Cyprus-Forum.com

[Nikitas]

Copperline,

I see that you agree that a political settlement will have to include a consensual mechanism for the settlement of the properties issue. Which in turn will have interesting repercussions on the future property map of Cyprus.

I do not mean to belittle Kyrenia, but a TC with property in Limassol is far more likely to want to retain it becaue of the economic activity and chance to make an income, than exchange it for a Kyrenia plot which he can sell once and only once to a foreign holiday home buyer. In view of such considerations and the ease of commuting to and from towns to work, there may be a situation where the two "constituent states" are bizonal in name only and bizonality becomes another tool in the belt of the locals who are not short of business acumen.

I believe situations similar to what I am hinting at above have developed around Monaco, Switzerland and Liecthentstein, where locals have a foot in each side of the border, acquiring domicile and business presence in one or more jurisdictions for tax and financial purposes. I am looking forward to meeting the first multi national shepherd once the Cyprus issue goes the same way. I can imagine him stabling his flock in the south, grazing and milking in the north, trading under both with separate trade marks and no doubt raking in EU subsidies for his efforts.

[Viewpoint]

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?

Apply and see

[Viewpoint]

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.

You are not really nswering the question, faced with exstinction by the majority would you not fight back for your survival?

[Viewpoint]

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.

All you have to do is wait for the "RoC" to be summonds to the ECHR and defend their actions against TCs.

[CopperLine]

Kifeas wrote

Copperline, since you are a defender of the official Turkish /TC thesis on Cyprus,

NO. I've never defended 'the official Turkish/TC' line, whatever that is. I don't know why you think so. You can't have read my posts very carefully if you've come to that conclusion.

So the premise of your following questions is false. Moreover your questions are a non-sequitur.

That said : (1) the Property Commission, provisionally endorsed as the appropriate local remedy by the ECHR, deals with individual claims. It does not deal with, and was not set up to deal with, collective or aggregate claims So whatever the total estimated value might be this does not have a bearing on the individual claims before the Property Commission.

(2) If an emigrant TC could make a case that they'd been prevented from returning to and 'enjoying' their property rights in the south and they'd gone through the RoC courts without satisfaction then and only then could they put a case before the ECHR. The likelihood of all those criteria being fulfilled is marginally above zero. The fact that they could have taken GC properties if they'd stayed in Cyprus is irrelevant to a legal case. (Of course it is very relevant to a political settlement because then they'd have some bargaining leverage).

(3) I don't know off hand what the value of awards are, perhaps it is upwards of €0.5 million. Whatever it is that the Property Commission (PC) is required to give adequate and proper remedy, financial or otherwise. If the PC doesn't award adequate and proper remedy then the ECHR will doubtless have to consider the effectiveness of the PC. (I have to say that €0.5 million is not much money for 34 years etc, it might just about cover the legal expenses !)

The question surely is this : in the absence of a comprehensive settlement, if there was no Property Commission or other local remedy, then how are people supposed to have their rights recognised and protected ? So those who are against the PC and the ECHR have got to show how human rights are to be protected and upheld in their absence. Maybe there is a better, more effective, speedier, fairer mechanism - if so, what is it ?

[CopperLine]

Nikitas
The vision of the cosmopolitan shepherd should replace the donkey in the symbolism of Cyprus. What a hopeful idea.

You point to a real problem with any settlement which is bi-zonal. But the property map of Cyprus, like anywhere else, is not one which is bi-communal in character. It is multi-national, or to be more precise non-national. If you were to plot the nationality of capital (!) which owns property i,e real estate, in Cyprus then my bet is that TCs would be way down the list. Who owns the hotels, the chainstores/franchises, banks, civil engineering .... etc ? First it is not your ordinary Cypriot; second it is increasingly likely to be non-Cypriot.

So the settlement of the property issue is really just the settlement of the real estate of a small fraction of Cyprus property.

[boomerang]

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.

Perverse you say ha?

Let us look at it from the reality point of view...

1...tcs sell land
2...tcs pocket the money
3..."turkey=fascist state" gets sued by gcs
4..."turkey=fascist state" found guilty by ECHR
5..."turkey=fascists state" pays...

Now explain to me what is perverse about this copperline

ECHR might not be the path for rapid riches, but selling land that ain't yours is...while someone else is paying after you...

Perverse is the way you look at how the situation is unfolding...might help if you took your blinkers off buddy...

[pantheman]

Copperline, could you please just explain the following as I am confused about this situation.

The TRNC is unrecognised worldwide apart from you know who right?

Then hw is it possible that the so called PC can have any legal standing? How can the ECHR (who I guess also don't recognise theis illegal entity) direct it to be a local remidy? Unless I have comepletely mis understood it all.

Further, IMHO, the ECHR has realised it was about to get hit with so many claims that it had decided that it didn't want the 'hassle' and so had just passed the buck to the so called illegal PC. Don't you agree??

On the on hand we can't not recognise an illegal entity, then expect it to give any sound legaldirections or decisions, surely.

What do you think???

[Paphitis]

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.

Oh I Know. And I look forward to my day in the ECHR Vs Turkey. That day is fast approaching.

[CopperLine]

Pantheman,
The explanation :

Part One - Precisely the because TRNC is not recognised then the principle is that the recognised authority must ensure that there is an effective local remedy. The recognised authority in northern Cyprus is Turkey i.e, as an occupying power. The international laws of occupation require the continued administration of law during the period of occupation.

Part Two - Cases brought before the ECHR must be against a particular respondent (in ECHR typically a state). In this case GC property claimants made claims against a Turkey (as the effective administrative authority over TRNC).


Part Three - ECHR rulings demanded that property cases be resolved at the local level (a standard principle in international law), and should only be referred to ECHR in case of procedural or substantive failure/inadequacies, or if the local remedy was ineffective in some significant way. The result of these rulings was that the TRNC, regarded by Turkey as the effective administration, were obliged to establish the Property Commission as the effective local remedy.

Part Four - The workings of the PC are under review by the ECHR to see whether or not the PC is actually and effective local remedy.


It seems to me that Turkey has a bigger interest in seeing the PC working effectively; the TRNC has an interest in it working effectively; and of course claimants have an interest in seeing it work properly (otherwise they have to take the long schlep through the ECHR, both time consuming and extremely costly)[/b]