What Does it take to get arrested for 'trespassing' on your own land?
​
INSIGHT
by
Elvan Levent
September 20, 2025
On the afternoon of July 19, 2025, two women and three men, five Greek Cypriots - all in their 60s— crossed by car from the British base of Dhekelia into the north part of Cyprus via the Strovilia crossing point. Nobody has stopped them or asked any additional questions during the usual passport control procedure at the crossing point. Later that day, after visiting a holiday resort property in Trikomo area, they were stopped and arrested by the Turkish Cypriot police and charged with three offenses: 'Trespassing', 'Violation of Personal Data Protection Law', and 'Disturbing the Peace'. After two days, on July 21, a fourth charge was added: illegal entry into the North Cyprus: The prosecution claimed that one of the five failed to show his identity card and therefore had committed the crime of 'Violating a First -Degree Military Restricted Area', and the other four allegedly facilitated that illegal entry.
The story of five elderly people who essentially became ‘hostages’ of a system that traded away their own land on an island some call ‘a crossroads of civilizations’ and others ‘the jewel of the Mediterranean,’ is the story of a legitimised terror that has become a defining feature of autocratic regimes worldwide.
For those who have never heard of the Cyprus problem, it should be noted that the island has remained divided by the “Green Line,” which passes through the capital, Nicosia, since Turkey’s military invasion in 1974, following a short-lived coup backed by Greece. Although Turkish Cypriots are co-founding partners of the Republic of Cyprus, they declared the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) in 1983, which is recognized only by Turkey. After the opening of crossing points along the dividing line in 2003 and the unsuccessful Annan Plan referendum in 2004 (approved by 65% of Turkish Cypriots but rejected by 76% of Greek Cypriots), the Republic of Cyprus joined the European Union later that same year.
The fact that two of the five arrested Greek Cypriots are the rightful owners of the land—prior to 1974—on which they are now accused of 'Trespassing' has immediately changed the nature of this case, exposing the absurdity of a system that has trapped both Turkish and Greek Cypriots under a ceasefire persisting in Cyprus for fifty-one years.
Property remains one of the most sensitive and significant issues in the Cyprus Problem
​
Around 65% of Greek Cypriots and 45% of Turkish Cypriots have been displaced in 1974 leaving behind their properties, both houses and business. In 2005 The Immovable Property Commission was set up in the north Cyprus in order to create an effective domestic mechanism for addressing claims concerning abandoned properties in north Cyprus.
Immediately after the arrest of five Greek Cypriots in the north, some circles interpreted the move as retaliation for the Simon Aykut case. Aykut, an Israeli developer, was arrested last year by the authorities of the Republic of Cyprus and is still on trial over allegations that he sold Greek Cypriot properties in the north worth reportedly €43 million. It is important to note that Aykut’s name, in relation to this case, was first mentioned by a police officer during the opening hearing.
WHAT IS A CRIME?
The question of what constituted a ‘crime’ hung over the courtroom throughout the trial like a heavy balloon that had been inflated so much it was about to burst.
​
Offence â„–1 - “Violation of the Personal Data Protection Law”.
​
The fact that a file, which was specifically noted as being ‘blue’ in colour, was found in the possession of the arrested Greek Cypriots, containing a list of names of Greek Cypriot property owners in the north, was considered a violation of the Personal Data Protection Law. During the trial, it became clear that there was no clear answer to the question of whether the mere possession of such information constituted a criminal offence. While the hearings continued on this charge, two land registry officials working at the TRNC Land Registry Office were also arrested, but they were released on bail pending trial.
During the hearings at the High Court, one of the judges on the panel asked the prosecutor whether the information in the files accompanying the defendants related to their own property. Upon receiving an affirmative answer, the judge expressed surprise, stating that this was the first time they had heard this Despite the fact that the hearings have been already going on for weeks.
It should be noted that the charge of violating the law in question took a rather interesting turn during the trial when the defence lawyer questioned the investigating police officer and received certain answers. Namely, the police claimed that the information in the “blue file” constituted “personal data” and that this information had been collected by the defendants to file a lawsuit in the south, but when asked if they had any evidence to support this claim, they stated that they did not.
Offence â„–2 - “Trespassing”.
​
The entrance of five Greek Cypriots into a 79-house holiday resort—built on land that belonged to them in 1974, before the division of the island—and their walk around the property was considered “trespassing,” even though there were no signs prohibiting entry.
​
The question of how entering land for which one holds the title deed could be considered
“trespassing” remained unanswered throughout the court proceedings.
Similarly, the fact that these properties were seized from their Greek Cypriot owners at gunpoint and sold illegally, taking advantage of the island's divided status, was never addressed in court.
Offence â„–3 - “General Disturbance”.
The “General Disturbance” charge arose after five Greek Cypriots were reportedly seen wandering near the holiday site. Yet, the police officers’ testimony in court about how they were notified and who filed the complaints left many questioning the case.
The police initially stated that the residents of the site had called the police to complain, but in subsequent hearings, they claimed that the complaints had been made by the owners of the construction companies involved in the site. (One of the complainants stated that they had withdrawn their complaint while the cases were ongoing. However, it also emerged that those who filed the complaint had never seen the five Cypriot Greeks they were complaining about, adding to the list of unanswered questions: how could someone be accused of causing “disturbance” to someone they had never seen?
Offence â„–4 - ‘Violation of a First-Degree Military Restricted Area’.
​
In his statement to the court, the police officer stated that three days after the arrest, on 21 July, the last recorded date of passage to the north for one of those arrested was 9 July, meaning that there was no record of passage on 19 July, the day of the arrest.
The police officer who carried out the immigration procedures also stated in his testimony that he was given four identity cards, not five, and therefore processed the case based on four identity cards. Subsequently, G.G., who was alleged to have crossed the border without showing any identity documents, was charged with “Violation of a First Degree Military Restricted Area”, and the other four Greek Cypriots were charged with aiding him and were brought before the Military Court in Nicosia on 1 August.
Throughout the court proceedings, the Greek Cypriots claimed that they had presented five identity cards during the crossing, while the immigration police insisted that it was impossible for them to have made a mistake, emphasising the impossibility of an error. This inevitably reinforced perceptions of the weakness of the case against them. Another noteworthy aspect of this allegation is that it emerged that the eight cameras at the border control point where the five Greek Cypriots crossed were not working on the day of the incident. Authorities who testified on the matter during the court proceedings stated that the cameras were not working because their cables had been severed due to excavation work carried out by the local municipality, and that this situation had been ongoing for several months. This raised multiple questions regarding the security of a location classified as a first-degree military restricted area.
WHY IS THIS A POLITICAL CASE
Perhaps the first serious finding indicating that this case is political was the sale of property belonging to Greek Cypriots in the north, which remained a hot topic following the arrest of Simon Aykut in the south in 2024, after five Greek Cypriots were arrested in the north.
Despite the lack of any tangible evidence in the grounds for the arrest and subsequent request for trial in custody, the defendants were held in custody for nearly two months... The rejection of voluntary sureties' requests to act as guarantors on the grounds that they did not have sufficient ties to the defendants... The initial detention period was set at three months, and the prosecution requested this period to prepare the case file...
Despite the fact that the couple's daughter had rented a house in the north so they could remain there during the trial period and had submitted the rental agreement to the court, the prosecutor insisted on the trial proceeding with the defendants in custody...
All this, together with the fact that the allegations made during the questioning of the witnesses heard at the hearings were unfounded, indicates that the case is a political one.
WHAT DID THEY SAY?
Pınar Barut
Özgür Gazete
Editor-in- Chief
The observations shared by Pınar Barut, Editor-in-Chief of Özgür Gazete, who followed the trial from start to finish, on her social media account, conveying her personal views on the case, are quite noteworthy.
​
I consider this case to be very important, both from a legal perspective and in terms of what we may encounter in seemingly simple situations.
In this case, we learn that there is tremendous congestion at border crossings related to border security, but that there are no civil service officers or police teams capable of handling this congestion. Therefore, we also learned from the defence presented in court by both the civil service officers and the police that none of the vehicles passing through the border gates in general are required to be searched unless there is any suspicion.
The civil service officer testifying in court says it is not his responsibility. His superior comes out and says it is not our responsibility. His superior also comes out and says it is not my responsibility. Consequently, the question of who is responsible for the security of land border crossings was discussed for weeks in court.
The practice regarding buses and “vito” model vehicles with completely blacked-out windows is particularly thought-provoking; it emerged that, regardless of the number of people in these vehicles, the procedure was carried out based on the identity documents presented by the driver to the police.
Every day in court, we see illegal workers being tried. We know that workers are brought to the north for large sums of money and then smuggled to the south. It was said that these workers were smuggled through fences and holes, but we understood from what we heard during the court proceedings that this was not necessary. They can be transported quite comfortably inside a tourist bus.
So, in this case, are those responsible for border security not at all accountable for this situation?
No, they say, it is the tour operator's responsibility. So, if a murderer or a wanted person is among the people smuggled north on these buses, the tour operator will be arrested, the driver will be arrested, but no one else will be held responsible. In other words, the police and the army have completely tied border security to accurate declarations and are acting on the assumption that these declarations are accurate. Even if the declaration turns out to be false, they say they are not at fault. I don't know of any other country where such a thing happens.
The statements made by the investigating officer at the hearing in Trikomo were so personal that even the court had to issue a warning: They were gathering information to file a lawsuit against us, they did the same to Simon Aykut, our construction sector is in trouble, our businesspeople cannot cross into the south, everyone is afraid – these were completely personal and even hateful comments that could be described as inflammatory. Moreover, these statements had no connection to the case.
Here, we are also witnessing how the judiciary, which we pride ourselves on for its independence, is being politicised in some ways. This is being done by the police, and the prosecution is prolonging the process.
Andreas Paraschos Journalist
What is illegal in the case of the five arrested Greek Cypriots in the north? The illegality lies in the fact that their houses were taken, and now those who took their houses claim to be the rightful owners. At the core of the issue, neither Tatar nor Christodoulides truly seeks a solution—because resolving this case ultimately means addressing the Cyprus problem itself.
Take, for example, the arrested couple who own the land on which 79 houses were built. If there is to be a solution, they must be compensated. Otherwise, their land must be returned to them. But what would that mean? It
would mean that the 79 families living in those houses would either have to leave or be compensated themselves. And then the question arises: by whom? Who built the 79 houses? The answer is complex, very complicated. But what becomes clear now is that the biggest business in Cyprus over the past 50 years has been the status quo. And it is a business controlled by the leading elites—those who benefit from maintaining it.
They don’t want a solution, because they profit enormously from the status quo. Why? Because all the Turkish Cypriot properties in the south were exploited by the followers of Spyros Kyprianou, who distributed them, or by Glafcos Clerides and other leaders who held power. The same happened in the north: DenktaÅŸ made his own arrangements, granting properties to friends and allies. These distributions were not legal, and today Greek Cypriot properties are exploited in the north just as Turkish Cypriot properties are exploited in the south.
The wealth generated from this exploitation does not go to the rightful owners—it flows to the friends of the ruling elites. And the tragedy is that, as Cypriots, we do not realize we are living in a kind of limbo, walking on thin air, with no one guaranteeing us a peaceful future.
IF you take these people and you convict them, you should arrest all the Greek Cypriots who have houses in the north in which Turkish Cypriots are living. Because the Greek Cypriots they go there and see their houses. What can they do? Sell it?​
Sude DoÄŸan
Founder and Activist of the Mixed Marriage Problem Solution Movement
Regarding the arrest of five Greek Cyprios in the north of Cyprus on 19th of July and the resonance of this case in the south, I must first point out that the Immovable Property Commission (IPC) is not generally well-liked by lawyers in the Republic of Cyprus (the five Greek Cypriots had previously applied to the IPC in the north - Avfri-) In fact, some centrist or centre-right circles believe that the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in the south has stabbed the Republic of Cyprus in the back. This is because, according to many, the IPC legitimises Turkey's occupation of the north of Cyprus. Therefore, they demand that people reclaim their property instead of applying to the IPC.
​
​
​
​
​
​
The function of the IPC, as approved by the ECHR, is limited to the compensation of property. For this reason, the centre-right in particular does not want Greek Cypriots to apply to the IPC. I illustrate this with the following example: Imagine that, following Israel's occupation of Gaza, an institution such as the ECHR would say that they are establishing a IPC there, and if Gazans want to reclaim their property, they should go to the IPC in Israel and Israel will compensate them. This is equivalent to such a situation. Or the situation in Ukraine and Russia can be cited as an example in the same way; suppose that after Russia invades eastern Ukraine, it says, ‘I am establishing a IPC here and will purchase these Ukrainian territories by paying money...’ Such a thing would not happen anywhere else, and I think it would be somewhat absurd for it to happen in Cyprus.
Not all ECHR rulings are correct. This year, Kostas Mavrides, a Member of the European Parliament from DIKO, is bringing the ineffectiveness of the IPC to the Councils of Ministers. Because if the IPC is ineffective, the ECHR could close it down rather than consider it an internal remedy. The reason the ECHR accepted it as an internal remedy was because it was receiving too many applications from Greek Cypriots. They said they couldn't cope with so many applications and referred them to the IPC in the north, which they said they recognised, and completely got rid of them.
There is currently a wave in the south, initiated by Hristodulidis arresting Simon Aykut. In other words, they have started trying contractors in their own courts, claiming that the IPC is ineffective. I certainly do not think this is wrong; it is the right thing to do. These people's property has been under occupation for about fifty years. And according to Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, everyone has the right to access their property, and it must be so. And now that these people's cases in the IPC are being heard very slowly and therefore no longer constitute an internal solution, it is entirely normal for the trial process to begin in the south. I have said from the outset that the arrest of five Greek Cypriots in the north is completely unlawful; it is entirely a reprisal for the arrest of Simon Aykut.
​
​
These people's property has been under occupation for about fifty years. And according to Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, everyone has the right to access their property, and it must be so.
What is happening now?
Following the release of three witnesses to stand trial without detention at the Military Court on 10 September, the Trikomo District Court also decided on 12 September that the other two witnesses would stand trial without detention.
​
The prosecutor, who had previously stated that he would call twenty witnesses and that this number could even increase if necessary, caused surprise when he unexpectedly announced on 18 July that he would not be calling any further witnesses during the ongoing trial at the Military Court.
​
The course of this case has changed significantly over the two-month period since it began. However, the case is not yet over; it is ongoing, and there is no doubt that its outcome will be as controversial as the case itself and will leave a lasting mark on relations between the two communities.
​
------------------------------------------
​
Update: 11 November, 2025
​
-
All five of the 5 arrested Greek Cypriots have been released on bail from the civilian court in Trikomo, after the northern supreme court ruled that the initial remand orders were illegal.
-
A military court in the north ruled that the five, who were arrested in July for alleged illegal entry into a “first-degree military prohibited zone”, were acquitted of all the military-zone charges.
-
Three of the five are now free and no longer face military-court charges; the other two remain on bail but in relation to a separate civilian court case (not the military one).
-
It’s important to note: The military case is resolved, but the civilian court proceedings (in the area of Trikomo / Iskele) continue for the arrested couple.
​
---------------------------------------------------------
​
sources:
Özgür Gazete, Cyprus Mail, Politis
​​​​​​​​​​​​