Cyprus-Forum.com

[-mikkie2-]

Because it isn't recognised by anyone. Quite simple really.

[observer]

I thought it had been recognised by the ECHR, and several hundred GCs who have applied to it.

[-mikkie2-]

No, it has not been recognised by the ECHR as all cases are between the GC and Turkey.

[observer]

and who precisely is the so called agency that the so called Turkey is handing the so called applications to be so called deliberated upon ... can it be our so called property commission whose so called deliberations have just been so called approved by the so called ECHR.

Bring back pseudo, it's got fewer letters.

[-mikkie2-]

Look, the fact is northern Cyprus is under the control of Turkey and the Turkish army and the administration in the north is sub-ordinate to Turkey. Therefore all institutions in the north are deemed to be the responsibility of Turkey. All cases in the ECHR are between the GC and Turkey, not GC and TC administration. Recgsnising the property commission is meaningless because it does not afford recognition of the 'trnc' but only a mechanism that Turkey puts in place for GC's to recourse to locally. If adequate redress isn't given by this comission and the case goes to ECHR, then the case will be GC v Turkey, not GC v 'trnc'.

[Viewpoint]

OK OK calm down we are not after recognition via the property commission this development means that GCs and TCs can now exchange land. Isnt this a positive move for people seeking to resolve something the politicians have not been able to do so for over 45 years??

[Nikitas]

Is this about the Tymvios case? One case so far, if that is the rate at which this commission is working they will get somewhere by about 2065

[CopperLine]

Mikkie2 is I think right in this post

This issue cuts both ways.

If a GC does not wish to exchange his/her land with TC land in the south and the 'trnc' refuses to give back the land of the GC then ECHR is the only recourse.

I don't believe that this case sets a precedent because this was a private agreement between Timbios and Turkey (via the so called property comission) and all the ECHR did was to rubber stamp it. It will need a proper pilot case for this commision to be deemed adequate remedy anyway. So this story is not over by any means.

and also right in this post :

Look, the fact is northern Cyprus is under the control of Turkey and the Turkish army and the administration in the north is sub-ordinate to Turkey. Therefore all institutions in the north are deemed to be the responsibility of Turkey. All cases in the ECHR are between the GC and Turkey, not GC and TC administration. Recgsnising the property commission is meaningless because it does not afford recognition of the 'trnc' but only a mechanism that Turkey puts in place for GC's to recourse to locally. If adequate redress isn't given by this comission and the case goes to ECHR, then the case will be GC v Turkey, not GC v 'trnc'.

Except to clarify the highlighted sentence. The Property Commission is, so far, regarded as the appropriate local remedy and which will remain so until if it is found to be ineffective or inappropriate. That judgement would remain the preserve of the ECHR until, for example, either a case or an appeal was successful against the operation of the Commission, technically regarded as a remedy provided by the recognised state, i.e, Turkey, the occupying power. Thus the fact that the Property Commission is actually an agency of the TRNC authorities, the ECHR treats it as a proxy of Turkey.


From my point of view the ECHR's greatest weakness is the length of time for cases to be heard. Nevertheless the great strength of the ECHR is that it establishes and reconfirms principles of law and conduct which is as impartial as we're likely to get.
[/b]

[CopperLine]

Mikkie2
however says something a bit misleading here though :

No, it has not been recognised by the ECHR as all cases are between the GC and Turkey.

If 'it' refers to the Property Commission then s/he is wrong. The ECHR judgements explicitly state that there must be a local remedy to the property question, and that the Property Commission (PC) should serve that purpose. Its judgements also imply that the adequacy of the PC in being an effective remedy needed to be assessed and tested. Insistence that there should be some institution or mechanism like the PC does not, however, entail any recognition of TRNC.

[CopperLine]

Viewpoint has also got a valid point : the Property Commission does allow, in principle, individuals to resolve property matters on an individual basis. So if this GC wants to agree with that TC some specific property settlement why should this not be allowed ? After all it is a basic human right (ECHR, etc) for us to be able to enjoy our right to property, and so, if I choose to exercise my human right by agreeing with a TC who is living in my property, assisted by the good offices of the Property Commission, why should some half-witted vindictive politician be allowed to stop me ?