Cyprus-Forum.com

[Nikitas]

Noaxeto grind said:

"Can you imagine what would have happened if there had been an ECHR in the 1970s and other nationalities had taken Germany to court after their actions in the last war?"

They did not have to do this against Germany because there were war reparation agreements between Germany and all the "victim" countries. To this day German courts are hearing the remnants of claims arising from the reparation agreements. So this claim by the Varnavas family is not so unusual after all.

[Nikitas]

In the list given by Copperline where the panel passed judgment unanimously against Turkey the complainants' names all appear to be Turkish and presumably arise from domestic Turkish cases ending up in the ECHR.

It will be interesting to see if there will be similar unanimous decisions in cases involving non Turkish complainants and especially GCs.

[CopperLine]

Nikitas, I agree it would be interesting to see what the results are for Cyprus-related cases. If anyone has the time to trawl through the cases to see if there is any pattern then Id be very interested to see the results. However until the time that someone does that AND is able to show some meaningful correlation I'll maintain my position that RAFAELLA et al are simply wrong in their aspersions.

The ten cases I looked at and used as illustrative were simply the ten most recent cases in which T was the respondent. It might be that the next ten come up with a different pattern : I don't know. Doing such a search is very time consuming since ECHR search functions do not allow searches by nationality of judge nor nationality of applicant nor by dissenting opinion.

Boomerang
Your response

I mean how could 6 judges have gotten it so wrong?...and one not, and appointed by the state that his is ruling on...

just goes to show that you simply do not understand how courts work nor how judgements are arrived at, nor what judgements mean, nor what is the judicial purpose of precedent and dissent.

Each judge is giving an individual judicial opinion. In many courts such as the ECHR, UK and Australian High Courts and Appeal Courts included, it is majority judgements which rule. Each judge may come to the same conclusion but according to different legal reasoning. Equally some judges may give dissenting opinions to the majority conclusion, again through different legal reasoning. It is also possible for judges to use the same legal reasoning and come to different conclusions.
It is simply naive and mistaken of you to present the problem as if X number of judges are right and Y number of judges are wrong. If the law was so clear and categorical - right/wrong - why on earth would we have judges ?!!! There would be nothing to exercise judgement over !

The provision for dissenting opinions is also crucial. Arguably the development of whole sets of rights - which people like you now take for granted - have been confrimed precisely beacuse judges were able to express dissenting opinions from a backward-looking and conservative judiciary. Dissenting opinons amongst opinio juris can then be used in future actions to push the interpretation of laws.

And then Boomerang the voice of your exquisite reason, due consideration and legal eloquence rings clearly through when you you say

and it means shit what his views are...

Is this the voice of judicial impartiality ?

Furthermore, that a judge happens to give an opinion which appears favourable at this moment to her/his own state - have you actually read Eronen's opinion and understood it, or are you just ignorantly mouthing off ? - is not evidence in itself of corruption or partiality. One event does not constitute a pattern. Until you read Eronen's dissenting opinion you can't possibly know whether his reading of law might not either be more disturbing for Turkey's current policy now or introduce arguments which undermine Turkish policy in future.

I know that you have assumed corruption and partiality. I know that you have pre-judged corruption and partiality. But the point of a fair legal process, the right to a fair trial, is that we do not assume and we do not prejudge. To do so is to wish for a kangaroo court, Boomerang. How barbaric are you ?

[Pyrpolizer]

Would be exactly the same if the tables were turned.

The tables were turned for 11 years before and it WAS NOT exactly the same remember? 800 dead in 11 years is not equal to 6000 dead in 1 month.

Could you supply independent details of these 6000? how many did GCs or Greeks kill? during the coup? Could it be as high as 2500 or is it easier to blame the Turkish Army?

Not even 400 people participated in the coup. Yes we have evidence that about 80 died there.

Remind me next time Turkey invades to call the UN to record independent data for each dead person for you.
Jesus there are 1500 missing persons today and there is testimony for at least 90% of them they were last seen in Turkish hands.

[Pyrpolizer]

From 'ECHR survey of activities 2006', which is the latest full year data available :

'By the end of 2006, there were 89,887 applications pending before the Court, approximately one-quarter (some 23,000) of which had yet to be allocated to the appropriate judicial formation (Committee or Chamber). Some 20 per cent of the cases are directed against Russia. About 12 per cent of the cases concern Romania and a further 10 per cent Turkey.' [p3]

'The highest number of judgments concerned Turkey (334), Slovenia (190), Ukraine (120), Poland (115), Italy (103), Russia (102for over 70 per cent of the judgments.' [p3]

'Chambers decide by a majority vote. Any judge who has taken part in the consideration of the case is entitled to append to the judgment a separate opinion, either concurring or dissenting, or a bare statement of dissent.'[p5]

You will find the dissenting opinion of Judge Eronen in the full Varnava case report at http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=2&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=&sessionid=4547958&skin=hudoc-en I'm prepared to bet that 99% of forum members here will not even understand most of the case report let alone Eronen's dissenting opinion in this case. It is just so easy for people who are essentially ignorant of the workings of law to dismiss a judgement or an opinion that they don't like or don't agree with as evidence of corruption, stupidity, venality or any other decadent condition. There may be lots of opinions and judgements that we personally disagree with or might come to a different view about, but that does not mean that the process or interpretation of the law is corrupt.

I've not had time to read and digest this latest ECHR judgement let alone Eronen's dissenting opinion so I don't know whether I agree with the majority or the dissenting opinion. But how people who haven't even read neither majority nor dissenting opinion can already conclude that it is Turkish judicial corruption is beyond belief. There's a word for that reaction : it is called 'bigotry'. There's another word for it 'prejudice', that is to pre-judge the case before looking at the material. This is something that some Forum members are experts in; it is not what the ECHR did nor is it what Judge Eronen did.

RAFAELLA claimed that Turkish judges never go against Turkey. Not true. Take a sample of the last ten cases in which Turkey was the respondent state, which begins with the Varnava and others case, and what do we find ? We find that just in one of the ten cases was there a dissenting opinion of a Turkish judge. The expression of a dissenting opinion is not evidence of Turkish judicial corruption - it is evidence that a judge is taking the judicial process seriously. The expression of dissenting opinions are part and parcel, indeed crucial, to the development of law.

Varnava and others v Turkey (majority decision, dissenting opinion, 16064/90 and others)
Resul Sadak v Turkey (unanimous decision, 74318/01)
Enzile Ozdemir v Turkey (unanimous decision, 54169/00)
Yurdatapan v Turkey (unanimous decision, 70335/01)
Fevzi Saygili v Turkey (unanimous decision, 74243/01)
Eris v Turkey (unanimous decision, majority decision, no dissent, 28268/02)
Karyagdi v Turkey (unanimous decision, 22956/04)
Ayaz v Turkey (unanimous decision, 44132/98 )
Ak v Turkey (unanimous decision, 44132/98 )
Saygili v Turkey (unanimous decision, 19353/03)

Copperline, whatever the dissenting opinion is and in whatever messy and non understood language that is based upon, only a fool could miss the FACT that the only judge who disagreed with another SIX (6) equally prominent judges is Eronen.

So spare us the rhetoric, will you?

[boomerang]

Boomerang
Your response

I mean how could 6 judges have gotten it so wrong?...and one not, and appointed by the state that his is ruling on...

just goes to show that you simply do not understand how courts work nor how judgements are arrived at, nor what judgements mean, nor what is the judicial purpose of precedent and dissent.

Each judge is giving an individual judicial opinion. In many courts such as the ECHR, UK and Australian High Courts and Appeal Courts included, it is majority judgements which rule. Each judge may come to the same conclusion but according to different legal reasoning. Equally some judges may give dissenting opinions to the majority conclusion, again through different legal reasoning. It is also possible for judges to use the same legal reasoning and come to different conclusions.
It is simply naive and mistaken of you to present the problem as if X number of judges are right and Y number of judges are wrong. If the law was so clear and categorical - right/wrong - why on earth would we have judges ?!!! There would be nothing to exercise judgement over !

The provision for dissenting opinions is also crucial. Arguably the development of whole sets of rights - which people like you now take for granted - have been confrimed precisely beacuse judges were able to express dissenting opinions from a backward-looking and conservative judiciary. Dissenting opinons amongst opinio juris can then be used in future actions to push the interpretation of laws.

And then Boomerang the voice of your exquisite reason, due consideration and legal eloquence rings clearly through when you you say

and it means shit what his views are...

Is this the voice of judicial impartiality ?

Furthermore, that a judge happens to give an opinion which appears favourable at this moment to her/his own state - have you actually read Eronen's opinion and understood it, or are you just ignorantly mouthing off ? - is not evidence in itself of corruption or partiality. One event does not constitute a pattern. Until you read Eronen's dissenting opinion you can't possibly know whether his reading of law might not either be more disturbing for Turkey's current policy now or introduce arguments which undermine Turkish policy in future.

I know that you have assumed corruption and partiality. I know that you have pre-judged corruption and partiality. But the point of a fair legal process, the right to a fair trial, is that we do not assume and we do not prejudge. To do so is to wish for a kangaroo court, Boomerang. How barbaric are you ?

I understand that 6 judges came to the same conclusion and one appointed by the state in question, came to a different conclusion...

And then you talk about kangaroo courts... bloody hell, you are the biggest spinner of horseshit in this forum...


but one thing is fotr sure...

Code: Select all

Each judge may come to the same conclusion but according to different legal reasoning

If this is the case I am sure as hell would like to know their reasoning, as to how they condemn turkey individually...

There is no need to go into spin mode with dramatics as to how it works, you answered already as to how or maybe 6 judges condemned turkey for her actions with a different reasoning...
The question is copperline, if indeed 6 judges condemned turkey with different reasoning how do you explain that the turkey appointee, found none of those reasoning points?...either he is thick, or towing the line...take your pick

God sometimes you too can be so thick...

[umit07]

"Not even 400 people participated in the coup. Yes we have evidence that about 80 died there. "

So you are saying you didn't even need 400 soldiers, to overthrow Makarios?

[DT.]

From 'ECHR survey of activities 2006', which is the latest full year data available :

'By the end of 2006, there were 89,887 applications pending before the Court, approximately one-quarter (some 23,000) of which had yet to be allocated to the appropriate judicial formation (Committee or Chamber). Some 20 per cent of the cases are directed against Russia. About 12 per cent of the cases concern Romania and a further 10 per cent Turkey.' [p3]

'The highest number of judgments concerned Turkey (334), Slovenia (190), Ukraine (120), Poland (115), Italy (103), Russia (102for over 70 per cent of the judgments.' [p3]

'Chambers decide by a majority vote. Any judge who has taken part in the consideration of the case is entitled to append to the judgment a separate opinion, either concurring or dissenting, or a bare statement of dissent.'[p5]

You will find the dissenting opinion of Judge Eronen in the full Varnava case report at http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=2&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=&sessionid=4547958&skin=hudoc-en I'm prepared to bet that 99% of forum members here will not even understand most of the case report let alone Eronen's dissenting opinion in this case. It is just so easy for people who are essentially ignorant of the workings of law to dismiss a judgement or an opinion that they don't like or don't agree with as evidence of corruption, stupidity, venality or any other decadent condition. There may be lots of opinions and judgements that we personally disagree with or might come to a different view about, but that does not mean that the process or interpretation of the law is corrupt.

I've not had time to read and digest this latest ECHR judgement let alone Eronen's dissenting opinion so I don't know whether I agree with the majority or the dissenting opinion. But how people who haven't even read neither majority nor dissenting opinion can already conclude that it is Turkish judicial corruption is beyond belief. There's a word for that reaction : it is called 'bigotry'. There's another word for it 'prejudice', that is to pre-judge the case before looking at the material. This is something that some Forum members are experts in; it is not what the ECHR did nor is it what Judge Eronen did.

RAFAELLA claimed that Turkish judges never go against Turkey. Not true. Take a sample of the last ten cases in which Turkey was the respondent state, which begins with the Varnava and others case, and what do we find ? We find that just in one of the ten cases was there a dissenting opinion of a Turkish judge. The expression of a dissenting opinion is not evidence of Turkish judicial corruption - it is evidence that a judge is taking the judicial process seriously. The expression of dissenting opinions are part and parcel, indeed crucial, to the development of law.

Varnava and others v Turkey (majority decision, dissenting opinion, 16064/90 and others)
Resul Sadak v Turkey (unanimous decision, 74318/01)
Enzile Ozdemir v Turkey (unanimous decision, 54169/00)
Yurdatapan v Turkey (unanimous decision, 70335/01)
Fevzi Saygili v Turkey (unanimous decision, 74243/01)
Eris v Turkey (unanimous decision, majority decision, no dissent, 28268/02)
Karyagdi v Turkey (unanimous decision, 22956/04)
Ayaz v Turkey (unanimous decision, 44132/98 )
Ak v Turkey (unanimous decision, 44132/98 )
Saygili v Turkey (unanimous decision, 19353/03)

Copperline, whatever the dissenting opinion is and in whatever messy and non understood language that is based upon, only a fool could miss the FACT that the only judge who disagreed with another SIX (6) equally prominent judges is Eronen.

So spare us the rhetoric, will you?

apologies but i hae not read the whole post...just have a minor point to make with regards to what copperline wrote.

The only case out of the 10 that you stated in which the Turkish judge was dissenting was the Varnava case..the rest where Turkish nationals vs Turkey. Is this true?

[CopperLine]

Pyropolizer, Boomerang
It is not rhetoric. It is not spin.

You can either take a serious look at the court proceedings and the different judicial opinons without prejudice, or you can be dismissive with prejudice. I can't stop you choosing the latter, I can't make you choose the former. But by choosing the latter you've simply confirmed everything that I've been arguing - you haven't read the case, you haven't approached without prejudice and you have concluded exactly what you assumed.

You can either pay serious attention to how courts work, how law develops and how judgments (not 'condemnations') are formed, or you can persist in your fantasy land in which what actually goes on in courts and how laws are interpreted and implemented is irrelevant to your prejudices about them.

You've assumed that I personally agree with dissenting Judge Eronen. But since I have not read his full opinion nor the full opinion of the other judges I'm simply not in a position to comment. Neither are you. But that hasn't stopped you mouthing off, quite literally, from sheer ignorance and prejudice.

You see Boomerang your outrage at me is based upon total ignorance of ECHR. You said

I understand that 6 judges came to the same conclusion and one appointed by the state in question

But this is just not true. ECHR judges are appointed through the Council of Europe, they are not state appointments. Go and have a look at the ECHR Convention - I've posted links to it enough times on this forum. Nobody who has bothered to read that document can come to the conclusion that judges 'are appointed by the state in question.' Here it is, again, from the ECHR website :

Judges are elected by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which votes on a shortlist of three candidates put forward by Governments. The term of office is six years, and judges may be re-elected. Their terms of office expire when they reach the age of seventy, although they continue to deal with cases already under their consideration.

Judges sit on the Court in their individual capacity and do not represent any State. They cannot engage in any activity which is incompatible with their independence or impartiality or with the demands of full-time office.

Please read it.

[DT.]

Pyropolizer, Boomerang
It is not rhetoric. It is not spin.

You can either take a serious look at the court proceedings and the different judicial opinons without prejudice, or you can be dismissive with prejudice. I can't stop you choosing the latter, I can't make you choose the former. But by choosing the latter you've simply confirmed everything that I've been arguing - you haven't read the case, you haven't approached without prejudice and you have concluded exactly what you assumed.

You can either pay serious attention to how courts work, how law develops and how judgments (not 'condemnations') are formed, or you can persist in your fantasy land in which what actually goes on in courts and how laws are interpreted and implemented is irrelevant to your prejudices about them.

You've assumed that I personally agree with dissenting Judge Eronen. But since I have not read his full opinion nor the full opinion of the other judges I'm simply not in a position to comment. Neither are you. But that hasn't stopped you mouthing off, quite literally, from sheer ignorance and prejudice.

You see Boomerang your outrage at me is based upon total ignorance of ECHR. You said

I understand that 6 judges came to the same conclusion and one appointed by the state in question

But this is just not true. ECHR judges are appointed through the Council of Europe, they are not state appointments. Go and have a look at the ECHR Convention - I've posted links to it enough times on this forum. Nobody who has bothered to read that document can come to the conclusion that judges 'are appointed by the state in question.' Here it is, again, from the ECHR website :

Judges are elected by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which votes on a shortlist of three candidates put forward by Governments. The term of office is six years, and judges may be re-elected. Their terms of office expire when they reach the age of seventy, although they continue to deal with cases already under their consideration.

Judges sit on the Court in their individual capacity and do not represent any State. They cannot engage in any activity which is incompatible with their independence or impartiality or with the demands of full-time office.

Please read it.

for gods sake Copperline...the council simply votes on a shortlist of 3 proposed by the state.