North Cyprus Tourism Centre Ltd and Another, Regina (on the Application Of) v Transport for London: Admn 28 Jul 2005

The defendants had prevented the claimants from advertising their services in North Cyprus on their buses, and justified this saying that the Crown did not recognise the Turkish Republic of North Cyprus since it was the result of an unlawful occupation of the land, and that the advert would be likely to cause offence. The claimants said that this infringed their human rights.
Held: ‘the principle of state recognition or non-recognition is that the actions of the unrecognised state are not lawful, but, where the actions in question are or can be categorised as the lawful acts of a person recognised as existing in English law, they are justiciable by the court in the right of that person. They are not tainted by illegality because the unrecognised state can be associated with the actions.’ The ban could not be justified on the grounds of government advice against travel to the area since te FCO denied giving that opinion. As to human right ‘the decision restricted the first claimant’s freedom of expression by denying it a vital medium for its advertisements. The decision involves a ‘restriction’ regardless of the possibility that the first claimant could advertise elsewhere. It interfered with the freedom of the first claimant to contract with a willing counterparty. ‘ The decision was disproportionate in banning all advertisements for North Cyprus.
Newman J
[2005] EWHC 1698 (Admin), Times 24-Aug-2005
Greater London Act 1999 404, European Convention on Human Rights 10
England and Wales
CitedHesperides Hotels Ltd and Another v Aegean Turkish Holidays Ltd and Another CA 1978
An action was brought by the displaced owner of a hotel in Northern Cyprus taken over by the Turkish administration.
Held: The court declined to exercise an original jurisdiction in the northern part of Cyprus.
Lord Denning MR said that . .
CitedAksionairnoye Obschestvo A M Luther v James Sagor and Co CA 1921
A claim was made as to property seized by a decree of Russian revolutionaries later recognised as the government.
Held: A court is required to recognise a foreign state’s dealings with private proprietary rights within its jurisdiction. An . .
CitedStarred Veysi Dag (VD) (Nationality, Country of Habitual Residence, Trnc) Cyprus Cg IAT 14-Mar-2001
. .
CitedCity of Berne v Bank of England 1804
A state not recognised by the United Kingdom government has no standing in the English courts. . .
CitedCarl Zeiss Stiftung v Rayner and Keeler Ltd (No 2) HL 1966
An agency had to be proved in a search to identify an entity which the law recognised (a) existed and (b) was legally responsible for the acts in issue in the proceedings. The House was asked whether the fact that an issue had already been . .
CitedGur Corporation v Trust Bank of Africa 1987
Governmental acts of an unrecognised state cannot be recognised by an English court but ‘Common sense and justice may combine to require the qualification of these principles in certain respects.’ Discussing the Carl Zeiss case: ‘Carl Zeiss was . .
CitedWheeler v Leicester City Council 1985
The court considered whether it could enquire as to whether one reason for a decision of the respondent was that it could be used as a cloak to disguise an improper ulterior motive. . .
CitedWheeler v Leicester City Council 1985
The court considered whether it could enquire as to whether one reason for a decision of the respondent was that it could be used as a cloak to disguise an improper ulterior motive. . .
CitedRegina v Shayler HL 21-Mar-2002
The defendant had been a member of the security services. On becoming employed, and upon leaving, he had agreed to keep secret those matters disclosed to him. He had broken those agreements and was being prosecuted. He sought a decision that the . .
CitedCasado Coca v Spain ECHR 24-Feb-1994
The right to freedom of expression is not personal to the individual and is capable of being enjoyed by corporate legal persons, and commercial advertising, such as that of the claimants, is protected by Article 10(1). However, the control of . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for The Home Department Ex Parte Simms HL 8-Jul-1999
Ban on Prisoners talking to Journalists unlawful
The two prisoners, serving life sentences for murder, had had their appeals rejected. They continued to protest innocence, and sought to bring their campaigns to public attention through the press, having oral interviews with journalists without . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 September 2021; Ref: scu.229739