Cyprus-Forum.com

[Nickp]

Are we talking about the same E.U that endorsed and still supports the Annan plan, heh..heh..you are really fooling yourself but there is no harm in wishful thinking.

At the same time, it's the same EU that made Turkey pay substatial compensation to Lozidou for denying her the right to return to her property in Kyrenia.

So like i said, at least the EU will provide some, not all, but some justice in Cyprus.

[brother]

Actually that was the ECHR which i believe does not operate under the E.U but i could be wrong, all i was saying is that the E.U are not the champions you think they are and do not forget that the U.K is coming to the presidency soon, and your politicians have made sure they have antagonised them to the upmost.

[turkcyp]

At the same time, it's the same EU that made Turkey pay substatial compensation to Lozidou for denying her the right to return to her property in Kyrenia.

So like i said, at least the EU will provide some, not all, but some justice in Cyprus.

If it takes forever to point it out, I'll still do...

EU and ECHR are not the same things. I am sure you know the difference but writing it like that keeps on giving the impression that what ECHR decides does have anything with EU.

They are founded by different members, and are governed by different sets of rules. ECHR is product of "Council of Europe" which is founded before EU (or EEC as the first name) and it has 46 members including Turkey. The reason it's decisions is binding on Turkey is that Turkey is a full member that has signed to accept its decisions.

For example , I do not even think that you can sue anybody or any country other than those 46. (I might be wrong about this though!!!)

Take care,

[-mikkie2-]

The argument as to the status of the ECHR is irrelevant!

If the British courts throw the case out then they have recourse to the ECHR which deems that if you have exhausted all 'internal' means to get justice, including taking a case to another European country that is a member of the CoE (all EU countries are a member of the CoE) then the person has every right to take the case to the ECHR.

In this case it won't be the Orams that would be put to trial but rather the British legal system and Turkey, as it is deemed to be the sole responsible country for the situation in northern Cyprus. So you could have the situation where Turkey pays compensation and also the British justice system being forced to put the case through the courts!

[brother]

I think with the influence the U.K has, it could be 10 years before anything could emerge from this case which would give the brits more than enough time to find a way out of it, i believe you underestimate the u.k and have to much blind faith in the ECHR.

But this is only my humble opinion.

[turkcyp]

The argument as to the status of the ECHR is irrelevant!

If the British courts throw the case out then they have recourse to the ECHR which deems that if you have exhausted all 'internal' means to get justice, including taking a case to another European country that is a member of the CoE (all EU countries are a member of the CoE) then the person has every right to take the case to the ECHR.

In this case it won't be the Orams that would be put to trial but rather the British legal system and Turkey, as it is deemed to be the sole responsible country for the situation in northern Cyprus. So you could have the situation where Turkey pays compensation and also the British justice system being forced to put the case through the courts!

Actually you are still wrong,

This case from the begining is based on one person (GC) suing another person (Brit) in the court. Now GC had won its case in RoC courts (surprise surprise) but can not enforece her decision in the north GC can take two routes (and these are not either/or)

1) You can try to get the decision reinforced by UK court on a Brits UK assets. Seizing them. And then if that is rejected go to EU courts.

2) Go to ECHR and sue Turkey again, as she is the one not UK that does not let the RoC court decision to be exercised.

In any case UK goverment is safe from being sued in ECHR because of her inability to get the decision is enforced in north or because of her inability to get the decision enforced in UK. Because in one case it is not the one one preventing the enforcement in Cyprus but Turkey and in the other case she is not the one preventing the enforcement of law in UK because there simply is no case like that.

In order to sue UK goverment the way you described, this GC shoudl open another case in RoC againts UK because she fails to honor the decisions of ROC courts ( not this case where a person is suing another person) and then when that is rejected in RoC court as it is not their jurisdiction, they have to go to UK courts, and then if rejected they can go to ECHR.

And even then ECHR would fail to accept the case because it is not about UK violating human rights of a GC, (the address to that is Turkey) but simply refusing to honor RoC court decision. And for that the court which has jurisdiction is EU courts not ECHR because Uk has to honor RoC courts based on EU law, not ECHR law.

Of course that is my opinion, and the poor GC will have to wait and see and battle her long way out of in Uk courts and most probably be rejejcted, and turned back and sue Uk in RoC courts first, tehn UK courtsh again and then go to ECHR and see if ECHR accepts teh case.

Simply put, the only reason this GC decided to sue Brit is that because of UK being a member of EU is forced to accept the decisions in EU courts with some exceptions. And if those exceptions apply to this case are what the UK courts will decide, and if GC does not like their decision then she can go to EU courts.

Take care,

[Nickp]

Actually that was the ECHR which i believe does not operate under the E.U but i could be wrong, all i was saying is that the E.U are not the champions you think they are and do not forget that the U.K is coming to the presidency soon, and your politicians have made sure they have antagonised them to the upmost.

True.....i guess either way the GC's are gonna get shafted......

[Viewpoint]

Is this really the action of an individual GC attempting to reclaim property lost in 1974? or is it calculated manipulation of EU laws to force specific issues and gain world attention and sympathy. The action has already backfired to a certain extent and agrivated the British population in the north who are currently lobbying MPs in the UK against these legal proceedings which in turns encourages a negative stance towards GCs in general. British people I have spoken to have expressed some concern over the Orams case but many have sold all property in UK and therefore would not have anything in UK to be seized if this case was ever enforced. Many are also sell what they currently have just as a precaustionary measure. All thats left is again the bad after taste of Greek Cypriots actions one elderly English couple told me.

If these legal proceedings are aimed at trying to stop development of the North, it may succeed in putting off a few Europeans but its a big world out there and there are many other nationalities which are currently looking and investing in the north of the island.

This is one of the main reason why time is working against the south of the island, if left to late (could be another 3 years according to present climate of GC Government) and no attempt is made to return to the negotiating table in order to revise the Annan plan or create a new one, the property issues will be more complicated and a lot worse than what was envisaged previously.

(PS. I personally am for returning back to the negotiating table to improve property rights for GCs.)

[BigDutch]

. ...... All thats left is again the bad after taste of Greek Cypriots actions one elderly English couple told me......

From my very very limited experience all Brits in the occupied areas view the GC's with contempt as they (like some TC/Turkish) think the GC's should gracefully accept defeat following the 1974 "war" and stop even thinking about coming "home", perhaps they see GC's as "bad-losers"

Once they (some occupants in occupied area) think of GC's as bad-losers then they must see themselves as rightfully owning land that was legitimately sold to them.

Their ignorance on the matter is disturbing.

[rotate]

You are probably right Brother!

I know all that mikkie but you know the british as well as i do and if it is going to hurt their own they WILL find a way to wriggle out of it, mark my words they have been preparing for this long before the Orams case came to light.

However British courts do not have a monopoly on protecting their own and wriggling out of things. The Cypriot Courts, Police and the Municipalities are equally as good at protecting their own especially if its a Bar Owner who is also a Policeman who has made the lives of those living near his all night bar and one stop drug and slapper facility so intolerable by threat and intimidation that they have been forced to leave their homes.

Yes I know its nothing compared to what happened in 1974. We lost our home then as well.