CopperLine wrote:Jerry may be right when he saysThat was my point about the 'privatisation' of the settlement process, or at least about pulling the rug from the comprehensive settlement process.Look this Immovable Property Commission is a big joke and the ECHR will be damaging its reputation if it accepts it
What was the crucial claim to and judgement of the ECHR ? Individual GCs had not been able to enjoy their human right to enjoy their property/possessions in the occupied north. They argued that the administration in the north, named as Turkey (due to non-recognition of TRNC) and ECHR signatory, had failed to protect these rights. Further, and in particular, they argued that there was no effective way for them to secure those rights within the north (because the TRNC authorities were not de jure recognised, and that in any case the de facto authority was Turkey) and that therefore there was no effective local remedy. The ECHR basically said 'yes your rights to property have not been guaranteed/protected and therefore you have a claim against Turkey'. Second the ECHR said in effect 'that indeed there was no judicial mechanism in place in the north to assess and adjudicate on property claims, and this was also a failure on the part of Turkey', the respondent state. Third it said, 'given the potential high numbers of claims, given the failure of Turkey through TRNC to fulfil its obligations to institute an effective local remedy, that the judgement of the court was that a local mechanism must be established.'
The stage that we are at now is that the effectiveness of that mechanism, i.e, the property commission, is under ECHR scrutiny. Whether we like it or not, the day to day operation of that commission is undertaken by TRNC authorities and agencies. Sure the legal case is against Turkey, and maybe the political pressure is more on Turkey than the TRNC, but the fact remains that the work is being done or not done by TRNC authorities.
Nikitas I'm note sure what you were driving at with reference to the CoE, in relation to the ECHR cases ? That aside, I'm not sure about 'jubilation in the north' - my sense for what it is worth is that a lot of this stuff just passes people by. Again you may be right that 'The more people resort to the properties board the weaker the TRNC becomes', but I'm not sure. It could be the other way around. It could be that it is Turkey loses some grip over TRNC and Cyprus, and in comparative terms TRNC in implementing an effective local remedy demonstrates some degree of autonomy and credibility. Yes, that may be a long shot or a speculation, but I would still argue two things : first, in this regard TRNC interests and Trukey's interests are NOT identical; and second, the individualisation of the settlement serves in some way to compromise and complicate a comprehensive settlement (the latter of which is going nowhere fast, I concede)
Copperline they know you are right. They just don't like saying so. What other reason would there be for he 'RoC" to actively dissuade people from approaching the organisation all this time. They even put out the rumour a while back hat it was even illegal to do so and why else would they take it to the ECHR?????
