07.03.2022
The license expires and terminates upon the death of the licensee.
A license to use property only gives the licensee the right to use the property, but does not confer exclusive ownership. Republican or local authorities often conclude contracts with people for the use of property as housing or office space. The terms of the license govern the nature of the use and include prohibitions such as the licensee’s prohibition of use for any other purpose without prior authorization and not assignment, sublease or provision of the use to any other person.
Upon expiration of the license, the licensee is obliged to return the specified property with all improvements made or buildings erected on it, while the owner is not obliged to reimburse their cost. The license explicitly states that the licensee acknowledges that the owner’s act of allowing them and their family members to use the property does not in any way create an owner-tenant relationship or any rights of ownership or compensation.
In the first place, no remuneration is paid in the case of residence, since the purpose of granting a license is social. The resulting legal relationship does not constitute a lease, and the license may be revoked and terminated in the event of the death of the licensee. Republican or local governments may be faced with the refusal of the licensee’s family members to leave the property, citing the fact that they have the right to own it. The authorities must provide them with a new license.Any refusal by the authorities to grant their application on the basis of non-compliance with the relevant criteria gives the applicant the right to apply to an administrative court to verify the correctness of the decision, since the refusal is subject to public law.
The Supreme Court, by unanimous decision of February 15, considered such a claim, challenging the correctness of the decision of the court of first instance. The Republic, as the owner of the house in question, obtained a court order against the family member ordering them to cease illegal detention of the house, stop the intrusion, and transfer its property to the Republic. They argued that the Republic’s decision to move them out without first revoking their license was unlawful and violated their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their home. The position of the Republic was that they had no right to the house, and the right of license granted to the licensee ceased upon their death.
The plaintiff’s main argument that, on the basis of the license, he was also its beneficiary, was not accepted by any court. The Supreme Court held that the license was personal and existed between the Republic and the applicant’s father. The right of the other members of the family, who were named, to live in the house did not give them an independent right, but depended on the beneficiary.
It was also emphasized that the trial court had correctly noted that the Republic should issue a license to another family member upon death. The applicant applied to the competent authorities, but his application was rejected.As regards the argument that no notice of revocation of the license had been sent, the Supreme Court upheld the ruling that the license terminated upon the death of the licensee. Therefore, the Republic had no obligation to revoke it. It was clear from the content of the license that it was not transferable. The Supreme Court concluded that the trial court correctly held that the Republic had proved that the appellant had trespassed and dismissed the appeal.
George Coucunis is a lawyer practicing in Larnaca and founder of George Coucounis LLC, Advocates & Legal Consultants
