Greek justice
Sir: I was distressed to read that the `abysmal' Taki (so described by G. E. Beswick, Letters, 30 April) had espoused the cause of the 1,500 or so desperately worried British and other EEC owners of Greek property in frontier areas. However, G. E. Beswick's letter was full of biased half-truths and I regret that you have printed such inaccurate views. As someone who is suffering directly perhaps you will kindly let me set down the true facts of this disgraceful affair.
Before I retired from the Royal Air Force in 1971, my wife and 1 had grown to love the Greeks and their delightful country, during frequent holiday visits over some 20 years. When I retired we decided to consult one of the most respected Greek lawyers in Corfu about making our home there and he told us that the purchase of property by foreigners was perfectly legal, provided that the title was held by a Greek registered com pany, with my wi- fe and me as sole direc- tors. He explained that the reason for this was an obsolete decree of 1927 which was designed to prevent Yugoslays buying land on the Macedonian border. Reassured, we went ahead and bought our house, formed the company at considerable cost, had the transaction properly notarised by another Greek lawyer (the Public Notary) and subsequently paid our taxes to the Greek state. Guided by Greek lawyers, how could we British, brought up in the confidence of protection and justice from our own legal system, possibly go wrong? But now we have the Greek Supreme Court's ruling that the title to the property owned by Jacob Rothschild's company is
no longer valid. There is, of course, no dif- ference between this company and all the others which were formed for the same pur- pose. At worst we can now be dispossessed by the people we purchased our house from in precisely the same way as the Roths- childs. At best how can we possibly sell the house with the title in dispute?
Our property in Corfu is our only house; retired Royal Air Force officers can usually only afford to buy one house at a time. The result to us is, therefore, a total catas- trophe.
It follows that G. E. Beswick's claim that the Rothschild case has not created a precedent is pathetically ludicrous. It has been admitted by everyone concerned that it would be a guideline to any future court, higher or lower, and the difference between a guideline and a precedent is narrow. As for his quibble about how many islands are included — Corfu, Crete, Rhodes and Cephalonia are enough to be going on with!
Peter Drury Bird
Lambert's Cottage Henham, Hertfordshire
Previous page
