Cyprus-Forum.com

[Nikitas]

Good up to the point of entering into a simple agreement to exchange land. What about the deprivation of the enjoyment of that land for tha last 34 years? How does the commission deal with that thorny question, and can it be an impartial agency in this context when the express policy of those that set ut up is to prevent GCs from accessing their land?

Enjoyment of ones property is also one of those pesky rights recognised by the ECHR and the Council of Europe charter etc.

In the case of land sold to foreign, non Cypriot, buyers there is the added complication of the civil conspiracy between the "sellers" and buyers, a situation which makes return of the land a complex multi jurisdictional mess. Does the Property Commission have the power to compensate both for the loss of the land, the damage suffered because of the conspiracy, as well as the 34 year loss?

Can a political settlement regarding the property issue ever bypass personal human rights laid down in the conventions mentioned above?

[CopperLine]

Nikitas, Yes, I agree it is a thorny issue. I think though that there is a basic choice that has to be made (I mentioned this before somewhere else in the forum on ECHR) : either one pursues a human rights-based approach to resolution in which individual rights trump collective or communal rights and claims; OR, one pursues a political resolution in which collective or communal claims trump individual rights. It is difficult, ultimately, to reconcile these two approaches. That is to say, there are merits and costs to both approaches.

If you want recognise individual and human rights then what is the mechanism by which these rights are to be recognised, respected and, if necessary, enforced ? With regard to the deprivation of the last 34 years or so, the individualist human rights approach basically argues that if GC claimant X is satisfied with the restitution, exchange, compensation that is agreed under the PC remedy then that is their right. The assumption is that for claimant X the 34 years of deprivation has been discounted. (pPerhaps that is not a discount that you or I would accept nor an assumption that we'd share; but we're not claimant X).

If you want what you regard as adequate compensation for the deprivation of 34 years - very difficult to quantify for remedy purposes - then it is probable that the PC route is not for you. The problem is that at the moment the PC is regarded as the proper route for first remedying property claims. If you or I disagree with this and try to pursue a case by not going via the PC then, when it comes to appeal to a higher law, we'd simply be told that we had not exhausted local remedies and be sent back.

[pantheman]

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 ?

The answer to that question my friend copperline should come from your masters, Turkey. Since you expect your human rights to be respected, why can't the 200,000 evicted GC have those same rights?

So sadly again it just goes to show you want whats yours, but you also want whats ours.

Although I do agree with you in principle.

[zan]

Nikitas, Yes, I agree it is a thorny issue. I think though that there is a basic choice that has to be made (I mentioned this before somewhere else in the forum on ECHR) : either one pursues a human rights-based approach to resolution in which individual rights trump collective or communal rights and claims; OR, one pursues a political resolution in which collective or communal claims trump individual rights. It is difficult, ultimately, to reconcile these two approaches. That is to say, there are merits and costs to both approaches.

If you want recognise individual and human rights then what is the mechanism by which these rights are to be recognised, respected and, if necessary, enforced ? With regard to the deprivation of the last 34 years or so, the individualist human rights approach basically argues that if GC claimant X is satisfied with the restitution, exchange, compensation that is agreed under the PC remedy then that is their right. The assumption is that for claimant X the 34 years of deprivation has been discounted. (pPerhaps that is not a discount that you or I would accept nor an assumption that we'd share; but we're not claimant X).

If you want what you regard as adequate compensation for the deprivation of 34 years - very difficult to quantify for remedy purposes - then it is probable that the PC route is not for you. The problem is that at the moment the PC is regarded as the proper route for first remedying property claims. If you or I disagree with this and try to pursue a case by not going via the PC then, when it comes to appeal to a higher law, we'd simply be told that we had not exhausted local remedies and be sent back.

Exactly right.....The claims such as people like me that were chased out of Cyprus by the GC regime of the time will open the flood gates...I think the general consensus is "Don't go there"......Unless like Nikitas you are putting all the blame on Turkey and start at the 1974 threshold.

[CopperLine]

No, Pantheman, you are missing the point completely.

Not a single word of your post,

The answer to that question my friend copperline should come from your masters, Turkey. Since you expect your human rights to be respected, why can't the 200,000 evicted GC have those same rights?

So sadly again it just goes to show you want whats yours, but you also want whats ours.

can be derived from what I wrote.

Taking your post apart :

1. I'm not answerable to Turkey. The Turkish state does not speak in my name.
2. Human rights are NOT tradeable commodities. Nor are they zero-sum assets. Just because you enjoy rights does not mean that I can't enjoy rights, and vice versa.
3. My failure to uphold your rights does not increase my rights or increase the enjoyment of my rights. And vice versa.
4. GCs have human rights, amongst which are those codified and guaranteed by the ECHR. TCs have human rights, amongst which are those codified by the ECHR. Turkish citizens too.
5. RoC and Turkey are both signatories to the ECHR convention. They both have obligations to abide by ECHR judgements. They both expect other ECHR signatory states to also abide by ECHR writ.
6. Those 200,000 (or whatever figure) of GCs do have human rights and those rights should be guaranteed by the ECHR and its signatories. I have never suggested that they don't have rights nor that those rights should not be upheld.
7. No I don't want what (a) I have no right to, and (b) which in any case does not belong to me.

More generally, if you think that human beings have human rights (regardless of sex, race, creed, age, sexuality, etc) then the the issue is surely not whether claimant X is GC, TC, Italian or Latvian, etc, but how claimant X's rights can be best respected and, if needs be, guaranteed. So far in the development of international human rights law, the best we've got - warts and all - is the ECHR. If you just want to pan the ECHR by all means do so, but you'd better also think of what other more effective mechanism there could be to express, adjudicate and attempt to guarantee your human rights Pantheman.

[Nikitas]

Zan wrote:

"Exactly right.....The claims such as people like me that were chased out of Cyprus by the GC regime of the time will open the flood gates...I think the general consensus is "Don't go there"......Unless like Nikitas you are putting all the blame on Turkey and start at the 1974 threshold."

My approach is the individual rights approach. For practical reasons- in the end communal rights make up a much stronger foundation for communal rights and leave little room for excuses and political manouvering. Having had contacts with politicians over the years and having seen the type of personality that becomes a career politician the individual legal rights approach is preferable.

Zan, if I were you I would opt for pressing for my rights over the land. Not only because you are pursuing a legal right but because once a settlement is reached practicalities will set in. No matter how much I empathize with native Kyrenians (Both TC and GC) there is no way I can see people from Paphos, to give one example of many, forsaking their area in favor of Kyrenia. In a settled situation preferences for residence and establishment will follow different lines than present and as a result land values (monetary and practical) will be different.

[zan]

Zan wrote:

"Exactly right.....The claims such as people like me that were chased out of Cyprus by the GC regime of the time will open the flood gates...I think the general consensus is "Don't go there"......Unless like Nikitas you are putting all the blame on Turkey and start at the 1974 threshold."

My approach is the individual rights approach. For practical reasons- in the end communal rights make up a much stronger foundation for communal rights and leave little room for excuses and political manouvering. Having had contacts with politicians over the years and having seen the type of personality that becomes a career politician the individual legal rights approach is preferable.

Zan, if I were you I would opt for pressing for my rights over the land. Not only because you are pursuing a legal right but because once a settlement is reached practicalities will set in. No matter how much I empathize with native Kyrenians (Both TC and GC) there is no way I can see people from Paphos, to give one example of many, forsaking their area in favor of Kyrenia. In a settled situation preferences for residence and establishment will follow different lines than present and as a result land values (monetary and practical) will be different.

Perhaps we should all pray for a just solution and compensation for land and leave the loss of use alone Nikitas......Without someone to blame you cannot make that claim otherwise the money I would want for not being able to grow up in my own country has no limits.......The "RoC' and Greece would be bankrupt!!

[Get Real!]

....Without someone to blame you cannot make that claim otherwise the money I would want for not being able to grow up in my own country has no limits.......The "RoC' and Greece would be bankrupt!!

Indeed! Your lawsuit for psychological derangement would have to be humongous...

[Nurgary]

Good up to the point of entering into a simple agreement to exchange land. What about the deprivation of the enjoyment of that land for tha last 34 years? How does the commission deal with that thorny question, and can it be an impartial agency in this context when the express policy of those that set ut up is to prevent GCs from accessing their land?

Enjoyment of ones property is also one of those pesky rights recognised by the ECHR and the Council of Europe charter etc.

In the case of land sold to foreign, non Cypriot, buyers there is the added complication of the civil conspiracy between the "sellers" and buyers, a situation which makes return of the land a complex multi jurisdictional mess. Does the Property Commission have the power to compensate both for the loss of the land, the damage suffered because of the conspiracy, as well as the 34 year loss?

Can a political settlement regarding the property issue ever bypass personal human rights laid down in the conventions mentioned above?

And 45 year loss for many TC's. But sorry it only started in 74 and not 63.

[Get Real!]

Good up to the point of entering into a simple agreement to exchange land. What about the deprivation of the enjoyment of that land for tha last 34 years? How does the commission deal with that thorny question, and can it be an impartial agency in this context when the express policy of those that set ut up is to prevent GCs from accessing their land?

Enjoyment of ones property is also one of those pesky rights recognised by the ECHR and the Council of Europe charter etc.

In the case of land sold to foreign, non Cypriot, buyers there is the added complication of the civil conspiracy between the "sellers" and buyers, a situation which makes return of the land a complex multi jurisdictional mess. Does the Property Commission have the power to compensate both for the loss of the land, the damage suffered because of the conspiracy, as well as the 34 year loss?

Can a political settlement regarding the property issue ever bypass personal human rights laid down in the conventions mentioned above?

And 45 year loss for many TC's. But sorry it only started in 74 and not 63.

It started in 1570 remember?