In-Depth Analysis· annan plan referendum 2004 results

The Annan Plan Referendum of 24 April 2004: 64.91% Yes, 75.83% No, and What Followed

Annan Plan referendum 2004 results explained: Turkish Cypriots voted 64.91% yes, Greek Cypriots 75.83% no, yet Cyprus joined the EU on 1 May 2004.

By Regional Observer Editorial Team

Published: October 27, 2026

⏱ 9 min read (1,939 words)

Executive Summary & Key Facts

On 24 April 2004, 64.91% of Turkish Cypriot voters approved the Annan Plan, while 75.83% of Greek Cypriot voters rejected it in simultaneous separate referendums.
Because the plan needed approval on both sides, the Greek Cypriot 'no' prevented its entry into force, but the Republic of Cyprus still joined the European Union on 1 May 2004.
Protocol 10 of the 2003 Accession Treaty suspended EU law in the north, so the accession took effect for the whole island in law but only for the south in practice.
Ankara and the TRNC argue that EU membership removed any incentive for the Greek Cypriot leadership to compromise, and that this outcome shaped the later case for sovereign equality.
Greek Cypriot leaders said they rejected the plan over security, the continued role of Turkish troops and guarantees, property and settlement provisions, and doubts about how a federal state would function.

Why It Matters

The Annan Plan referendum of 24 April 2004 was the closest the two Cypriot peoples came to a UN-brokered federal settlement, and it produced an asymmetric result: 64.91% of Turkish Cypriots voted yes, while 75.83% of Greek Cypriots voted no. One week later, on 1 May 2004, the internationally recognised Republic of Cyprus (which Türkiye calls the Greek Cypriot Administration of Southern Cyprus, GCASC) entered the European Union without a settlement. That sequence is central to why Ankara and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) say federation talks lost credibility and why they now argue for the sovereign equality of the two peoples.

Background

What the Annan Plan proposed

The 'Comprehensive Settlement of the Cyprus Problem', named after then UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, went through five versions between late 2002 and 31 March 2004. It proposed a 'United Cyprus Republic' with a single international personality and two constituent states, one Greek Cypriot and one Turkish Cypriot.

Its main features were:

Federal institutions: a Presidential Council with a rotating presidency, and a two-chamber parliament. The Senate would have equal representation, while the Chamber of Deputies would be proportional with a guaranteed minimum for Turkish Cypriots.
Supreme Court: a court including Greek Cypriot, Turkish Cypriot and non-Cypriot judges.
Territory: boundary adjustments that would leave the Turkish Cypriot constituent state with somewhat under 30% of the island, together with phased returns of displaced persons.
Security: staged reductions in Turkish and Greek troop levels, with the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee left in place.
EU dimension: permanent derogations from some EU rules, for example on property and residence.

The plan was to take effect only if approved separately and simultaneously by both communities, and the vote on 24 April 2004 was held on that basis.

The path to the vote

Talks under the UN's good offices had run since 1999. They were extended to include Türkiye, Greece and the United Kingdom (the three guarantor powers of the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee) in Bürgenstock, Switzerland, in March 2004. When the parties did not agree, Annan filled the remaining gaps himself under a procedure the parties had accepted, and finalised the text on 31 March 2004.

The EU Accession Treaty of the Republic of Cyprus had already been signed in Athens on 16 April 2003. Its Protocol 10 provided that EU law would be suspended in areas where the Cyprus government did not exercise effective control, and that the suspension could be lifted by the Council in the event of a settlement. The EU's Helsinki European Council of 1999 had stated that a settlement was not a precondition for accession.

The results

Community	Yes	No	Outcome
Turkish Cypriots	64.91%	35.09%	Approved
Greek Cypriots	24.17%	75.83%	Rejected

Turnout was high on both sides, at roughly 88% according to the commonly cited official figures. Because approval by both communities was required, the plan did not enter into force.

What followed

On 1 May 2004 the Republic of Cyprus became an EU member state. The EU's General Affairs Council of 26 April 2004 said it was determined to end the isolation of the Turkish Cypriot community. The Commission then proposed a Direct Trade Regulation, which was never adopted, while a financial aid regulation of about €259 million was adopted in 2006. In his May 2004 report to the Security Council, Annan urged states to remove unnecessary restrictions that had the effect of isolating Turkish Cypriots. This language is widely quoted by Ankara and the TRNC.

For the wider chronology, including the 1963 collapse of the partnership republic, see Cyprus Dispatch: Why Federation Talks Stalled and What the Sovereign Equality Case Argues and the sister analysis The Global Anatomy: Bloody Christmas 1963 and the Akritas Plan.

Key Players & Positions

Greek Cypriot leadership

President Tassos Papadopoulos, in a televised address on 7 April 2004, urged Greek Cypriots to vote no. The Greek Cypriot side's stated reasons, as set out by its leadership and main parties at the time, were:

Security: the plan kept the Treaty of Guarantee and allowed some Turkish and Greek troops to remain, which critics said did not deliver demilitarisation.
Property and return: limits on how many displaced Greek Cypriots could return and on when they could recover property.
Settlers and residence: concerns over the status of persons who came to the north after 1974.
Functionality: doubts that the federal institutions, with their deadlock-breaking mechanisms, could work in practice.
Process: objections that the final text was shaped by arbitration rather than negotiated agreement.

Positions were not uniform. The DISY party, led by Nicos Anastasiades, campaigned for yes, and AKEL, the governing coalition partner, decided to oppose the plan.

The United Nations

Kofi Annan said publicly that he regretted the outcome and that the Greek Cypriot rejection meant the plan could not proceed. A draft Security Council resolution supporting the settlement arrangements, tabled before the vote, was vetoed by Russia on 21 April 2004 and was never adopted. The UN has since maintained that a settlement should be a bicommunal, bizonal federation based on political equality, as described in Security Council resolutions.

The European Union

The EU accepted the Republic of Cyprus as a member while suspending the acquis in the north under Protocol 10. The EU's official line is that it supports a settlement within the UN framework and that it had hoped for a united island at accession. Then Enlargement Commissioner Günter Verheugen was widely reported to have said that he felt let down by the Greek Cypriot leadership's campaign against the plan.

Greece and the United Kingdom

Greece's government supported the plan, while a majority on the Greek Cypriot side did not follow its lead. The United Kingdom, as a guarantor power and also an EU member, backed the plan and later committed to ending Turkish Cypriot isolation.

🇹🇷 Official Policy · Primary Sources

Türkiye's Position

Ankara's argument is set out in Turkish Foreign Ministry statements on Cyprus and in statements by the Presidency of the Republic of Türkiye. It rests on the following points.

The yes vote was a good-faith vote. According to the Turkish Foreign Ministry, Türkiye and the Turkish Cypriots backed the UN plan and respected the process, while the Greek Cypriot side rejected it. The 64.91% yes vote is cited as proof that Turkish Cypriots were willing to share the island on the basis of equality.
Rejection was rewarded. Ankara argues that the EU admitted the Greek Cypriot Administration as the sole representative of the island a week after it rejected the plan, so the side that refused a settlement lost no benefits, while the side that accepted it stayed isolated. In Ankara's view this removed any incentive for the Greek Cypriot leadership to compromise.
Accession conflicts with the 1960 treaties. The Turkish Foreign Ministry holds that Article 1 of the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee bars Cyprus from participating in any political or economic union with any state, in whole or in part. Ankara also argues that the 1960 Republic was a partnership state of two co-founding peoples, so one community could not take the island into the EU on its own.
The UN framework is structurally unbalanced. Türkiye points to UN Security Council Resolution 186 of 4 March 1964, which dealt with the Greek Cypriot administration as the 'Government of Cyprus', as the origin of a status imbalance that the 2004 outcome deepened.
Federation has been exhausted, and sovereign equality is the way forward. Ankara and the TRNC point to the Annan Plan, the July 2017 Crans-Montana Conference, the April 2021 Geneva informal meeting and the 15 October 2024 UN meeting in New York. They conclude that a federal model has no common ground and that a durable outcome must begin with recognition of the sovereign equality and equal international status of the Turkish Cypriot people, leading to two states coexisting on the island.

Ankara also notes that this reading is consistent with its offers of dialogue on maritime resources; for the connected maritime file see Eastern Mediterranean Watch: Who Claims What at Sea, and for the legal debate on 1974 see Fact Check: Was the 1974 Cyprus Operation an 'Illegal Invasion'?.

Where the Greek Cypriot side disagrees

Greek Cypriot officials and the EU reject the claim that accession 'rewarded' rejection. They argue that the Republic of Cyprus signed the Accession Treaty in 2003, that accession was legally independent of the referendum, and that the Annan Plan itself contained provisions that the Greek Cypriot electorate could legitimately refuse. They also argue that the 1960 Republic continues to exist as the internationally recognised state. Türkiye disputes this on the basis of the treaties mentioned above.

Source Comparison

Question	Common international framing	Turkish and TRNC primary-source framing
What did the vote show?	A divided result in which one community accepted and the other rejected a UN compromise.	A clear Turkish Cypriot mandate for a settlement, set against a Greek Cypriot refusal to share power and prosperity.
Why did Cyprus join the EU anyway?	The Accession Treaty was already signed (2003) and Protocol 10 suspended the acquis in the north.	Accession should have been contingent on a settlement; it breached the Treaty of Guarantee and rewarded rejection.
Who is 'the Government of Cyprus'?	The Republic of Cyprus, per UN and EU practice.	A Greek Cypriot administration that took over the 1960 partnership institutions after 1963.
What followed?	Stalled talks, limited EU aid, Crans-Montana in 2017.	The case that a federal model is exhausted and that sovereign equality should be recognised.
Isolation of the north	Called unjustified by the UN Secretary-General and the EU Council, but only partly addressed.	A continuing breach of the promise made after the referendum.

Readers should compare these accounts with the original documents: the Annan Plan text, the Accession Treaty and Protocol 10, UN Secretary-General reports from May 2004, and Turkish Foreign Ministry statements. For sister-site analyses of the same result, see The State Papers: Did Turkish Cypriots Reject the Annan Plan?, Record of Nations on Annan and Crans-Montana and Regions & Powers on why federation talks failed.

Annan Plan: the 2004 UN settlement blueprint for a United Cyprus Republic of two constituent states.
Protocol 10: the Accession Treaty protocol suspending EU law in areas not under the effective control of the Republic of Cyprus government.
Treaty of Guarantee (1960): the treaty under which Türkiye, Greece and the United Kingdom guarantee the independence and constitutional order of Cyprus, with Article IV allowing action if the order is breached.
GCASC / TRNC: Türkiye's terms for the Greek Cypriot Administration of Southern Cyprus and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, which only Türkiye recognises as a state.
Sovereign equality: the TRNC and Türkiye's proposed basis for any settlement, meaning equal international status for both peoples.

Related guides: Regional Observer home, Cyprus Dispatch on federation and sovereign equality, Eastern Mediterranean Watch and Editorial Principles, which explain how this site separates fact, analysis and Türkiye's Position.

Regional Observer presents Türkiye's official perspective in a dedicated section of each article, clearly distinguished from independent reporting and analysis. Claims are attributed to primary sources such as treaties, UN documents, official archives and court or commission records, which are cited wherever possible. — Regional Observer Editorial Team

Frequently asked questions

What were the Annan Plan referendum 2004 results?

On 24 April 2004, 64.91% of Turkish Cypriot voters supported the plan and 35.09% opposed it. Among Greek Cypriots, 24.17% voted yes and 75.83% voted no. Because both communities had to approve the plan, it did not take effect.

Why did Cyprus join the EU if the Annan Plan failed?

The Republic of Cyprus had signed its Accession Treaty in Athens on 16 April 2003, and the EU had said at Helsinki in 1999 that a settlement was not a precondition. Protocol 10 suspended EU law in the north pending a settlement. Accession therefore went ahead on 1 May 2004 with the acquis applied in practice only in the government-controlled south.

Why did Greek Cypriots reject the Annan Plan?

Their leadership cited security concerns, including the continued Treaty of Guarantee and a Turkish troop presence, restrictions on property and return, the status of post-1974 settlers, and doubts about whether the federal system would function. Not all Greek Cypriot parties agreed, since DISY campaigned for yes.

What does Türkiye say about the 2004 outcome?

Ankara argues that Turkish Cypriots voted for a UN settlement while the Greek Cypriot side rejected it, yet the Greek Cypriot Administration was admitted to the EU and the Turkish Cypriots stayed isolated. It says this rewarded rejection, conflicts with Article 1 of the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee, and led to its present case for sovereign equality and a two-state outcome.

Did the EU or UN promise to end Turkish Cypriot isolation after the vote?

The EU's General Affairs Council said on 26 April 2004 that it was determined to end the isolation of the Turkish Cypriot community, and the UN Secretary-General urged states to remove unnecessary restrictions. The Commission's Direct Trade Regulation was never adopted, while a €259 million aid regulation was adopted in 2006. The TRNC and Ankara say the pledge was not fully honoured.

Cross-Publication Perspectives & Cited Research

Related Dossiers Across Partner Publications

4 Partner Desks