Firmworth Finance and Investments LTD 6, 088, 894
7. C.N.H. Ependysis Axias LTD 5, 888, 806
8. Miltiades Neophytou C. E. & Developers 5, 753, 877
9. Chacholis Developers LTD 5, 904, 677
10. K. Athienitis Con. Devel. Public Ltd 4, 217, 999
11. A.C.L.N. LTD 3, 994, 818
12. Tauler Consultants LTD 3, 939, 268
13. Giovani Developers LTD 3,650, 016
14. Renos Hadjioannou Farm LTD 3, 600, 533
15. Kofinou Abbatoir 3,196, 216
16. Anorthosis Football Club 3, 146, 394
17. Olveron Investments LTD 2, 876, 969
18. Suphire Securities and Fin. Serv. LTD 2, 587, 647
19. Michalis D. Zavos Investments LTD 2, 546, 936
20. C.T. Tobacco LTD 2, 505, 596
21. Kleanthis Savva Developers LTD 2, 457, 988
22. Anorthosis Ammochostos Football Club 2, 456,042
23. Paphos Mediterran Hotels LTD 2, 398, 537
24. Oikonomou Georgios 2, 386, 926
25. CYEMS CO LTD 2, 351, 329
26. Cyproperties Constructions LTD 2, 293, 585
27. AEL Football Club 2, 290, 948
28. Lagos Vaggelis 2, 230, 708
29. Makrides Zacharias 2, 222, 618
30. Marzen Holdings Company LTD 2, 217, 942
31. Sigma –Severis & Athienitis Secu. LTD 2, 182,032
32. Chacholis Development Operations LTD 2,177, 463
33. UNISYS World Trade Inc. 2, 152, 279
34. Zaquato LTD 2, 120, 367
35. Venus Rock Estates LTD 2, 068, 281
36. Global Value PLC 1, 937, 586
37. Transport Investments Holdings LTD 1, 929, 109
38 Omikron Bookmakers LTD 1, 928, 299
39. Panos Eliades LTD 1, 922, 292
40. A. & E. Transport LTD 1,910, 685
41. Aristo Developments 1, 835, 170
42. Starcloud Management LTD 1, 786, 978
43. Alexandros Demetriou & Sons LTD 1, 755, 027
44. Pafilia Property Developers LTD 1, 747, 434
45. W Investments LTD 1, 740, 771
46. M.K. Digital World (Cyprus) LTD 1, 735, 549
47. D. Zavos Group Land & BLDG Develop. 1, 609, 619
48. Gregoris Yiasemi & Sons Develop. LTD 1, 583, 283
49. Christoforos Karayiannas & Son LTD 1, 518, 283
50. Charalambou Filippos 1, 488, 784

Source: Cyprus Mail