Case No. CO-2850-2005
Administrative Court

Case No. CO-2850-2005

Fecha: 28-Jul-2005

Content and meaning of the advertisement

31.It is not the content of the advertisement which has given rise to complaint, but the content of the website accessible at the address appearing on the advertisement. On the title page the following words appear, as a greeting:“UK Representative office of the North Cyprus Tourism Ministry.” At the bottom of the page, a statement:“This site is provided FREE by ‘icCyprus’ to the UK Representative Office of the Ministry of Tourism of TRNC”.The greater part of the site is devoted to listing travel agents who promote holidays in North Cyprus. The second claimant is included in the list.32.Mr Allen submitted:“Nothing could be more obvious than that the advertising of a website which is the “official” website of the illegal and purported TRNC would cause grave offence and fall to be scrutinised under the defendant’s policy” (Skeleton Argument, paragraph 86).At paragraph 43 of the same Skeleton Argument he submitted:“The central point about which all else revolves is the illegality of TRNC”.So expressed, the argument depends not upon the content or meaning of the words on the website, but upon the fact that TRNC, being a state unrecognised in international law, operated a website promoting tourism in North Cyprus, to which the advertisement referred. In oral argument, Mr Allen, put it somewhat differently. He submitted that, by referring to a “Ministry of Tourism”, TRNC was impliedly representing that it was a recognised state and that the statements including the word “Ministry” should be regarded as misrepresentations, amounting to an unjustified and misleading assertion of legality. Although the second decision letter does not supply this reason for the contentions that, “TRNC claims to exercise sovereignty over Northern Cyprus” and claims “.. to exercise sovereign power in relation to tourism in the north”, it is likely this argument forms the basis upon which those points were advanced.33.I am bound to say that these arguments appear to me to be far-fetched and misconceived. They seek to derive too much from the legal consequences of non-state recognition. International law leaves it to each state, according to its own domestic procedure, to determine the legality and existence of other states. Political entities can be regarded as being states by some states, but not by others. For example, Turkey recognises TRNC as a state. Further, non-recognition of a state in international law does not prevent a de facto administration being in existence. TRNC is the de facto administration in North Cyprus. For many years it has been the practice of HMG to recognise states, not governments or administrations. I am unable to accept that the use of the word “Ministry” amounts to an assertion by TRNC that it has received recognition by the HMG as a state and that it exercises sovereign power in relation to tourism in the north. The use of the word “Ministry” implies no more than that the administration in North Cyprus, which does exist, participates in promoting tourism by an arm of the administration called a Ministry. As a result, I accept that the website represents that TRNC, through a Ministry, exercises a measure of governmental control over tourism in the north. As a matter of fact, it does exercise such control; this is not a misrepresentation. Nor does the representation give rise to any implied assertion that its actions over the territory have been internationally recognised as the actions of the government of the state having lawful sovereignty over the territory. Further, I would pause before concluding that when a state participates in tourism, it necessarily exercises sovereign power, as opposed to engaging in commercial activity. I cannot accept that a prospective holidaymaker would read the website and understand it to have stated that TRNC has been recognised by HMG as a state having sovereign power over North Cyprus.34.I have concluded that if consideration is restricted to the advertisement itself, the relevant facts available to form the basis for the ban must be considered as limited to the combined effect of the subject matter, namely tourism in North Cyprus and the involvement of TRNC in the advertising campaign, either as the advertiser or as the promoter of the campaign or as the owner of the website to which the advertisement referred.