“The European courts as political actors in the Cyprus conflict” Paper for the 6 th International Workshop for Young Scholars Nikos Skoutaris  Abstract: The European courts have faced on several occasions questions arising from the Cyprus Gordian knot. The judgments inter alia of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Loizidou 1 and in Xenides-Arestis 2 , of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in the Anastasiou saga 3 and most recently of a UK court in Orams 4 , have significantly altered the background of that ancient political conflict. The thesis of the proposed paper is that although the courts have not refrained from becoming actors in this unique political situation by adopting for example a “political question” doctrine, their jurisprudence points to the limits of an “incremental solution” through the legal process and thus proves that in issues of grave political importance it is only a more democratic and deliberative procedure that could provide for a comprehensive solution. In order to achieve its scope the paper examines thoroughly the relevant case law on the protection of human rights in the Areas not under the effective control of the Republic of Cyprus and analyses the jurisprudence of the European courts on the issue of trade relations with the regime in the North. I Introduction The Cyprus conflict has been one of the most ancient political sagas in Europe. 2 ethnic segments, the 1960 bicommunal polity, the 1963 intercommunal armed conflict, a coup d’ etat against the elected Greek Cypriot president of the Republic orchestrated by the Greek colonels’ regime, the 1974 Turkey’s “peace operation”, a handful of rejected UN plans for comprehensive settlement are some of the elements of a fascinating political novel, whose end is neither yet known nor seems probable to be “happily ever after”. In this Gordian knot of international politics, apart from the two communities the three Guarantor States, namely Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom, international organisations like the United Nations, the Council of Europe, the European Union, international and national courts have also played an important but understated role in shaping the dynamics of the conflict. Decisions in the Loizidou case, the Xenides – Arestis case, the Anastasiou cases inter alia have altered the background of this  Ph.D. Researcher, European University Institute, Department of Law, Florence, Italy. This is a very rough draft. Please do not cite. 1 Case of Loizidou v. Turkey (Application no. 15318/89) (judgment 18 December 1996). 2 Case of Xenides-Arestis v. Turkey (Application No. 46347/99) (judgment 22 December 2005). 3 R. v. Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte S.P. Anastasiou (Pissouri) Ltd and Others (Anastasiou I) (Case C-432/92) [1994] ECR I-3116; R. v. Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte S.P. Anastasiou (Pissouri) Ltd and Others (Anastasiou II) (Case C-219/98) [2000] ECR I- 5241;R. v. Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte S.P. Anastasiou (Pissouri) Ltd and Others (Anastasiou III) (Case C-140/02) [2003] ECR I-10635. 4 Orams v. Apostolides [2006] EWHC 2226 (QB) (6 September 2006).