Cyprus-Forum.com

[Kifeas]

Interestingly, however, the ruling will attract a large number of claims from Turkish Cypiots who have equal claims and equal rights, on the grounds that a southern court, assuming that they could get there, is no more impartial than the TRNC property commission. So Turkey will find that it is standing in the dock next to Greek Cyprus — a fascinatingn prospect given that this means that the cases between 1963 and 1974
will be aired at the same time, as those which refer to the 1974 Turkish intervention.

At the moment there aren’t any TC applications in the ECHR, nor in any court in the RoCy.
Do you know why?
Your parallelism is not quite accurate.

[insan]

Insan,

The TC's were FOOLED by your regime (meaning Denktas and Turkey)! Can't you see this? The effect of your'mis-interpretation' of these agreements has led Turkey and continues to lead Turkey down a path which she will ultimately regret in my opinion.

Just as the 'mis-interpretation' of the Annan plan seems to give some people the excuse to develop GC land, with the blessings of Mr Talat, the same happened with the previous agreements.

Even the ECHR has said that the Anann plan is null and void! You cannot even use this as an excuse.

The ONLY way to solve this problem is to bring about a political solution and to let refughees have the CHOICE to return to their properties or not. Once that is established then the issue of exchange or compensation can then be assessed.

It's GC community who misinformed and misguided about those agreements. The GC leadership delude its peaople with lies and propaganda. How one could interprete those agreements return of all GC and TC refugees to their properties. How it could be interpreted those agreements nullification of treaty of guarantee and treaty of alliance; i.e withdrawal of all turkish troops. It is obvious who "misinterpreted" those agreements.

[-mikkie2-]

It's GC community who misinformed and misguided about those agreements. The GC leadership delude its peaople with lies and propaganda. How one could interprete those agreements return of all GC and TC refugees to their properties. How it could be interpreted those agreements nullification of treaty of guarantee and treaty of alliance; i.e withdrawal of all turkish troops. It is obvious who "misinterpreted" those agreements.

As always Insan, we were the ones fooled, your side was always right.

We all know how Turkey abused the treaty of guarantee which you continue to insist was a peace operation. Reverting back to this argument does show that you cannot really argue what is going in in the ECHR

[insan]

It's GC community who misinformed and misguided about those agreements. The GC leadership delude its peaople with lies and propaganda. How one could interprete those agreements return of all GC and TC refugees to their properties. How it could be interpreted those agreements nullification of treaty of guarantee and treaty of alliance; i.e withdrawal of all turkish troops. It is obvious who "misinterpreted" those agreements.

As always Insan, we were the ones fooled, your side was always right.

We all know how Turkey abused the treaty of guarantee which you continue to insist was a peace operation. Reverting back to this argument does show that you cannot really argue what is going in in the ECHR

Ok mikkie keep believing your own propaganda and lies. This is my last post on this forum. I don't want to waste my time with all these nonsense and ignorance, anymore.

Towards the end of 2005 we'll alll see the final round of Cyprus struggle.

I wish you all having a good time with your dreams and beliefs.

Bye Bye.

[Agios Amvrosios]

Donyork said:

Turkish Cypiots who have equal claims and equal rights, on the grounds that a southern court, assuming that they could get there, is no more impartial than the TRNC property commission.

This absolutely incorrect.

The fact is the Court in the free areas would equate the valid legal title of a Turkish Cypriot with a right and legal mechanism for the Turkish Cypriot to return, While the Hack "Commission" is a fantasy of Denktash to do what ever it takes to prevent Greek Cypriot refugees restituted with their properties under occupation.

[-mikkie2-]

As usual on this site, the question is soon lost as people argue something else. Anyway, the ruling in the ECHR is right. The TRNC property commission was never likely to command the trust of the south, and was therefore a dead duck from day one.

Most certainly true.

The ECHR is confined to members of the Council of Europe, which includes Turkey, but obviously not the TRNC, which is unrecognised and therefore not accountable.To get over this problem, the EHCR in 2001 held that the north was administratively part of Turkey — a legal device which somewhat clashes with its view, held at the same time, that it was a de facto state. Anyway, the fact remains that on questions of human rights, you can only make a claim against Turkey and not the TRNC.

I don't quite agree with this interpretation. You can't make a claim on ANYTHING with the trnc because it is deemed not legal and invalid as stated by relevant UN resolutions. The European Court and other European institutions reinforce this situation.

But that is all the furore comes down to — the particular claimant in this instance has not won her case, merely the right to have it heard. Of course there is now a queue of people who want their cases heard — the $1.1 million awarded in the
Loizidou case is a tempting precedent for others who would like to
get rich too.

As opposed to the TC's and the settlers getting rich on land they don't own! Lets get real here. Depriving someone of their property is not a minor issue. $1.1million cannot compensate for the psychological trauma that many refugees have gone through. That also goes for the TC's as well.

Interestingly, however, the ruling will attract a large number of claims from Turkish Cypiots who have equal claims and equal rights, on the grounds that a southern court, assuming that they could get there, is no more impartial than the TRNC property commission. So Turkey will find that it is standing in the dock next to Greek Cyprus — a fascinatingn prospect given that this means that the cases between 1963 and 1974 will be aired at the same time, as those which refer to the 1974 Turkish intervention.

Interestingly, the TC's have to go through Cypriot courts first because they are deemed legal and can enforce decisions. Decisions can be challenged in the Supreme Court as well and by both sides, as in the case of Arif (which I do not know the current state of his case). What is even more interesting is that if the TC's choose en-masse to resort to the courts you can bet the Cyprus problem will be out of the control of the politicians and in the hands of the people! Loose control of the people and you can kiss the 'trnc' goodbye. And add to the fact that many people in the north got much more valuable property compared to what they left in the south then that is another reason why many TC's choose not to go down that road.

Victory? A technical decision only, I am afraid, with the possibility that it will prove an own-goal. For those who are interested, the case law on Cyprus v Turkey 2001 would be instructive.

I think Turkey has already scored the own goal on this one! Loizidou case was 'technical' and she has won her case. Lets see if Turkey will comply with the final ruling which is for Loizidou to be allowed to peacefully enjoy her property.

[-mikkie2-]

Ok mikkie keep believing your own propaganda and lies. This is my last post on this forum. I don't want to waste my time with all these nonsense and ignorance, anymore.

Towards the end of 2005 we'll alll see the final round of Cyprus struggle.

I wish you all having a good time with your dreams and beliefs.

Bye Bye.

Insan,

I did not accuse you of being a liar so do not label me as such. Ignorance cuts both ways. The fact that Turkey has not won a single case in the European courts is testament to what is real and what is not.

In any case, if you carefully read my replies to you , you will see that my position is that people should have the choice to return or not to return under a new political set-up rather than coming up with stupid formulas and rules which only have the aim of prohibiting return. Using private property and its ownership as a bargainiong chip to further specific political aims to the detriment of refugees is wrong in my opinion.

[Agios Amvrosios]

The Uninanimous decision that the there was no adequate domestic remedy apparently included a decision by a Turkish judge:

The seven-judge bench, including a Turkish member, unanimously rejected Turkey’s contention that a ‘property compensation commission’ set up by the illegal occupation regime in June 2003 to hear claims by Greek Cypriot refugees constituted an effective domestic remedy that had to be exhausted before applying to the ECHR.

The Court affirmed that properties in the occupied part of Cyprus continue to belong to those who hold title deeds issued by the Republic of Cyprus prior to 1974[/quote]

[Agios Amvrosios]

Insan Said:

The decision of ECHR regarding Loizidu case wss political

The ECHR is a human rights court, a case must have a Geniune cuase of action before it is heard. Saying that the decision in Loizidou was purely "political" reflect a fascist chauvanistic attitude. It confirms an un european position that universal Human rights are negotiable.

[MicAtCyp]

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 lets get some things straight. The GC refugees who found an equally worthy TC housing property to what they left behind are indeed very few. Lets say 5-6 thousand as you figured. (I actually do not know the exact number). On the other hand however the TCs left behind agricultural land, empty building land, and the land on which their houses collapsed. Although the agricultural land is currently being used by refugees the empty land suitable for building remains totally unused. In case of exchange of properties the exchange will be made on equal to equal value-wise basis, and any monentary difference will be covered between the individuals.
So although you are right that only 5-6 thousands will want to exchange initially, you are forgetting the fact that many more thousands GCs are just waiting to see what is there available for them.

Of course unless at least half the GC refugees are allowed to return and get all their properties the exchange on an equal to equal basis cannot succeed because the GC refugees are much more. On top of everything we also have the problem with the settlers and the properties they are using...

Now you tell me what kind of bizonality we are going to have if half the GC refugees return and the rest exchange their properties.In my opinion bizonality is an impossibility.