Cyprus-Forum.com

[insan]

The Greek leader's statement was published in yesterday's edition of 'people's Voice' newspaper.


Papadopoulos said 89,3 percent of TRNC land belonged to the Greeks and Armenians and that original documents supporting his claim were prepared independent of the Greeks.


Rejecting finding a solution to the ownership issue either by sale or by exchange, Papadopulos described the "component-state" principle of the United Nations (UN) as a medieval view.

Ps: His original interview published on halkin sesi newspaper in two parts. Mic, you should try a little bit harder to make TCs believe your false land ownership data. You should also tell Tassos to shut his mouth for a while because he messed up all your fictitious and even source unknown data regarding the land ownership. Or are you trying to advertise your mesage board by this way? "Uyandırma kerizi, bulandırır denizi" hesabı seninkisi de.


http://www.zaman.com/?hn=2282&bl=international

[MicAtCyp]

I am not sure I agree with your maths. Let's not forget that half the refugees will already be returning under GC administration through territorial adjustment, with full restitution of their property, and out of the remaining half, which is, say, 90.000, about half, say 45.000, will choose to return to the north under TCCS administration.

Oh come on Alexandre. You came to the point of actually beleiving all that staff? People return ONLY when there is a house and property guaranteed to be theirs my friend, and when they have the means to throw out the illegal user within a reasonable time. Not when a settler and a TC lives in and refuses to leave until they provide him with full relocation elsewhere and also find him a job.Not when all the properties are in the hands of a committe and every illegal user tells you "I don't care go to the committe and compensate yourself". From all those maximum expected figures within what 21 years (?) not even 1/3 would return.
That's how we would form our beautiful bi-zonality.... so yes in this respect I agree with you it is quite possible to get it that way.

From a legal point of view, I don't think the RoC can be justified for denying use of TC property by its rightful owners. Such action can only be justified politically, but not legally. So TCs have every right to take the RoC to court, just as we have every right to take Turkey to court.

It seems to me Alex you forget that the state can also turn legally against any TC for the illegal use of other citizens properties for 30 years! After all the occupied areas wouldn’t exist if the humans themselves did not give it substance. And not only the State but GC citizens too. If I hear that someone came to the free areas asking his property back the next day I will sue him in court asking 30 years of rent for using my property in the occupied.

[MicAtCyp]

Mic, you should try a little bit harder to make TCs believe your false land ownership data.

Can you show me an independent source that proves the opposite? The land ownership records are in Denktashs hands.Why does he NOT publish them???

[Alexandros Lordos]

I am not sure I agree with your maths. Let's not forget that half the refugees will already be returning under GC administration through territorial adjustment, with full restitution of their property, and out of the remaining half, which is, say, 90.000, about half, say 45.000, will choose to return to the north under TCCS administration.

Oh come on Alexandre. You came to the point of actually beleiving all that staff? People return ONLY when there is a house and property guaranteed to be theirs my friend, and when they have the means to throw out the illegal user within a reasonable time. Not when a settler and a TC lives in and refuses to leave until they provide him with full relocation elsewhere and also find him a job.Not when all the properties are in the hands of a committe and every illegal user tells you "I don't care go to the committe and compensate yourself". From all those maximum expected figures within what 21 years (?) not even 1/3 would return.
That's how we would form our beautiful bi-zonality.... so yes in this respect I agree with you it is quite possible to get it that way.

MicAtCyp,

I never discuss these issues with the Annan Plan as a basis, I discuss them on the basis of a more workable application of the BBF model. So, my comments about half the refugees returning were not to be understood "within the framework of the Annan Plan" - because under the Annan Plan not one single refugee would return under TC administration (with the exception of the Karpasia villages where there would be full restitution of property and cultural autonomy for the GCs).

No, my comment was just a response to your comment that bizonality is impossible even if half the refugees return. I repeat again that, given that half of all refugees will return under GC administration anyway, and assuming that the average rate of "desire to return" is one in two for any representative sample, then, out of the remaining 50% of refugees, only half of them would have the desire to return under TC administration. So in total, only one quarter of all refugees would be in a position where: a) Their residence would fall within TC administration, and b) They would desire to return. One quarter of 200,000 is 50,000.

Now, the question of which precise provisions for property rights, residence rights and cultural rights would render such a return a realistic option is a separate matter altogether, which I would be glad to discuss with you.

My own thoughts, concerning a workable set of provisions that would allow the right of return, is as follows:

a) Allow as much property as possible to return to original owners. Current occupants may only keep the property they are using if they have equivalent property to exchange in the south or if they have made a major improvement and they are willing to pay for the value of the original property. Note that according to this scheme, it will be very rare for a settler to be allowed to keep a property, since they have neither invested on the homes they use, nor do they have equivalent property to exchange.
b) Any refugees that are not entitled to their original residence, will be entitled to a brand new home in the same town or village.
c) Residence restrictions to be lifted, so that as many people as wish to relocate (within the permanent limit that they shouldn't form more than 33% of the TC state population) will be able to do so straight away.
d) Reallocate the responsibility for education, so that all GCs living in the north either have education under a Federal Ministry of Education, or under a GC education board.

With such provisions, I believe that any refugee who wishes to exercise the right of return will be able to do so - and it won't hurt the bizonality of the solution. As you say, maybe about half (i.e. 50,000) will choose to return, maybe even less. Most will just choose to use their residence in the north as a holiday home.

[Alexandros Lordos]

From a legal point of view, I don't think the RoC can be justified for denying use of TC property by its rightful owners. Such action can only be justified politically, but not legally. So TCs have every right to take the RoC to court, just as we have every right to take Turkey to court.

It seems to me Alex you forget that the state can also turn legally against any TC for the illegal use of other citizens properties for 30 years! After all the occupied areas wouldn’t exist if the humans themselves did not give it substance. And not only the State but GC citizens too. If I hear that someone came to the free areas asking his property back the next day I will sue him in court asking 30 years of rent for using my property in the occupied.

It seems to me, MicAtCyp, that the analogy between GCs and TCs still holds:

- GCs are using TC property
- GCs are being denied use of their own property by Turkey
- Therefore GCs can take Turkey to court. The fact that they are using TC property is not an obstacle against such legal action.

Do you agree so far? OK, let's examine the TC case:

- TCs are using GC property
- TCs are being denied use of their property by the RoC
- Therefore by the same logic the TCs can take the RoC to court, and the fact that they are using GC property is not an obstacle against such legal action.

Why is the fact that we are using each other's property "not a crime", whereas denying use of property is? Because, in my opinion, using each other's property is covered by the Third Vienna Agreement, so long as we don't actually claim that "it belongs to us". GC and TC refugees do not have a choice except to use each other's property, but the RoC and Turkey do have a choice when a refugee - GC or TC - demands peaceful enjoyment of his property. Turkey could (theoretically) say to a GC refugee "sure, since you want to use your own property, we will rehouse the current occupant elsewhere, and give the property back to you". The RoC could do the same thing. Neither side is doing it, for political reasons, which political reasons, however, the ECHR - as a legal institution - is not allowed to sympathise with.

[-mikkie2-]

Alexandre,

The TC's have the right to take the RoC to court in Cyprus. That is what Arif Mustafa did. The TC's have local remedies that they can use. The GC's do not hence why they recourse to the ECHR. WHy don't the TC's take the RoC to court? Because they have to give up what they were given in the north! Simple. So don't expect a flood of TC's to go knocking at the ECHR or RoC courts to get their property back.

[MicAtCyp]

No, my comment was just a response to your comment that
bizonality is impossible even if half the refugees
return.

What I actually said is this:

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.

Notice that I said at least half without actually caring to calculate this fraction exactly.If you look at my data post you will notice that:

Area wise the TCs left behind 473,309 scales whereas they got 1,460,643 scales GC land and they them selves owed 379,146 scales in the occupied area.
Value wise the TCs left behind 1/20th of what (GC properties) they got in the occupied areas

Notice the value calculations are based on the fact that the TC properties in the free areas in 1974 were on the average 206 Cyp/scala the GC ones 663 Cyp/scala whereas the value of TC lands at the occupied areas were 519 Cyp/scala and the GC ones 1346 Cyp/scala

Even if we assume the values of TC properties in the free areas should be counted as double (due to undevelopment) then still we are left with the TCs leaving behind 1/10th valuewise of what they got. So even after a complete property exchange of equal to equal 9/10 ths of the GC refugees would still own ALL the properties they left behind i.e 9/10 of 1,460,643 scales whereas the TCs will continue owing 379,146 scales + 10% of 1,460,643=525,210 scales.. So just based on these facts no matter how many refugees return it is obvious that bizonality is impossible due to ownership of properties which is 2.5:1 against the TCs. Even if we assume the GCs ALL return to the rich areas of Famagusta and Morfou etc etc it is very-very unlikely we ever reach the ratio of 0.3:1 in any area in the occupied areas that could possibly form the TCCS. So yes bizonality is an impossibility, unless we technically steal the properties of the GC refugees and donate them on "first come first served" basis to TCs and settlers.

****************************************************
Now I am ready to examine your proposal. But to do that you need to be specific.A) What percentage of land do you see the TCCS having, 29% as per Anan Plan or what? B) What do you mean as many as possible GC original owners to return? I need your number. C) What do you mean "Any refugees that are not entitled to their original residence"? what are your criteria for "not entitled"? Not entitled because they exchanged, or because they will be compensated by the user, or what? How about properties that are not "residence" I mean agricultural land and empty building land.

***************************************

- GCs are using TC property
- GCs are being denied use of their own property by
Turkey
- Therefore GCs can take Turkey to court. The fact that
they are using TC property is not an obstacle against
such legal action.

Do you agree so far? OK, let's examine the TC case:

No obviously I don't agree. The majority of GC refugees -two out of three do not use TC properties! And those who won the cases at the ECHR were not using any either.Don't be so sure they would win if they were actually using TC properties themselves!

Why is the fact that we are using each other's property
"not a crime", whereas denying use of property is?

Who said it is "not a crime"? Those who use other peoples properties ARE personally liable together with the Authority who permitted them.The fact that so far the personal responsibility of the user was not challenged is because simply the TC user was inaccessible. When however a TC comes and asks his property back, by the minute he does so, he becomes accessible. At the same time of course the Gc user becomes liable together with RoC. So if the TC wants to ask compensation from RoC or from the user or from both, for the use of his property for all these years he can certainly do so, and be sure he will win! On the other hand he should be ready to pay his own compensation too.

Propably I was wrong in saying that the RoC would take the initiative to spark this matter in case the TCs start claiming their properties massively, but surely I was not wrong when I said that the refugees themselves would do it. You would be surprised! If you remember some MPs (i think of DESY) already adviced the refugees to start sueing the TCs....

Because, in my opinion, using each other's property is
covered by the Third Vienna Agreement

You are repeating the same groundless argument of Insan without even caring to read what the 3rd Vienna agreement says. Please read it and then revert quoting me the relevant parts supporting your opinion.

[turkcyp]

I was showing this decision to a lawyer friend of mine.

His opinion briefly is as follows.

He said that what the decision basically says, is Annan Plan did not change the status quo on the ground because it was rejected, and therefore Louzidou case is still valid. But he said that this decision had opened a new window for the TC side to MAY BE return these cases down.

One of the arguments of TC side at the Louzidou case was that local remedies were not exhausted. This arguments has not being accepted by court in Louzidou case because there was no local remedy to begin with.

Now in this case TC side is saying that look we have compensation commission and it is a local remedy. What happened in this court case is that court has said that local remedies were not enough.

Actually in both Louzidou case and even in this one court has accepted that de facto remedies can be accepted by the court in circumstances like Cyprus. So in other words a remedy does not have to be de jure to be accepted, (as I have been saying in this forum as a court does not have to be de jure to be able to dispose justice). But in Louzidou case even de facto remedies did not exist. And in this case even though de facto remedies existed they were not sufficient.

According to the friend of mine TRNC government has to do certain things to be able to satisfy the ECHR as the local remedies existence,
- Change Article 159 of the constitution to give possibility of accepting pre-74 GC owned deeds
- Change the property commission law so that
(a) to provide restitution to a property as a possibility other than just compensation
(b) change the structure of the commission so that its members are not using pre-74 GC land, so they would not be biased.
(c) Make it explicit that the law would work retrospective
(d) Make the law compliant with Article 8 and 14 of the Human rights declaration.

IF TC side does all of these then there is a CHANCE that ECHR MAY decide that local remedies is not exhausted and send the applications to the commission.

BUT he said that even the applications is sent to the commission, the verdict of commision will have to be in general in compliant with the Louzidou case decision, if not then the same GC who may not like the verdict of commission will still go to ECHR and say look I have exhausted the local remedies but I am not satisfied. Which at that point the court will decide if the local remedy (commissions verdict) was a just one or not.

I think all these comments make sense in light of the recent movements in the north where Talat is trying to change the constitution. Hearsay is that after changing constitution, Talat will also try change the law that formed the commission to make the above changes and appoint people into commission who are not using GC land, and probably some of these people will be foreigners to give more objectivity to the commission.

I have asked to my friend what is the government may be planning to get with these?

He said that most probably the commissions verdict will be half restitution (and in place like Varosha full restitution) and half compensation. For example commission will be paying compensation to the applying GC to the portions of property who has current residents (so that he does not have to kick these out, and justify this as public interest) and restitute the portions of property who is not actively used. (In places like Varosha full restitution is possible). But what the commission will probably do is to exchange the pre-74 deeds with the TRNC deeds like he did for the TCs, wherever they made restitution.

And he said, at the same time TRNC government will probably will have to make payments to the people who had to leave the property back to GC, so that they will not be harmed.

We will see if the Talat government will be able to solve this property mess in accordance with ECHR decisions.

p.s. Not related to subject. One interesting thing I have realized in the decision is that ECHR, acknowledges the equality of communities in Cyprus, but having said that she also says that this equality does not make TRNC any more legal as par with RoC.

[MicAtCyp]

According to the friend of mine TRNC government has to do certain things to be able to satisfy the ECHR as the local remedies existence,
- Change Article 159 of the constitution to give possibility of accepting pre-74 GC owned deeds

Heloo, good morning! This is a basic law of the pseudo constitution, write it off and your whole system collapses. Public interest is not served by taking ones property and giving it to someone else.Public interest is served by taking your property to make a road to be used by everybody! Alhough such an action will for sure solve the property issue of a solution I am not sure Talat will be so BRAVE to take such an action. It's too risky, but then who knows?

In my opinion your friend missed the point.Once the ECHR found the court to be inadequate, had no reason to examine any other aspects concerning that court. This does not mean it considers it legal or illegal. It simply did not examine it. The fact that 3 out of 5 of it's members are by themselves using GC properties (which proves the court is not impartial) was not even considered by the ECHR....

One interesting thing I have realized in the decision is that ECHR, acknowledges the equality of communities in Cyprus,

Any references to the relative paragraph?

[Viewpoint]

MicAtCyp

The fact that 3 out of 5 of it's members are by themselves using GC properties (which proves the court is not impartial) was not even considered by the ECHR

For your information MicAtCyp those members have been changed.