Cyprus Family Law: Spouse's claim for contribution in post-marital acquisitions

by Giorgos Kazoleas, Lawyer qualified in Cyprus & Greece

The regulation of property issues between spouses after divorce or separation is one of the main problems and is most commonly related with the issue of the contribution of one spouse to the increase in the other’s property.

According to Cypriot Family Law, in the event that the marriage is dissolved or annulled, or in the event of separation of the spouses, in case the property of one spouse has increased, the other spouse, if he/she contributed in any way to this increase, is entitled to bring an action before the Court and demand the return of the part of the increase that comes from his/her own contribution.[1]

The contribution of one spouse to the increase in the property of the other is presumed to amount to one third of the increase, unless a greater or lesser contribution is proven.[2]

“Contribution” means any form of contribution by the spouses to the acquisition or creation of property and includes the care of the family home and family members.[3]

Important in this regard is the definition of the concept of property. According to the interpretation given by the relevant law, “property” means movable and immovable property acquired before marriage with the prospect of marriage or at any time after marriage by either spouse.[4]

In the increase in the property of the spouses, it is not taken into account what they acquired:

(a) By donation, inheritance, bequest or other gratuitous cause

(b) By disposal of property acquired for the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a) above.[5]

Based on the above, when one of the spouses has acquired a property, whether a plot of land or a house, by donation or inheritance, this asset cannot be counted as an increase in the property so that it can be claimed by the other spouse.

Also, if the spouse inherited, for example, a property and then sold it and with this money acquired a new property, it is still not counted as an increase, as it is considered as a disposal of property acquired by inheritance. However, if the same property was subsequently renovated during the marriage and an additional amount of money was spent by the spouses, resulting in an increase in the purchase value of the property, then there is an increase in the property in terms of upgrading its price.

On this specific issue, the case law of the Cypriot Courts has ruled that the first thing that must be verified is the increase in the spouse's property in order to determine the subject of the possible distribution. Property donated to a spouse as well as the product of its disposal are excluded from the distribution and do not count as an increase. The second issue examined is whether the other spouse contributed to the increase, directly or indirectly, and the third, the determination of the amount of the contribution. If the testimony is not conclusive, as to the extent of the contribution, the presumption created by article 14(2) of the above law, namely 1/3, applies.[6]

It is noted that the claim is time-barred two (2) years after the dissolution or annulment of the marriage.

Read more articles by Giorgos Kazoleas here

_______________

[1] Article 14, paragraph 1 of the Matrimonial Property Relations Law of 1991 (232/1991)

[2] Article 14, paragraph 2 of the above Law.

[3] Article 2 of the above Law.

[4] Article 2 of the above Law.

[5] Article 14, paragraph 3 of the above Law.

[6] Orphanides v. Orphanides (1998) 1 A.A.D. 179. (published on cylaw.org)

(photo:freepik.com)

Comments

Post a Comment

Editorial

Editorial
George Kazoleas, Lawyer

Top Stories

Ombudsman inquiry on Commission President’s text messages is a wake-up call for EU

Image
The European Ombudsman inquiry into the Commission’s handling of a request for text messages between its President and the CEO of a pharmaceutical company is a wake-up call for all EU institutions about ensuring accountability in an era of instant messaging. One year after the initial request by a journalist, the Commission has still not clarified whether messages reported to concern major vaccine procurement deals exist and whether the public is entitled to see them. The Ombudsman had asked the Commission, in a finding of maladministration in January, to conduct a more thorough search for the text messages. The Commission’s recent response failed to say whether it had looked directly and correctly for the text messages and if not, why not. While the response recognised that work-related text messages can be EU documents, it reiterated that the Commission’s internal policy is, in effect, not to register text messages. The Ombudsman has closed  the inquiry  and upheld...
Read more

Intellectual property: the figurative sign consisting of the phrase ‘RUSSIAN WARSHIP, GO F* *K yourself’ in Russian and English cannot be registered as an EU trade mark

Image
In its Judgment in Case T-82/24 (Administration of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine v EUIPO) (RUSSIAN WARSHIP, GO F**K YOURSELF) the General Court ruled that the figurative sign consisting of the phrase ‘RUSSIAN WARSHIP, GO F* *K yourself’ in Russian and English cannot be registered as an EU trade mark. That phrase, which has become a symbol of Ukraine’s fight against Russian aggression, is not perceived as an indication of a commercial origin.  The Administration of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine (Kyiv, Ukraine) requests the General Court of the European Union to annul the decision of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 1 st December 2023, which refused registration of the following figurative sign as an EU trade mark: ‘RUSSIAN WARSHIP, GO F* *K yourself’ That mark is a war cry uttered by the Ukrainian border guard on Snake Island on 24th February 2022, the first day of the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine. Registration was sou...
Read more

ECtHR elects a new Vice-President of the Court and two new Section Presidents

Image
The European Court of Human Rights has elected on 23.9.2024 a new Vice-President of the Court – Judge Ivana Jelić (elected in respect of Montenegro). She will take up her duties on 1 November 2024.  The Court has also elected at the same date two new Section Presidents – Judges Lado Chanturia (elected in respect of Georgia) and Ioannis Ktistakis (elected in respect of Greece). They will also take up their duties on 1 November 2024. Ivana Jelić was born on 17 March 1975 in Podgorica, Montenegro and was elected Judge of the European Court of Human Rights on 12 July 2018. Lado Chanturia was born on 14 April 1963 in Tsalenjikha, Georgia, was elected Judge of the European Court of Human Rights on 8 January 2018 and is Vice-President of Section since 18 May 2023. Ioannis Ktistakis was born on 3 January 1971 in Thebes, Greece and was elected Judge of the European Court of Human Rights on 8 March 2021. (source/photo: echr.coe.int) Read more here
Read more

Prohibiting contact between children and their mother in custody and contact rights case was unjustified (ECtHR)

Image
The case of X and Others v. Slovenia (application nos. 27746/22 and 28291/22) concerned custody decisions and contact rights following the separation of X from her children’s father in 2018. It also concerned the reassignment of X’s court case to a particular judge.  In Chamber's judgment in the case, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, as regards X’s right to a tribunal established by law, and violations of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) with respect both to:  - the applicant children, as regards the order to remove them from X’s (their mother’s) care in March 2020, their not being represented in the contact and custody proceedings, and their not being allowed contact with their mother;  - X, for not being allowed contact with her children.  The Court found in particular that the President of the District Co...
Read more

European Data Protection Board clarifies rules for data sharing with third country authorities and approves EU Data Protection Seal certification

Image
During its latest plenary, the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) published  guidelines on Art.48 GDPR  about data transfers to third country authorities and  approved a new European Data Protection Seal. Αs stated in a press release from the EDPB, in a highly interconnected world, organisations receive requests from public authorities in other countries to share personal data. The sharing of data can, for instance, be of help to collect evidence in the case of crime, to check financial transactions or approve new medications. When a European organisation receives a request for a transfer of data from a ‘third country’ (i.e. non-European countries) authority, it must comply with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). In its guidelines, the EDPB zooms in on Art. 48 GDPR and clarifies how organisations can best assess under which conditions they can lawfully respond to such requests. In this way, the guidelines help organisations to make a decision on whether...
Read more

European Ombudsman asks Commission to publish details of its handling of senior staff move to law firm

Image
The European Ombudsman has asked the European Commission to publish details about how it has handled the planned move by a former director in its competition department to the Brussels office of a US corporate law firm as a partner. Any restrictions that have been placed on the activities of the former director to mitigate potential conflicts of interest should be made public without delay, said the Ombudsman. She noted that public information about the move came from the law firm and gives the impression that the Commission has allowed a senior official to work for a company that anticipates major benefits from their inside knowledge.  The Ombudsman also noted that the Commission declined to give details about the individual’s professional experience despite the fact that the law firm itself has put out a press release detailing it. The Ombudsman has previously criticised a tendency in the EU administration to underestimate the potential negative effects of staff moves to th...
Read more

Insufficient safeguards in national law to protect data in seized lawyer’s mobile phone (ECtHR)

Image
In its committee judgment in the case of Nezirić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (application no. 4088/21) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence) of the European Convention on Human Rights.  The case concerned the seizure and examination of a lawyer’s mobile phone in the context of a criminal investigation against him. The Court was particularly concerned about the practical framework for the protection of legal professional privilege in cases such as this. Mr Nezirić’s phone was seized in his office and its entire contents copied, transferred and examined elsewhere, without either Mr Nezirić or a member of the Bar Association present. The data retrieved had subsequently been sifted through, but without any judicial supervision. Moreover, the entire copied contents of the phone had ultimately been submitted as evidence at trial, and not the sifted data. Principal facts  The applicant, S...
Read more