Cyprus-Forum.com

[MicAtCyp]

The court's decision runs counter to Greek Cypriot side charges that the commission is illegal because the KKTC, which established the body, is not internationally recognized.

The court did not check the issue of legality/illegality. This does not mean it considers it legal. It checked only the issue of whether it is adequate. When it proved inadequate the rest don't really matter juristically-wise. So the reporter should not get so easily thrilled.

By the way 3 out of 5 of the pseudo committe members were proven to, they themselves holding GC properties, therefore the ECHR called them non impartial.

The important thing about this decision is that the properties of the GCs WERE-ARE-AND WILL ALWAYS BE THEIRS!!!

[insan]

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

http://www.moi.gov.cy/moi/pio/pio.nsf/A ... enDocument

[insan]

The court's decision runs counter to Greek Cypriot side charges that the commission is illegal because the KKTC, which established the body, is not internationally recognized.

The court did not check the issue of legality/illegality. This does not mean it considers it legal. It checked only the issue of whether it is adequate. When it proved inadequate the rest don't really matter juristically-wise. So the reporter should not get so easily thrilled.

By the way 3 out of 5 of the pseudo committe members were proven to, they themselves holding GC properties, therefore the ECHR called them non impartial.

The important thing about this decision is that the properties of the GCs WERE-ARE-AND WILL ALWAYS BE THEIRS!!!

Ok. Come and take all the properties belong to GCs and kick all the TCs and settlers out.

[MicAtCyp]

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

Oh come on re Insan. I think you became very touchy lately.I read both of Metecyps messages I did not notice any attacking attitute against you. He just presented his views that obviously disagree with yours and that’s all...

If his tune was attacking, then I wonder what my tune against you and against others sometimes is.

[insan]

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

Oh come on re Insan. I think you became very touchy lately.I read both of Metecyps messages I did not notice any attacking attitute against you. He just presented his views that obviously disagree with yours and that’s all...

If his tune was attacking, then I wonder what my tune against you and against others sometimes is.

If you start with your post by saying "stop fooling ..." then you raise some arguments irrelevant what is being discussed; besides accuse someone with your beliefs not the facts; the person who is subjected to all those nonsense feel himself/herself attacked and face to face with lots of things irrelevant what is being discussed. It's not about I'm being touchy. It's about the nonsense arguments I'm being accused.

[-mikkie2-]

Insan,

Metecyp was using a figure of speach and you took it personally as always. More egg shells yet again!

[insan]

Insan,

Metecyp was using a figure of speach and you took it personally as always. More egg shells yet again!

mikkie, I put forward my opinions about Loizidou case. metecyp instead of putting forward his own counter arguments about Loizidou case started with labeling me "fooling people" and what about the rights of 200.000 GC refugees, violations of Maronites right to property blah blah blah.


Btw, it all started with the post I replied in response of your posting. And this topic is about the latest ECHR decision. While I was waiting to hear your opinion about my post concerning the issue, you came here and repeated your "egg shells" rhetoric, stereotype one more time.

[-mikkie2-]

Insan,

WHERE does it say in these agreements that property ownership is being recinded or transferred? Nowhere.

These agreements did not assume transfer of property. The 3rd Vienna agreement was purely a humanitarian agreement to allow families to be re-united and for people to be allowed to stay where they are until the problem was sorted out politically.

I can't for the life of me see how you ASSUMED that property was to be taken from rightful owners and exchanged.

These agreements were not law and are not an absolute basis for what will happen. And on that basis I can understand why the ECHR takes the stand that it does on the issue of property.

[metecyp]

Insan,
Metecyp was using a figure of speach and you took it personally as always. More egg shells yet again!

It doesn't matter at this point. I'm going to try to limit my discussion with insan because he's too touchy and proud to engage in a constructive argument. He accused me of "trying to impress others" meaning GC forum members (i assume) in a private message. I don't understand nor do I care at this point how he could reach to that conclusion from what I said.

[-mikkie2-]

The 3rd Vienna agreement and high level agreements did not discuss the issue of property ownership, but the issue of how to proceed to a political solution. 'Bounding' the property issue around these agreements has no basis or adequate foundation as the issue of property ownership is seperate to a political settlement.