{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-001266",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "All capitalized terms not defined herein are used by reference to the various regulations and rules identified in this decision.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nThis complaint arises out of the interpretation and application of Commission Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004 of 28 April 2004 (“Regulation”) and the .eu Registration Policy and Terms and Conditions Domain Name Applications made during the phased registration period (“the Sunrise Rules”).\r\n\r\n\r\n1. The domain names \r\n\r\nGovernmental bodies of the Republic of Cyprus (“Applicant”) applied for the registration of the domain names “tourism-trnc.eu”, “trnc.eu”, “trnc-humanrights.eu”, “trncgov.eu”, “trnchumanrights.eu”, “trncinfo.eu”, “trncpio.eu”, “trncpresidency.eu”, “kktc.eu”, “northcyprus.eu”, “north-cyprus.eu”, “north-cyprus-constructions.eu”, “north-cyprus-properties.eu”, “north-cyprus-real-estate.eu”, “welcome-to-north-cyprus.eu”, “northerncyprus.eu”, “northern-cyprus.eu”, “northern-cyprus-constructions.eu”, “northern-cyprus-properties.eu”, “turkish-republic-of-northern-cyprus.eu” (“the Domain Names”) during Sunrise Period I pursuant to the Sunrise Rules and based its application on Documentary Evidence.\r\nThe Presidency of Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (“Complainant”) filed a Complaint concerning Eurid (“Respondent”) decisions by which Respondent allegedly accepted the applications by Applicant for the registration of the Domain Names.\r\n\r\n\r\n2. The ADR proceeding\r\n\r\nOn May 7, 2006, Complainant submitted a Complaint to the ADR Center.  \r\nOn May 22, 2006, the ADR Center requested verification information from Respondent and the Documentary Evidence in a Non Standard Communication. \r\nRespondent’s Non Standard Communication filed on May 29, 2006, provided the verification information requested.\r\nOn May 30, 2006 the ADR Center notified the Complainant of deficiencies in the Complaint giving Complainant seven days to correct such deficiencies.\r\nComplainant filed an amended complaint on June 2, 2006.  \r\nOn June 6, 2006, the ADR Center found that the Complaint as amended satisfied the formal requirements of the ADR Rules and ADR Supplemental Rules and that the ADR proceedings could commence.\r\nOn July 26, 2006 the ADR Center notified Respondent of Respondent’s default.\r\nOn July 27, 2006, Respondent filed a Non Standard Communication in lieu of response.\r\nOn August 13, 2006, Complainant filed a Non Standard Communication replying to the Respondent’s Non Standard Communication of July 27, 2006.\r\nOn August 9, 2006, Respondent provided the Documentary Evidence following requests made by Complainant and the ADR Center. On August 10, 2006,  Complainant requested that Respondent provide a translation of the Documentary Evidence as most of it was in the Greek language. Respondent answered this request on August 14, 2006, stating that it had no obligation to translate the Documentary Evidence. \r\nOn August 19, 2006, the Panel made a Non Standard Communication to the effect that, on the basis of the ADR Rules, Rule A(3)(d) and B(8) if a Party wished to rely on the Documentary Evidence or the Cypriot Government Validation Point rules, that Party should provide relevant translations by August 25, 2006.  The Panel further stated that August 30, 2006 would be the last date to submit arguments.\r\nNeither Party has submitted documents since then.  No translation has been submitted.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other pending or decided legal proceedings relating to the disputed domain names.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "1. INTRODUCTORY NOTE\r\n\r\nPublic bodies may apply for Domain Names based on Article 10(3) of the Regulation.  Article 10(3) of the Regulation enables public bodies to register domain names that are either:\r\n1\/ Their complete name;\r\n2\/ The acronym that is generally used to describe them; or\r\n3\/ The complete name of a geographic territory, or the name under which the territory is commonly known, and which they are responsible for governing.\r\n\r\nIn respect to public bodies applying for registration under Article 10(3) of the Regulation, the Sunrise Rules’ Chapters V and VI on the validation of prior rights process do not apply. However, the preceding chapters apply and Chapter IV, Section 8 (3) (iv) provides that the applicants are required to support their applications with relevant Documentary Evidence. \r\n\r\nIn this case the Applicants for the Domain Names are public bodies which are part of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus. This is not contested by the Complainant and is accepted by the Panel.\r\n\r\nThe Applicant has used a Government Validation Point to register the Domain Names in accordance with Article 13(2) of the Regulation.  The Government Validation Points are entities, designated by Member States, in charge of processing applications for Domain Names made under Article 10(3) of the Regulation.  As a result, although the final decision to register the Domain Names fell on Respondent, it is the Government Validation Point for the Republic of Cyprus that determined that the Documentary Evidence was sufficient to register the Domain Names.  Respondent’s role and function in these circumstances is purely that of processing the registration acceptances.  \r\n\r\nIn order for the Panel to make a decision it needs to verify that there is sufficient Documentary Evidence to support a finding that the Domain Names answer the conditions set by Article 10(3) of the Regulation\r\n\r\n\r\n2. THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO THE PANEL\r\n\r\n2.1 TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE \r\n\r\nUnder Section 16(3) of the Domain Names Registration Terms and Conditions, the language of any and all proceedings against Respondent shall be English.  Since these ADR Proceedings are in English all documents should be submitted in the English language.  The second sentence of Paragraph A3(c) of the ADR Rules states that the Panel may disregard documents submitted in languages other than the language of the ADR Proceeding without requesting their translation, leaving the admission of the document to the discretion of the Panel. \r\n\r\nMost of the Documentary Evidence is submitted in the Greek language.  \r\n\r\nComplainant and the ADR Center asked Respondent to translate the Documentary Evidence.  The Respondent refused to do so.  \r\n\r\nThe Panel requested that any Party who wished to rely on Documentary Evidence or other evidence should provide a translation of the relevant documents it was relying on.  No Party provided translations.  As a result the Panel has decided that it shall only take into account the part of the Documentary Evidence that is in the English language.\r\n\r\nThe Panel notes that the rules may be flawed in this respect as Respondent seems unwilling to defend a decision that “it” took.  Respondent is not acting like an interested party in these proceedings.  It knows that its refusal to translate the documentary evidence is likely to compel the panel to decide adversely against it.  Still it refuses to do so and appears unaffected by the risk of having “its” decisions annulled.  The reason for its refusal is that a cancellation of its decision is a loss only for the Applicant (fees, time and opportunity).  A change in the rules may be warranted to ensure that the Applicant is guaranteed fair treatment.\r\n\r\n\r\n2.2 RESPONDENT’S FAILURE TO RESPOND\r\n\r\nThe Respondent did not file its Response within the deadline of 30 working days as requested by the ADR Center pursuant to Article 22(8) of the Regulation and B3(a) of the ADR Rules. Pursuant to B3(f) of the ADR Rules, the ADR Center notified the Parties of Respondent’s default.   Respondent did not challenge the ADR Center’s notification of the Respondent’s default as provided for in B3(g) of the ADR Rules.   Respondent has not put forward any reasonable explanation for its belated response.  Respondent instead filed a Non Standard Communication in lieu of a response.  The Panel could have decided not to admit the contentions made therein pursuant to Article 22(10) of the Regulation and B3(g) and B7(d) of the ADR Rules.  However, in light of the Complainant’s subsequent Non Standard Communications, the Panel has decided to admit all communications from the parties as long as they are in the English language.\r\n\r\n\r\n2.3 THE EVIDENCE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY THE PANEL\r\n\r\nAs a result, the Panel has decided that it would use the following documents (“Evidence”) in deciding this case.  \r\nThe Complaint;\r\nThe Non Standard Communications made by both parties and relevant annexes if in the English language;\r\nThose documents that are part of the Documentary Evidence and that are provided in the English language.\r\n\r\n\r\n3. CANCELLATION OF THE DECISION IN RESPECT TO SOME NAMES (“ANNULLED DOMAIN NAMES”)\r\n\r\nArticle 10(3) states that for a public body to register domain names during the Sunrise Period such names should meet a number of conditions.\r\n\r\n\r\n3.1 Respondent accepted the registration of the names based on Article 10(3) of the Regulation:  \r\n\r\nTOURISM-TRNC \r\nTRNC \r\nTRNC-HUMANRIGHTS \r\nTRNCGOV \r\nTRNCHUMANRIGHTS \r\nTRNCINFO \r\nTRNCPIO \r\nTRNCPRESIDENCY \r\n KKTC \r\nTURKISH-REPUBLIC-OF-NORTHERN-CYPRUS\r\n\r\nThe Panel has considered the Evidence and considers that these names should not have been accepted by Respondent.  Respondent argues that Government Validation Points have broad powers to determine which names to accept for registration as domain names and that Respondent has little to no power to contest these decision and merely officialises the decision already taken by the Government Validation Point.  It further claims that because Government Validation Points are given broad powers and even the right to define rules that apply to them, its decision to confirm the validation of a GVP cannot be incorrect.  \r\n\r\nThe Panel cannot agree with this.  GVP have to comply with the Regulations and ADR Rules.  In particular and as argued by Complainant, they have to comply with the conditions set by Article 10(3) of the Regulation and the conditions that it imposes for registration of domain names by public bodies.  Further, the Documentary Evidence should be sufficient to demonstrate that such conditions have been met.  \r\n\r\nThe Panel agrees with Complainant that it is difficult to see how the Applicant could claim to comply with the Regulations in respect to these names.  The names do not correspond to a geographic territory, are not an acronym that is generally used by the Applicant and are not the complete names of the Applicant.  The Documentary Evidence presented by Applicant itself shows that it contests the very existence of the territories or bodies to which these names refer.  As a result the requested names cannot be considered as falling under Article 10(3) of the Regulation.  Based on the Evidence, on the Regulations and on the Rules, the Panel cancels the decisions to register the following Domain Names in the name of Applicant:\r\n\r\nTOURISM-TRNC.EU\r\nTRNC.EU\r\nTRNC-HUMANRIGHTS.EU \r\nTRNCGOV.EU\r\nTRNCHUMANRIGHTS.EU\r\nTRNCINFO.EU\r\nTRNCPIO.EU\r\nTRNCPRESIDENCY.EU\r\nKKTC.EU\r\nTURKISH-REPUBLIC-OF-NORTHERN-CYPRUS.EU\r\n\r\n\r\n3.2 Respondent accepted the registration of the following names based on Article 10(3) of the Regulation:  \r\n\r\nNORTH-CYPRUS-PROPERTIES \r\nNORTH-CYPRUS-REAL-ESTATE \r\nNORTHERN-CYPRUS-PROPERTIES \r\nWELCOME-TO-NORTH-CYPRUS \r\n\r\nFor the reasons stated above, the Panel has considered the Evidence and considers that these names should not have been accepted by Respondent.  The conditions defined under Article 10(3) of the Regulation have not been met.  The names do not strictly speaking correspond to a geographic territory but rather to activities that relate to a geographic territory.  They are not an acronym that is generally used by the Applicant and are not the complete names of the Applicant.  As a result the requested names cannot be considered as falling under Article 10(3) of the Regulation.  \r\n\r\nBased on the Evidence, on the Regulations and on the Rules, the Panel cancels the decisions to register the following Domain Names in the name of Applicant:\r\n\r\nNORTH-CYPRUS-PROPERTIES.EU \r\nNORTH-CYPRUS-REAL-ESTATE.EU\r\nNORTHERN-CYPRUS-PROPERTIES.EU\r\nWELCOME-TO-NORTH-CYPRUS.EU\r\n\r\n\r\n4. NON CANCELLATION OF THE DECISIONS IN RESPECT TO NAMES THAT HAVE BEEN REFUSED BY RESPONDENT FOR LACK OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE\r\n\r\n\r\n4.1 Respondent refused the registration of the names:\r\n\r\nNORTH-CYPRUS-CONSTRUCTIONS.EU\r\nNORTHERN-CYPRUS-CONSTRUCTIONS.EU\r\n\r\nThe Respondent has refused to approve the above names based on the Applicant’s failure to timely submit the relevant Documentary Evidence in support of its applications for those names.  Thus, Respondent did not accept registration of these names based on the Sunrise Rules.  The Panel agrees with the Respondent’s decision in this respect.  Complainant itself agrees to this in its May 22, submissions.  The Panel decides that the names were validly rejected by Respondent during the Sunrise Period.\r\n\r\n\r\n4.2 NON CANCELLATION OF THE DECISION IN RESPECT TO NAMES (“CONFIRMED NAMES”)\r\n\r\nRespondent accepted the registration of the following names based on Article 10(3) of the Regulation:  \r\n\r\nNORTHCYPRUS \r\nNORTH-CYPRUS \r\nNORTHERNCYPRUS \r\nNORTHERN-CYPRUS \r\n\r\nBased on the Evidence, it does not appear that these names are acronyms generally used by the Applicant.  Nor are they the complete names of the Applicant.  However, each name does appear to correspond to a geographic territory.  Names that correspond to a geographic territory, under which such territory is commonly known, may be registered if Applicant is responsible for governing the geographic territory to which the names refer.  It is not contested by Complainant that these names represent a geographic territory, under which such territory is commonly known.  What is contested by Complainant however is that the Applicant is responsible for governing such territory.\r\n\r\nThe Panel has reviewed the Evidence and finds that the Documentary Evidence provided to support the claim that the Applicant is responsible for governing the geographic territory to which the names refer appears valid.  The Applicant does appear to have rights in the names.  This does not mean that others cannot claim rights in the names too but merely that the Applicant has provided sufficient evidence to support its claim.  The Complainant argues that the Applicant cannot demonstrate that it has effective control over the geographic territory.  Complainant supports this argument by referring to Protocol 10 of the Republic of Cyprus accession Treaty and European Court of Human Rights decisions.  Complainant however does not deny that Applicant is the sole legitimate government of Cyprus.  It does not deny the value of the UN resolutions that state the same. In its May 22 submissions it even refers to the European Court of Human Rights decision in Cyprus v. Turkey of May 10, 2001 and uses to support its argument that it has effective control a paragraph from that decision that states that “the government of the Republic of Cyprus remains the sole legitimate government of Cyprus”.  The Applicant may not have effective control over the geographic territory but the Evidence shows that Applicant is the legitimate government for the territory. The Panel is therefore unable to cancel Respondent’s decisions in respect to these names.  This is a complex issue with political and legal ramifications and Respondent’s decision in view of the UN documents submitted to it is appropriate.  Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that it does not exercise effective control over North Cyprus or Northern Cyprus, Applicant must be held to be responsible for governing the geographical territory commonly known by those names for the purposes of Article 10(3) of the Regulation.\r\n\r\nBased on the Evidence, the Panel decides that the decisions in respect to the following domain names comply with the Regulation and the Rules:\r\nNORTHCYPRUS.EU\r\nNORTH-CYPRUS.EU\r\nNORTHERNCYPRUS.EU\r\nNORTHERN-CYPRUS.EU\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n5. TRANSFER OF THE ANNULED DOMAIN NAMES TO RESPONDENT\r\n\r\nThe Complainant requests that the domain names registrations be annulled and the domain names transferred to it.  \r\n\r\nThe Panel has found that some of the Respondent’s decisions in respect to the Domain Names should be annulled.  The Annulled Domain Names are as follow:\r\n\r\nTOURISM-TRNC.EU\r\nTRNC.EU\r\nTRNC-HUMANRIGHTS.EU\r\nTRNCGOV.EU\r\nTRNCHUMANRIGHTS.EU \r\nTRNCINFO.EU\r\nTRNCPIO.EU\r\nTRNCPRESIDENCY.EU\r\nKKTC.EU\r\nTURKISH-REPUBLIC-OF-NORTHERN-CYPRUS.EU\r\nNORTH-CYPRUS-PROPERTIES.EU\r\nNORTH-CYPRUS-REAL-ESTATE.EU \r\nNORTHERN-CYPRUS-PROPERTIES.EU \r\nWELCOME-TO-NORTH-CYPRUS.EU\r\n\r\nAs a result, Complainant’s request for the transfer of the Annulled Domain Names should be answered.  \r\n\r\nArticle 11(c) of the ADR Rules should be read in combination with Article 22(11)(2) of the Regulation, which Regulation prevails in case of conflict. Under Article 11(c), the Panel may only, if it so chooses, order the Registry or Applicant to transfer the Annulled Domain Names to Complainant if two conditions are met.  First the Complainant should be the next applicant in the queue.  Second, the Complainant should satisfy the registration criteria namely those described herein subject to confirmation by the Registry. Neither of these conditions conflicts with Article 22(11)(2) of the Regulation.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent’s response indicates that the Complainant is not the next applicant in the queue waiting to register the relevant domain names.  Complainant has not denied this.  WHOIS information confirms this.  There is in fact no indication by either Complainant or Respondent that Complainant has actually applied for the Annulled Domain Names and paid the relevant application fees.  Again this is confirmed by the WHOIS which shows that only one applicant has applied for these names.  As a result, and without the Panel having to review the fulfilment of the second condition, the Annulled Domain Names should not be transferred to the Complainant.",
    "decision": "For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12 (b) and (c) of the Rules, the Panel orders that\r\n\r\nthe Complaint in respect to some domain names is Denied.\r\n\r\nA number of EURID's decisions are annulled. \r\n\r\nthe domain names TOURISM-TRNC, TRNC, TRNC-HUMANRIGHTS, TRNCGOV, TRNCHUMANRIGHTS, TRNCINFO, TRNCPIO, TRNCPRESIDENCY, KKTC, NORTH-CYPRUS-PROPERTIES, NORTH-CYPRUS-REAL-ESTATE, WELCOME-TO-NORTH-CYPRUS, NORTHERN-CYPRUS-PROPERTIES, TURKISH-REPUBLIC-OF-NORTHERN-CYPRUS are revoked.",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2006-09-12 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "ANNULLED DOMAIN NAMES\r\n\r\nApplicant failed to show that it could claim a right based on Article 10(3) of the Regulation for the following domain names:\r\nTOURISM-TRNC.EU\r\nTRNC.EU\r\nTRNC-HUMANRIGHTS.EU \r\nTRNCGOV.EU\r\nTRNCHUMANRIGHTS.EU\r\nTRNCINFO.EU\r\nTRNCPIO.EU\r\nTRNCPRESIDENCY.EU\r\nKKTC.EU\r\nTURKISH-REPUBLIC-OF-NORTHERN-CYPRUS.EU\r\nNORTH-CYPRUS-PROPERTIES.EU \r\nNORTH-CYPRUS-REAL-ESTATE.EU\r\nNORTHERN-CYPRUS-PROPERTIES.EU\r\nWELCOME-TO-NORTH-CYPRUS.EU\r\n\r\nAs a result Respondent’s decisions accepting registration of such names should be cancelled.\r\n\r\n\r\nCONFIRMED DOMAIN NAMES\r\n\r\nThe Documentary Evidence and the Evidence adequately support Applicant’s claims that it fulfills the conditions set by Article 10(3) of the Regulation for the following Domain Names:\r\nNORTHCYPRUS.EU\r\nNORTH-CYPRUS.EU\r\nNORTHERNCYPRUS.EU\r\nNORTHERN-CYPRUS.EU\r\nAs a result Respondent’s decisions accepting registration of such names should be upheld.\r\n\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT’S REFUSAL TO REGISTER DOMAIN NAMES\r\n\r\nRespondent refused registration of the following names for lack of documentary evidence:\r\n\r\nNORTH-CYPRUS-CONSTRUCTIONS.EU\r\nNORTHERN-CYPRUS-CONSTRUCTIONS.EU\r\n\r\nRespondent’s decisions refusing registration of such names should be upheld.\r\n\r\n\r\nTRANSFER OF ANNULED DOMAIN NAMES\r\n\r\nThe Annulled Domain Names may not be transferred to Complainant as Complainant is not the next applicant in the queue as per Article 11(c) of the ADR Rules.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}