Cyprus-Forum.com

[Kifeas]

Insan,

With all due respect, you are making some completely wrong assumptions on this subject of ECHR rulings.

1. The right to one’s property is an individual’s fundamental human right, according to the convention fro the protection of human rights of the Council of Europe.
2. The ECHR has ruled out that the sole and undisputed owners of the GC properties in the north are the initial GC owners. On this issue the ECHR doesn’t live the slightest window for anyone to escape by claiming the existence of any sort of political agreement (which by the way doesn’t exist.)
3. Absolutely no political agreement between any two parties can be used as a justification to restrict or deny someone’s right to his property, especially on a massive scale, unless it becomes a constitutional law of the country itself. The republic of Cyprus is still considered as the only legal authority representing the entire territory of Cyprus. Therefore only if the RoCy changes it’s constitutional law in such a way as to deprive GC from their ownership titles in the north, this ownership will cease to exist. However, such event, will automatically renter the RoCy responsible to pay compensation to the GCs.
4. The compensation committee of the “TRNC” was found to be an insufficient mean for “internal” remedy, because it is functioning under the constitution of the “TRNC,” which considers that all the GCs are no longer the actual owners of their properties in the north and that these properties were legally confiscated by “TRNC,” which in it’s turn transferred the ownership to whichever she wished. Therefore, any decision by this committee will be based on the above assumption, which is contrary to the ECHR’s findings (since the case of Loizidou) that confirm the GC’s ownership.
5. In order for the Compensation committee to satisfy the requirements of the ECHR, it has to be able to accept that the GCs are the real owners of their properties first, and then to begin examining what compensation each one is entitled only for the loss of access and use of them. However, such assumption, will immediately renter all the titles of GC properties that were given by “TRNC” to TCs and others, as invalid.


By the way, to which ratified agreements you were referring in your pervious posting, which according to you are legalising the confiscation of GC properties in the north. I didn’t quite understand what you meant there. Can you give me more information on that?

edited for spelling and syntax errors

[metecyp]

You are free to disagree with my opinions and put forward yours but trying to label me as "trying to fool" people is giving me the impression that you have a conviction that I'm just trying to "fool" people th. You did the same a several times before. Just put your forward your own counter arguments about my arguments. If you tell me that I'm trying to "fool" people, then I'll tell you no, it's you that trying to fool people not me. Where does this "fooling" each other lead us?

Ok, I won't use the term "fool people" anymore. I don't know why you're so sensitive about this but I'll try to understand. I don't think that I did this many times before though, definetely not in the sense that you described.

Read the first post of this thread. Then you2ll understand how meaningless is your post.

Oh so my post is meaningless because it doesn't address the initial post. You know this is a major problem in this forum. We start a new thread on a topic and usually after 2-3 days, the topic is completely different. This is the nature of the forum and you do the same thing too, so I guess many of your posts are quite meaningless as well according to yourself.

To put things in perspective, I posted due to this initial comment of yours.

All Cypriots including 600+ GCs and pre-74 TC inhabitants of North enjoy their properties in North peacefully

Let's assume the statement is true (which is very debatable). Even then, the statement has nothing to do with the recent EHRC ruling. The recent EHRC ruling is about 200.000-600 GCs who cannot enjoy their properties in North peacefully! So it doesn't matter that some TCs, a very few GCs and mainland Turks enjoy properties peacefully. You can even bring 500.000 more Turks from Turkey and they can enjoy some properties peacefully and it won't make an inch of a difference because this case was about GC refugees who cannot enjoy their properties for one reason or another.

Anyway, besides, you still haven't answered me. What do you expect from this commission? Is it going to solve the Cyprus problem, for example?

[insan]

By the way, to which ratified agreements you were referring in your pervious posting, which according to you are legalising the confiscation of GC properties in the north. I didn’t quite understand what you meant there. Can you give me more information on that?

I stated a billion times which ratified agreements were they but let me tell it one more time.

1975 3rd Vienna agreement, 1977 summit Agreements and 1979 High Level Agreements.

According to these agreements all TCs assume that they had the right to exchange the properties they occupy in North with the ones they owned in South. And TC leadership assumed that it had the right to exchange TC state land in South with same amount of GC state land in North. Therefor both TCs and TC leadership invested the occupied GC properties and GC land in North. By voting "yes" to Annan Plan they accepted to give back %9 of the occupied land and 1/3 of occupied GC properties and lands which would be in administrative boundaries of TC administered zone, per Annan Plan.

The long and short of it; while TCs have acted according to the mutually ratified agreements, invested the GC properties which they occupy as if they were belonged to them and assumed that they wouldn't be forced to return South; GC leadership has always promised and stimulate GC refugees that they would all return to their properties in North. I think this is the main reason why majority of GC refugees didn't invest the TC properties they have been occupying for 30 years in South.

So how will we solve the properties issue in this situation? There are at least 120.000 TC refugees and some 40.000 non-refugee TCs(young generation who was given state land in North) who believe that they have the right to exchange the properties they occupy with the ones they left in South according to the ratified agreements. And TC leadership believe that it has the right to exchange the State land it occupies in the North with the one it owns in South.


Please answer me now. Do those 140.000 TCs have the right not to abandon the properties they have occupied/invested in last 30 years? Doesn't that mean substuntial amount of TC properties/state land should be exchanged?

So if 120.000 TC refugees won't return to South this means 120.000 GC refugees won't have the right to return North. Or if 120.000 GC refugees wish to return TCCS; 120.000 TC refugees should abandon the properties they occupy and return to South.

From 1963 to 1974 85.000 TC refugees left all their properties in South. Recently the total number of TC refugees should be around 130.000. Let say 30.000 live abroad. there should be 100.000 refugees living in North.

Total number of GC refugees is 240.000. It is estimated that some 100.000 would gradually return to the %9 of the land which will be retuned to GC administration. Return of 100.000 refugees to %9 of the land would cause 60-70 thousands of TCs to gradually become refugees.

There are still 140.000 GC refugees. Half of these GC refugees would gradually return to TCCS by taking back 1/3 of their properties/state land share in TCCS. This means some 20-30 thousands of TCs would become refugees.

In the end, around 90-100 thousands TCs would become refugees. And if the remaining 70.000 thousands GC refugees also insist on to return to their properties or demand restitution of their properties instead of exchanging their properties with the ones they occupy in South; almost all TCs will become refugees.

I don't expect even there are just 5-6 thousands of GC refugees who plans to exchange the properties they occupy in South with the ones they own in the North.

[insan]

Anyway, besides, you still haven't answered me. What do you expect from this commission? Is it going to solve the Cyprus problem, for example?

Read the post number four under this thread. I think that post answers your question.

[insan]

Kifeas, what's your opinions about the solution of right to property and return of all refugees. Assume you were given a duty to solve this problem. On which principles and provisions you would base the solution?


Let's say 130.000 TC refugees insist on exchanging the properties they have occupied/invested for 30 years with what they left in South but just 6-7 thousands of GC refugees wished to exchange the properties they have occupied/invested in South with the ones they own in North. What's the solution?

[Kifeas]

I stated a billion times which ratified agreements were they but let me tell it one more time.

1975 3rd Vienna agreement, 1977 summit Agreements and 1979 High Level Agreements.

According to these agreements all TCs assume that they had the right to exchange the properties they occupy in North with the ones they owned in South. And TC leadership assumed that they had the right to exchange TC state land in South with same amount of GC state land in North.

My friend Insan, with all due respect, do you know the alternative definition of the word “assume”?

You make an ASS of U and ME. Join the letters in capitals and you will get the world ASSUME.

[insan]

edited

[insan]

I stated a billion times which ratified agreements were they but let me tell it one more time.

1975 3rd Vienna agreement, 1977 summit Agreements and 1979 High Level Agreements.

According to these agreements all TCs assume that they had the right to exchange the properties they occupy in North with the ones they owned in South. And TC leadership assumed that they had the right to exchange TC state land in South with same amount of GC state land in North.

My friend Insan, with all due respect, do you know the alternative definition of the word “assume”?


You make an ASS of U and ME. Join the letters in capitals and you will get the world ASSUME.

If you don't want to discuss this issue tell it directly. I don't need funny off topic jokes to amuse myself.

[Kifeas]

If you don't want to discuss this issue tell it directly. I don't need funny off topic jokes to amuse myself.

Yes my friend, I will discuss it with you. It is just a bit long and needs some time. I just thought to amuse you a bit until I finish.

Don't you agree however that assumptions are not really such a good defence, especially on such grave matters?

PS: Do you have a quick link to the above agreements, I just want to read them again for a refreshment.

[insan]

If you don't want to discuss this issue tell it directly. I don't need funny off topic jokes to amuse myself.

Yes my friend, I will discuss it with you. It is just a bit long and needs some time. I just thought to amuse you a bit until I finish.

Don't you agree however that assumptions are not really such a good defence, especially on such grave matters?

Depends upon the quality and boundaries of the assumption. I'm looking forward to here your feasible and reasonable arguments about the issue.