Two Hungarian nationals were on Friday handed jail sentences for having usurped Greek Cypriot property in the north.

One of the two women was sentenced to two and a half years in prison, while the other was sentenced to 15 months. The pair had both pled guilty to a series of charges last month.

The first defendant, a retired beautician, had admitted to 21 of the 63 charges she had faced for promoting and advertising the sale of houses near Kyrenia, while the other, a hairdresser, had pled guilty to six of the same 63 charges.

After their guilty pleas, prosecution was suspended regarding the remaining charges.

The pair are the first to have admitted guilt in cases related to the usurpation of Greek Cypriot property in the north.

At previous hearings, it had been heard that they had advertised via their social media accounts the sale of housing complexes constructed near the villages of Kalogrea and Ayios Amvrosios, which are located in the east of the Kyrenia district.

The complexes had been constructed without the consent of the land’s original Greek Cypriot owners.

The court’s decision on Friday was unanimous, and its justification focused on what was described as the “seriousness” of the offences, pointing out that while the pair are “not ranked at the top of the pyramid of usurpers”, they constituted an “important link in the chain of illegal action”.

It also referred to the “political aspect” of the issue, stressing “the need for the courts to stand as an aid to the state in order for it to end the usurpation of Greek Cypriot properties in the occupied territories”.

The decision also stated that the pair “knew or should have known that they did not have the consent of the owners” of the land to sell the properties which had been built there.

It was stated that the first defendant has lived in Cyprus for 16 years, and that she had maintained a website on which she advertised properties in Ayios Amvrosios and Kalogrea, as well as in nearby Akanthou.

“None of the owners of the plots had given consent for the construction and the advertising of the residential units, while the Republic of Cyprus itself was also the owner of some of the plots,” the decision stated.

It added that a folder containing brochures for tourist complexes was found in possession of the defendant, while a document entitled “marketing and agency agreement” was found on her mobile phone.

This document concerns her agreement with a property company based in the north to receive a 20 per cent broker’s commission for the sale of real estate in the north.

Other documents produced by the company were also found among her property, including some reservation agreements on which she had signed her own name as an “agent”.

The second defendant has been living in Cyprus for 15 years and promoted via her social media accounts properties in the north being advertised by the same property company with which the first defendant was working.

Regarding the second defendant, a “marketing and agency agreement” dating from 2024 was found among her property, with that agreement having been signed with the same company and allowing the defendant the right to a five per cent broker’s commission for the sale of real estate in the north.

The defendant admitted that she had been collaborating with a Turkish Cypriot director of the company for three years and said that when people expressed an interest in buying a property she had advertised, she would then refer them to the north.

She had maintained throughout that she did not know that the sale of Greek Cypriot-owned property in the north was illegal, saying she had been of the belief that Greece, Turkey, and Cyprus had all signed a contract to ensure the original owners of all property on the island had been duly compensated.

“If I had known it was illegal, I would not have advertised it on the internet,” she is quoted as having said.

The court stated that the offences of which both defendants were found guilty are “very serious”, and that the seriousness of the offences “lies in the intent to deceive others for one’s own purposes”.

It added that the penalties handed down to the pair “must be a deterrent in nature”, while also speaking of a “rise in offences of such a nature”, before re-delving into the political element of the cases.

“Since 1974, since the Turkish invasion, a large part of the territory of the Republic of Cyprus has been occupied by Turkey. As a result of this occupation, the Republic of Cyprus cannot exercise effective control over all its territory. This, however, does not invalidate its sovereign rights over the entire country,” the court said.

“Unfortunately, as the facts show, the inability of the Republic of Cyprus to exercise effective control enables other persons, with the blessings of the occupying power, to usurp property belonging to displaced Cypriots, without their consent, with the aim of obtaining benefits. The exploitation of the property of displaced persons is unacceptable and reprehensible.”

It then spoke of the “risk of creating further legal faits accomplish for the property rights of the displaced” if action is not taken against the sale of such property in the north, adding that “the phenomenon has taken on worrying proportions in recent years”.

“The courts must assist the state in stopping such procedures so as to protect the property of displaced persons,” the court stated.

It did note that both defendants “showed remorse” and “saved judicial time” by pleading guilty and thus warranted a “corresponding reduction” in their sentences.

“Regret is also shown by the cooperation of the first defendant with the police authorities, as she admitted to the offences, naming a Turkish Cypriot as the director of the company and declaring her willingness to testify against him,” the court stated.

It then added that both defendants have exhibited “good conduct” while detained at the central prison, and that both have clean criminal records.

In addition, it said, both defendants are “mature individuals who have resided in Cyprus for several years and are at the hands of the judiciary for the first time”.

However, it said, “their maturity and the fact they have been in Cyprus for many years are elements which should have … caused them to refrain from the acts for which they were convicted”.

The court also rejected the position of the second defendant’s lawyer that as a non-Cypriot, “she had a reduced perception of the occupation of the Republic of Cyprus”, and said it found “strange” references made by the lawyer to “legal transfers of property in the land registry” kept by the Turkish Cypriot authorities.