Cyprus-Forum.com

[CopperLine]

The citizenship or nationality of the claimant doesn't really matter in a human rights case (that's why the ECHR is called the European Court of Human Rights and not the European Court of Citizen Rights or even the European Court of Justice). The issue is whether a human right - in these kinds of cases, the abuse of the right to property and/or right to fair tribunal - has been abused or not. Since the ECHR convention is a convention between state parties it is states which are typically the respondents. Because of this , in principle, TCs - irrespective of whether they are regarded as citizens of Turkey or citizens of RoC or even citizens of an unrecognised TRNC - may pursue cases against the RoC whether or not they live in RoC. However like any other complainant they must first have exhausted local remedies which means before a case could even possibly be lodged at the ECHR. In other words a TC would have had to have had their property heard by RoC courts and then show that either the procedure or the decision of the RoC courts or the subsequent action of the RoC authorities had still failed in some noteable way.

Jerry is right to say that ECHR is open to TC action, with the above proviso.

The question of pre/post 1974 has little impact in these cases. The issue is whether the effective local administration of justice has failed or been otherwise inadequate in upholding the human rights of a claimant. So, for example, properties seized or expropriated prior to 1974 could still be a subject of an ECHR case. Indeed, if I recall correctly a GC citizen of RoC won a case against the RoC for expropriation without compensation of her property (I think that a petrol station or road was built on her land).

Boomerang as usual derives a perverse interpratation from the ECHR cases. No the TCs are not milking the Turkish state. No it is not a strategy of TCs to double their gains - how could TCs have strategised in this way if the division of Cyprus occurred before the creation of the current ECHR ? And no using ECHR is hardly the path to rapid riches. Of course the usual class basis of 'justice' is revealed in these cases - you need money in the first place to secure redress. You won't find any impoverished or landless people taking cases to law, even if they have suffered a great deal more than those with title claims.

[Viewpoint]

VP

Go ahead its every refugees right to go to court, TCs have started to apply as well, so the "RoC" will have to explain why they will not pay up until a solution is found but expect the other side of the dispute to cough up, double standards yet again one for GCs another for TCs, true to form. The positive side of these court cases will be that both sides will be forced to move on certain issues, maybe the current talks are related to actions taken by individuals who have taken to solving their probelsm themselves as waiting 34 years for their leaders with no results is enough.

The difference between the GC's and TC's is that TC's have every right to return to their homes and villages. GC's are not given that opportunity. I would encourage the RoC not to accept any claims by the TC's. Its no ones fault if you want to separate yourselves from the rest of Cyprus.

I would love it if I went to court in Autralia and said to them I don't want to be part of this couhtry I called home for the past 30 years please pay an amount of money because I don't wnat to live in my home any more, as I have a minority complex and I'll go and live in Fiji :):) get a grip dude

If the majority were trying to turn Australia into New Zealand and your family members were being killed and you felt at risk would you not fight for survival, we were the ones that wanted to be part of the "RoC" you were the ones trying to gift Cyprus to Greece. Pplus we did not withdraw we were thrown out at gun point and then when we wanted to come back you tired to enforce Akritas on us. You really need to try and see it from this side of the fence and why we do not trust you with our future.

[Viewpoint]

Court's Decision in English:-
http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view. ... n=hudoc-en

If we don't get an acceptable solution with the forthcoming talks I believe we should sue the arse off Turkey for what it has done to Cyprus, and yes VP the displaced TCs can sue the ROC if they want to but guess who will come out on top. The ROC should publish guidelines showing GCs how to approach the ECHR, they could even provide lawyers. Once Turkey starts losing case after case and loads of cash it may decide to join the civilised world and realise that you can't fuck up other peoples' lives the way they have in Cyprus

Go ahead its every refugees right to go to court, TCs have started to apply as well, so the "RoC" will have to explain why they will not pay up until a solution is found but expect the other side of the dispute to cough up, double standards yet again one for GCs another for TCs, true to form. The positive side of these court cases will be that both sides will be forced to move on certain issues, maybe the current talks are related to actions taken by individuals who have taken to solving their probelsm themselves as waiting 34 years for their leaders with no results is enough.

Dates? any links?

Just wait until the first TC refugees court case comes up in front of the ECHR and the "RoC" is put up on the stand by TC lawyers, having to explain themselves as to why TCs have not been given the right to enjoy their properties in the "RoC" this will be very intersting.

Dates? any links?

You are a bloody Cypocrite VP, you asked me for links and I gave them to you but when I ask you to substantiate your made up facts you dodge the issue and ask me to be patient. Are you looking for the links or are you waiting for the Court cases?

Calm down Jerry, I know of no links or cases to give you but I know TCs have also been lodging cases with the ECHR, if you want more information I can give you the name of a TC lawyer dealing with such cases. I said youd have to wait for the cases against the "RoC" to come to trail to see the "RoC" dance facing TC and British lawyers such as Cherie Blair

[Viewpoint]

Court's Decision in English:-
http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view. ... n=hudoc-en

If we don't get an acceptable solution with the forthcoming talks I believe we should sue the arse off Turkey for what it has done to Cyprus, and yes VP the displaced TCs can sue the ROC if they want to but guess who will come out on top. The ROC should publish guidelines showing GCs how to approach the ECHR, they could even provide lawyers. Once Turkey starts losing case after case and loads of cash it may decide to join the civilised world and realise that you can't fuck up other peoples' lives the way they have in Cyprus

Go ahead its every refugees right to go to court, TCs have started to apply as well, so the "RoC" will have to explain why they will not pay up until a solution is found but expect the other side of the dispute to cough up, double standards yet again one for GCs another for TCs, true to form. The positive side of these court cases will be that both sides will be forced to move on certain issues, maybe the current talks are related to actions taken by individuals who have taken to solving their probelsm themselves as waiting 34 years for their leaders with no results is enough.

How the hell are the TCs going to take the RoC to court? As far as I know the TCs are welcome to claim back their property. All they have to do is live in the Roc for 6 months. The reason for this is to avoid TCs double dipping by enjoying a stolen refugee property in the North.

It is Turkey that invaded Cyprus and created the illegal entity of "trnc". It is the GCs which are prevented from claiming their property in the"trnc". Whereas the TCs are free to obtain citizenship, vote, work, buy property, start an enterprise etc etc. So I ask again, how the hell are the TCs going to sue the RoC which is internationally recognised and does not deny the TCs any rights.

This just does not make any sense. Sounds like fantasy land to me.

BTW, I second the request for links to this rather eccentric claim. So whenever you are ready, please post some links.

You to will have to wait for these cases to come to fruition, you cannot use peoples land and then tell them to wait for a solution to be compensated neither can you force the people you claim are your citizens to live anywhere for 6 months, this is illegal and will get blown to pieces by the ECHR. You have to give all the citizens all their rights you cannot discriminate, you can ask for all the necessary domcumentary proof but forcing your citizens to live in a certain part of the country before allowing them their property is ridiculous and the "RoC" will be dancing a merry dance in front of the ECHR being told to pay compensation immediately and return of property.

[CopperLine]

As far as I am aware no TC has yet taken a case through the ECHR on any matter, either against RoC nor against Turkey/TRNC. There may of course be cases in preparation or just submitted, but a quick check of the ECHR case list doesn't throw up any examples. In my view, notwithstanding the limitations and problems of the ECHR, it is high time TCs used this mechanism.

[CopperLine]

Paphitis,
A claimant before the ECHR does not have to live in the country (state) against which they are making a claim. There are two eligibility criteria which need to be fulfilled : first, the respondent state needs to be identified as the proper entity which has either carried out the abuse or failed to uphold the right/s in question; and second, the complainant needs to have exhausted all local remedies i.e, local to the respondent state. So for example, I living in Cyprus could take a case against Finland, though I've never set foot in Finland, if the Finnish state had, say, expropriated my property and I'd tried to get it back through the Finnish courts but had failed to do so due to some procedural or substantive failure on the part of the Finnish legal system.

[Nikitas]

TCs would be taking the RoC to court and asking for what exactly? The RoC is not denying their title to their property, nor access to it. The only condition set down is that they establish bona fides as residents which in turn is a mechanism to prevent double dipping, ie having and enjoying their property in the south while occupying GC property in the north.

The RoC courts receive and hear complaints by TCs re their property and in several cases there have been eviction orders against the GCs living in properties of TCs. In cases of compulsory expropriations for public works the compensation paid is on par with compensation paid to GC owners so there is no discrimination, even if all owners agree that the amount was low.

TCs have full access to the RoC courts and thus can and must exhaust local remedies before applying to the ECHR.

The separation of TCs from their property in the south was not a result of RoC action but Turkish action aided and abetted by the British. So one wonders if TCs might not be better served by suing Turkey and Britain over this issue.

The sticking point for the RoC would be to prove that its policy of entrusting the management of all TC property to a Trustee system is valid and does not violate human rights. But the RoC has a justification which Turkey does not have, it is the victim of invasion and occupation, something the court has to accept since it has ruled on it in past cases, and the circumstances justify extraordinary measures.

GCs on the other hand cannot access the internal legal order of Turkey, the defendant state in these cases, because GCs are citizens of a nation Turkey does not recognise. Hence GCs have direct access to the ECHR court.

The complications aside, the ECHR is a legal body and applies legal principles to a problem some would love to solve politically. The overall question is if a political solution, even if supported by the majority of each community, can push aside individual property rights by adopting a non consensual process of property settlement. My feeling is that these rights cannot be extinguished by a settlement.

[CopperLine]

Nikitas
In all probability your first few paragraph accounts for the seeming fact that TCs have not pursued cases in the ECHR. (This is not to say that RoC is beyond reproach but just to say that this line has not been pursued).

However it is difficult, probably impossible, to develop a case against the UK. A TC (or GC) would have to demonstrate that (i) the UK had acted illegally in relation to a human right exercised or attempted to be exercised in Cyprus (north or south); and (ii) that it was under UK jurisdiction. The second condition means that the abuse must have happened before 1960 or on the SBAs.

What about a case against Turkey ? Yes a TC could pursue an action against Turkey again after having first exhausted local i,.e TRNC remedies. In such a situation, of course, Turkey would not be able to argue that because the complainant had not been heard in the RoC courts that therefore local remedies had not been exhausted !

And I'd agree with your last paragraph. What has happened is that certain legal developments, particularly through ECHR, have caught up with and overtaken political developments. And the fact that a legal procedure as slow as the ECHR has caught up with political negotiations shows just how glacially slow the Cyprus negotiations had become. Now, even if there is a political settlement - of whatever kind - will not prevent people pursuing their individual human rights claims.

[humanist]

VP

If the majority were trying to turn Australia into New Zealand and your family members were being killed and you felt at risk would you not fight for survival, we were the ones that wanted to be part of the "RoC" you were the ones trying to gift Cyprus to Greece. Pplus we did not withdraw we were thrown out at gun point and then when we wanted to come back you tired to enforce Akritas on us. You really need to try and see it from this side of the fence and why we do not trust you with our future.

I also know what would happen if the minority who felt they were better than the rest got up wanting to turn part of Australia into little Turkey, what would happen then.

[Kifeas]

Paphitis,
A claimant before the ECHR does not have to live in the country (state) against which they are making a claim. There are two eligibility criteria which need to be fulfilled : first, the respondent state needs to be identified as the proper entity which has either carried out the abuse or failed to uphold the right/s in question; and second, the complainant needs to have exhausted all local remedies i.e, local to the respondent state. So for example, I living in Cyprus could take a case against Finland, though I've never set foot in Finland, if the Finnish state had, say, expropriated my property and I'd tried to get it back through the Finnish courts but had failed to do so due to some procedural or substantive failure on the part of the Finnish legal system.

Copperline, since you are a defender of the official Turkish /TC thesis on Cyprus, can you please explain to me how this so-called property commission can possibly satisfy the ECHR requirements to establish the violated property rights of the GCs through land exchanges, bearing in mind that:

1. The total value of illegally usurped GC properties in the occupied north is estimated at 80 billion euros and is at least 8 times more in terms of value, to that of the relinquished TC properties in the non-occupied south.

2. Approximately 1/3 of the relinquished TC property in the south belong to TCs that have emigrated abroad and never made it to the north, where they could have taken GC properties, and therefore their properties in the south cannot be possibly used for exchange purposes.

3. For each case that the ECHR has examined and ruled upon, there is an average compensation, only for loss of access and incomes during the past 34 years, equivalent to at least ½ a million euros.

How is this so-called property commission going to provide a reasonable remedy, bearing in mind all the above?