Northern Cyprus is home to around 200,000 residents and the Brits in North Cyprus make up just one percent of the population but their numbers are increasing annually as the attraction and appeal of the island becomes more widely known and appreciated.
This article discusses the rights of British citizens in TRNC and also what life’s like for Brits of all ages in North Cyprus.
British passport holders can freely enter the TRNC without the requirement of any specific visa. When you arrive at Ercan airport, Girne or Magusa ports or any of the North/South border crossings you can complete a simple visa form and have this stamped instead of your passport if you prefer. After three months of residing in North Cyprus you should apply for temporary residence or leave the country. At the moment you need only leave for a period of 24 hours before returning and receiving a further 3 month tourist visa but this is under review.
Brits coming to the island to start a business or seek a job need a work permit in addition to their residency and both can be applied for at the same time. The British Residents Society in TRNC are best placed to advise on the procedures to obtain both of these documents and their website address is http://www.brstrnc.com/
For a long time Northern Cyprus was mainly home to retired expatriates, many of whom had links to the island pre 1974, many of whom had military ties and all of whom had a strong affinity with the Turkish Cypriot people. These people had the secret island all to themselves until the property boom began in earnest about four years ago and the island’s profile was raised with the creation of the Annan Plan and the Republic of Cyprus’ entry into Europe. Since then there has been a large influx of expatriates, mainly from the UK, who have bought holiday homes, second homes, investment properties and even a new home for life in the TRNC.
Now that the community of Brits in North Cyprus includes many young people and families it’s important to know what’s available in terms of education and health care facilities and also, what there is to do in Northern Cyprus to keep both children and adults entertained!
When it comes to schooling there are a number of options available. Firstly there are quite a few local kindergartens in and around Girne that are very reasonable especially compared to UK fees. The English language school Sunny Lane also accepts children from as young as 2 and a half years old into their preschool program. Sunny Lane is west of Kyrenia and it offers teaching through the medium of English for pupils up to the age of 16. Class sizes are restricted to a maximum of 15 pupils so that children get maximum attention and focus. Sunny Lane is a private school, state school options at primary and secondary are available across Northern Cyprus with many towns and villages having primary schools and most pupils then attending secondary schooling in Girne, Lefkosia or Magusa.
One other option open to parents now that the border between the North and South is open to British passport holders is letting your children attend one of the bilingual or English language schools on the South.
Health care in Northern Cyprus is excellent. The options available to you depend on your budget. Some people choose to take out health insurance but often find that their excess is more than they have to pay for treatment! You can attend state or private doctors, clinics and hospitals and you will never go untreated if you do not have health insurance. There are a lot of doctors, specialists, dentists and opticians in Northern Cyprus so you should always find someone to assist you. Pharmacies sell the majority of prescription drugs over the counter so if you need a course of antibiotics for something not too serious you can just self-prescribe rather than having to visit a doctor. Furthermore many of the pharmacists will happily advise you depending on the severity of your condition of course!
In terms of what there is to do in Northern Cyprus - well, when you get bored of gazing at the Med, swimming in it, diving under it or sailing on it you can lie on the beach or build sandcastles. When that gets too tedious you can visit one of the many spectacular Byzantine castles or a mosque or two, a couple of ancient cities, do some shopping North and South of the border, visit aqua parks, golf courses and spas, travel up the Karpas, see the donkeys, go parasailing, socialise with the many, many friends you will make here. And when all that gets too much you can eat out in a different restaurant every night of the week for about six months, go bar hopping, listen to a myriad of live bands and singers, play bridge, badminton, rugby, football or go to church. You can walk in the mountains, quadbike in the mountains, go horse riding in the mountains or go South and ski in the mountains.
Brits in North Cyprus
Brits in North Cyprus
by halil » Mon Jun 02, 2008 10:49 am
- halil
- Main Contributor
- Posts: 8804
- Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2007 2:21 pm
- Location: nicosia
by Oracle » Mon Jun 02, 2008 11:33 am
Whilst you hold the north under Turkish occupation and continue to exercise racial discrimination to the Greek Cypriot natives of the island ... you cannot fool the decent British public. Their opinion of you will always be represented by this:
The recruitment drive is overdone today even for you halil ...... getting desperate to fill the empty spaces?
The Independent wrote:Today, in the north at least, it's more associated with ex-cons.
The recruitment drive is overdone today even for you halil ...... getting desperate to fill the empty spaces?
-
Oracle - Leading Contributor
- Posts: 23507
- Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 11:13 am
- Location: Anywhere but...
by halil » Mon Jun 02, 2008 12:15 pm
British people are knows what they are doing and they also knows what is wrong what is right .
19/03/2007 SELECT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
FUTURE U.K. POLICY TOWARDS CYPRUS
MEMORANDUM OF EVIDENCE BY THE
BRITISH RESIDENTS SOCIETY
OF
NORTH CYPRUS
INTRODUCTION
The British Residents Society is a voluntary organisation set up in North Cyprus in 1975. Its aims and objectives are to foster friendly and harmonious relations with the people of the Turkish Republic of North Cyprus, (TRNC) and to advise and assist its members and make representations on their behalf to the TRNC Government. Membership is voluntary and open to all holders of a valid British passport. Its affairs are managed by a committee of volunteers elected annually at its Annual General Meeting.
Currently there are upwards of 6000 expatriates living, either full or part time, in North Cyprus. The vast majority of these (in excess of 90%) are British Citizens. They are settled principally in the area of Girne (Kyrenia) and its satellite villages with smaller settlements in and around Gazimagusa (Famagusta), in the Karpaz and Guzelyurt area.
THE CURRENT POSITION
It is not the intention of this memorandum to deal in detail with the history of the Cyprus problem on which, by now, the Committee is hopefully well briefed. Rather it is to highlight the main problems that this history has left behind and which now need to be addressed in formulating any future policy. These are seen as being:-
a) Although Turks and Greeks have shared settlement in Cyprus for upwards of 400 years they have seldom if ever actually lived together. Both have lived, often in geographical proximity, within their own separate and distinct communities and have largely been responsible for their own affairs. Since 1974, this separation has been complete. The only period of time when they were required to work together, but still not live together, was during the short lived era of the newly independent Republic of Cyprus. (1960-63). This separation is further magnified by the obvious differences in language, culture and religion which exist between them.
b) The Turks have been a minority in Cyprus since the late 19th century. Despite arriving as conquerors in 1571 their status has subsequently seriously declined and there is now a significant imbalance between them and the Greeks. Moreover, this imbalance does not only relate to numbers (some 200,000 to the Greeks 850,000) but also, very importantly to economic strength. They are acutely conscious of this disparity and the dangers it holds for them as amply demonstrated by their past experience particularly during 1963-74.
c) There is now a definite and growing perception on the Turkish side that they have been unfairly treated by the western world in its dealings with the Cyprus problem. In their view the West, and Britain in particular (because of its concern for its military bases) have favoured the Greek side. There is undoubtedly some evidence to support this, most notably in the UN Security Council Resolution of 1964 and the EU decision to admit South Cyprus as representative of the whole island. Both actions have made the Turkish Cypriot position much more difficult in the negotiations for a settlement. This feeling is currently much intensified by the absence of any real progress and reward, as so fulsomely promised by, among other world leaders, the British Prime Minister, following the Turkish Cypriot “Yes” vote in the referendum of April 2004. (See addendum for these promises).
d) There is a widespread belief in the north of the island (and not just by the Turkish Cypriots) that much of the policy formulated on Cyprus is handicapped by a lack of direct knowledge. No doubt as a consequence of its non recognition, visits by foreign diplomats and/or politicians are relatively rare. Those that do take place are generally short lived whistle stop tours where few real facts can be learned. The British do have a High Commission here of course, but it is located in the south. This problem is further compounded by the undeniable success of the Greek side in the propaganda battle on the issue
POSSIBLE FUTURE OPTIONS
To those of us who live in North Cyprus it seems clear that British foreign policy on Cyprus has been less than even handed in the last 30 years or so. Despite this, rather surprisingly, there remains a considerable respect and regard for the British by the Turkish Cypriots – a situation that appears less prevalent among the Greeks. There is therefore, still an opportunity for Britain to play an important role in solving the Cyprus problem. To achieve this however, it is felt that the following issues must be addressed, and addressed with some degree of urgency.
a) Britain must take an active and determined lead in ensuring that the promises made to the Turkish Cypriots following the referendum of April 2004 are actually and speedily converted to concrete benefits. This is essential if faith is to be maintained (and it is now being rapidly eroded) in the good offices and intentions of any foreign power. Removal of the economic embargoes is their first and absolute priority and this has been promised to them by the British Prime Minister himself in a speech given during his visit to the Turkish Prime Minister in May 2004. I quote “I think it is important, as I indicated to the Prime Minister, that we end the isolation of Northern Cyprus…We made it clear we must act now to end the isolation of Northern Cyprus. That means lifting the embargoes in respect to trade, in respect to air travel…”
The Turkish Cypriots have fulfilled their part of the bargain in the referendum of April 2004 and they expect Britain and the West to now honour their commitments. Anything less would be a gross denial of their human rights and would sit ill with a Government whose previous Foreign Secretary began his term of office with a much publicised declaration of the need to pursue an ethical foreign policy throughout the world.
b) In all future negotiations/actions Britain’s foreign policy should be carefully directed to firmly ensuring that there is equality for all the parties concerned. There should be no repeat of the more onerous mistakes in the past such as support for the UN Security Council Resolution of 1964 and acquiescence in admitting a divided island into the EU.
http://www.brstrnc.com/government_liaison.htm
c) Whatever form of settlement may eventually emerge it must be firmly based on the principle of self determination. Only the Cypriots can have the right to decide what form of settlement they wish to live with and under.
SPECIFIC QUESTIONS
Turning now to the main specific questions the Select Committee has been asked to examine, the Society would wish to offer the following observations:-
a) Should Britain continue to back the Annan Plan?
It has been clearly stated by the Secretary General of the U.N. that his plan would become null and void if any of the parties to the plan did not approve it in the referendum of April 2004. The Greek Cypriot side overwhelmingly rejected the plan. It would seem perverse therefore for the British Government to continue any support of it.
There is a deep and abiding distrust between both communities on the island which is so well entrenched as to make any solution based on political reunification extremely difficult. The present division may seem undesirable but the result has kept the peace for 30 years.
It may well be therefore that a less ambitious approach could be adopted whereby the status quo was accepted and an incremental approach towards a rapprochement was adopted. The outlines of such a policy are already in evidence with a series of confidence building measures being proposed/introduced to establish a cooperative relationship between the two peoples (e.g. The Turkish Cypriot initiatives to open the border and the suggested return of Varosha to Greek Cypriot control.)
b) The Implications for the EU of the admission of a divided country
There is no doubt that the EU has got itself into a difficult predicament by its ill judged action of accepting Greek Cyprus into the Union, the more so since their problem has been created by the Greek Cypriots refusal to accept the Annan Plan in the April 2004 referendum.
To untie this Gordian knot a two staged operation could be proposed. The first stage is for the EU to establish direct contact with North Cyprus. This need not be at the political level which would give rise to problems over recognition of the North Cyprus Government. It could be done at the administrative level to provide direct economic contact without reference to Greek Cyprus. It is believed that a precedent for such action exists in the case of Taiwan. Thereafter North Cyprus, given that the political situation allowed it, could enter into full membership of the EU at a later date, possibly alongside the entry of Turkey.
c) What role should Britain play in any negotiations between the two communities on the island?
This question has largely been answered in paragraphs a, b, and c, Possible Future Options. Here it is merely re-emphasised that any role should be by direct invitation and should be clearly seen to be that of an even handed honest broker.
d) Implications of the rejection of the Annan Plan for North Cyprus
The implications for North Cyprus will be both injurious and grossly unjust unless some swift action is taken to counteract its effects.
It cannot be stressed too strongly that it was the Greek side that rejected the Annan Plan. The Turkish side voted overwhelmingly for it. If, as a result, the Turkish Cypriots are now to be penalised by the continuance of the embargoes which seriously hinder their economy, greatly restrict their freedom of travel and prevent them from participating in international events of all sorts, a gross denial of basic political and human rights will continue to be endured by an entirely innocent people.
This is a situation which no honourable country should possibly contemplate. It will be inimical to Britain’s standing and prestige not just in North Cyprus but in Turkey and in other countries in the region where Britain needs to have amity and influence.
Surely ways can be found to prevent this situation. It need not be difficult. All that is required is the political will and some degree of political honesty and courage by the leadership in Britain.
d) Should the British Government alter its relationship with the North?
The obvious answer to this question must be ‘yes’.
The British Government should work towards honouring the pledges, made by the Prime Minister and other political leaders after the April 2004 referendum, to end the isolation of the TRNC by lifting economic, social and political embargoes.
Finally, the British government should recognise that the government of South Cyprus does not, and never has, represented North Cyprus and therefore should endeavour to free the North Cyprus Government from the subordination the South Cyprus Government continues to seek to impose.
ADDENDUM
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, 24 April 2004
“I applaud the Turkish Cypriots who approved the plan notwithstanding the significant sacrifices that it entailed for many of them…(I) hope that ways will be found to ease the plight in which the people find themselves through no fault of their own”
US Secretary of State Colin Powell, interview with the press, 26 April 2004.
“The Turkish Government displayed great courage. The Turkish Cypriots did, as well, on voting for it (UN Plan). And so, I think, there should be some benefits to the Turkish Cypriots for having voted “yes” for this plan.”
Gunther Verheugen, EU Enlargement Commissioner, 26 April 2004-10-13
“Turkish Cypriots must not be punished for this result….Now we have to end the isolation of the North. The (EU) Commission is ready to take various measures for that aim.”
Tony Blair, Prime Minister of the UK, during his visit to Turkey, 18 May 2004
“I think it is important, as I indicated to the Prime Minister, that we end the isolation of Northern Cyprus…We made it clear we must act now to end the isolation of Northern Cyprus. That means lifting the embargoes in respect to trade, in respect to air travel…”
The European Parliamentary Assembly Resolution no 1376 (2004).
The international community and in particular the Council of Europe and the European Union cannot ignore or betray the expressed desire of the majority of Turkish Cypriots for greater openness and should take rapid and appropriate steps to encourage it. The Turkish Cypriots’ international isolation must cease.”
19/03/2007 SELECT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
FUTURE U.K. POLICY TOWARDS CYPRUS
MEMORANDUM OF EVIDENCE BY THE
BRITISH RESIDENTS SOCIETY
OF
NORTH CYPRUS
INTRODUCTION
The British Residents Society is a voluntary organisation set up in North Cyprus in 1975. Its aims and objectives are to foster friendly and harmonious relations with the people of the Turkish Republic of North Cyprus, (TRNC) and to advise and assist its members and make representations on their behalf to the TRNC Government. Membership is voluntary and open to all holders of a valid British passport. Its affairs are managed by a committee of volunteers elected annually at its Annual General Meeting.
Currently there are upwards of 6000 expatriates living, either full or part time, in North Cyprus. The vast majority of these (in excess of 90%) are British Citizens. They are settled principally in the area of Girne (Kyrenia) and its satellite villages with smaller settlements in and around Gazimagusa (Famagusta), in the Karpaz and Guzelyurt area.
THE CURRENT POSITION
It is not the intention of this memorandum to deal in detail with the history of the Cyprus problem on which, by now, the Committee is hopefully well briefed. Rather it is to highlight the main problems that this history has left behind and which now need to be addressed in formulating any future policy. These are seen as being:-
a) Although Turks and Greeks have shared settlement in Cyprus for upwards of 400 years they have seldom if ever actually lived together. Both have lived, often in geographical proximity, within their own separate and distinct communities and have largely been responsible for their own affairs. Since 1974, this separation has been complete. The only period of time when they were required to work together, but still not live together, was during the short lived era of the newly independent Republic of Cyprus. (1960-63). This separation is further magnified by the obvious differences in language, culture and religion which exist between them.
b) The Turks have been a minority in Cyprus since the late 19th century. Despite arriving as conquerors in 1571 their status has subsequently seriously declined and there is now a significant imbalance between them and the Greeks. Moreover, this imbalance does not only relate to numbers (some 200,000 to the Greeks 850,000) but also, very importantly to economic strength. They are acutely conscious of this disparity and the dangers it holds for them as amply demonstrated by their past experience particularly during 1963-74.
c) There is now a definite and growing perception on the Turkish side that they have been unfairly treated by the western world in its dealings with the Cyprus problem. In their view the West, and Britain in particular (because of its concern for its military bases) have favoured the Greek side. There is undoubtedly some evidence to support this, most notably in the UN Security Council Resolution of 1964 and the EU decision to admit South Cyprus as representative of the whole island. Both actions have made the Turkish Cypriot position much more difficult in the negotiations for a settlement. This feeling is currently much intensified by the absence of any real progress and reward, as so fulsomely promised by, among other world leaders, the British Prime Minister, following the Turkish Cypriot “Yes” vote in the referendum of April 2004. (See addendum for these promises).
d) There is a widespread belief in the north of the island (and not just by the Turkish Cypriots) that much of the policy formulated on Cyprus is handicapped by a lack of direct knowledge. No doubt as a consequence of its non recognition, visits by foreign diplomats and/or politicians are relatively rare. Those that do take place are generally short lived whistle stop tours where few real facts can be learned. The British do have a High Commission here of course, but it is located in the south. This problem is further compounded by the undeniable success of the Greek side in the propaganda battle on the issue
POSSIBLE FUTURE OPTIONS
To those of us who live in North Cyprus it seems clear that British foreign policy on Cyprus has been less than even handed in the last 30 years or so. Despite this, rather surprisingly, there remains a considerable respect and regard for the British by the Turkish Cypriots – a situation that appears less prevalent among the Greeks. There is therefore, still an opportunity for Britain to play an important role in solving the Cyprus problem. To achieve this however, it is felt that the following issues must be addressed, and addressed with some degree of urgency.
a) Britain must take an active and determined lead in ensuring that the promises made to the Turkish Cypriots following the referendum of April 2004 are actually and speedily converted to concrete benefits. This is essential if faith is to be maintained (and it is now being rapidly eroded) in the good offices and intentions of any foreign power. Removal of the economic embargoes is their first and absolute priority and this has been promised to them by the British Prime Minister himself in a speech given during his visit to the Turkish Prime Minister in May 2004. I quote “I think it is important, as I indicated to the Prime Minister, that we end the isolation of Northern Cyprus…We made it clear we must act now to end the isolation of Northern Cyprus. That means lifting the embargoes in respect to trade, in respect to air travel…”
The Turkish Cypriots have fulfilled their part of the bargain in the referendum of April 2004 and they expect Britain and the West to now honour their commitments. Anything less would be a gross denial of their human rights and would sit ill with a Government whose previous Foreign Secretary began his term of office with a much publicised declaration of the need to pursue an ethical foreign policy throughout the world.
b) In all future negotiations/actions Britain’s foreign policy should be carefully directed to firmly ensuring that there is equality for all the parties concerned. There should be no repeat of the more onerous mistakes in the past such as support for the UN Security Council Resolution of 1964 and acquiescence in admitting a divided island into the EU.
http://www.brstrnc.com/government_liaison.htm
c) Whatever form of settlement may eventually emerge it must be firmly based on the principle of self determination. Only the Cypriots can have the right to decide what form of settlement they wish to live with and under.
SPECIFIC QUESTIONS
Turning now to the main specific questions the Select Committee has been asked to examine, the Society would wish to offer the following observations:-
a) Should Britain continue to back the Annan Plan?
It has been clearly stated by the Secretary General of the U.N. that his plan would become null and void if any of the parties to the plan did not approve it in the referendum of April 2004. The Greek Cypriot side overwhelmingly rejected the plan. It would seem perverse therefore for the British Government to continue any support of it.
There is a deep and abiding distrust between both communities on the island which is so well entrenched as to make any solution based on political reunification extremely difficult. The present division may seem undesirable but the result has kept the peace for 30 years.
It may well be therefore that a less ambitious approach could be adopted whereby the status quo was accepted and an incremental approach towards a rapprochement was adopted. The outlines of such a policy are already in evidence with a series of confidence building measures being proposed/introduced to establish a cooperative relationship between the two peoples (e.g. The Turkish Cypriot initiatives to open the border and the suggested return of Varosha to Greek Cypriot control.)
b) The Implications for the EU of the admission of a divided country
There is no doubt that the EU has got itself into a difficult predicament by its ill judged action of accepting Greek Cyprus into the Union, the more so since their problem has been created by the Greek Cypriots refusal to accept the Annan Plan in the April 2004 referendum.
To untie this Gordian knot a two staged operation could be proposed. The first stage is for the EU to establish direct contact with North Cyprus. This need not be at the political level which would give rise to problems over recognition of the North Cyprus Government. It could be done at the administrative level to provide direct economic contact without reference to Greek Cyprus. It is believed that a precedent for such action exists in the case of Taiwan. Thereafter North Cyprus, given that the political situation allowed it, could enter into full membership of the EU at a later date, possibly alongside the entry of Turkey.
c) What role should Britain play in any negotiations between the two communities on the island?
This question has largely been answered in paragraphs a, b, and c, Possible Future Options. Here it is merely re-emphasised that any role should be by direct invitation and should be clearly seen to be that of an even handed honest broker.
d) Implications of the rejection of the Annan Plan for North Cyprus
The implications for North Cyprus will be both injurious and grossly unjust unless some swift action is taken to counteract its effects.
It cannot be stressed too strongly that it was the Greek side that rejected the Annan Plan. The Turkish side voted overwhelmingly for it. If, as a result, the Turkish Cypriots are now to be penalised by the continuance of the embargoes which seriously hinder their economy, greatly restrict their freedom of travel and prevent them from participating in international events of all sorts, a gross denial of basic political and human rights will continue to be endured by an entirely innocent people.
This is a situation which no honourable country should possibly contemplate. It will be inimical to Britain’s standing and prestige not just in North Cyprus but in Turkey and in other countries in the region where Britain needs to have amity and influence.
Surely ways can be found to prevent this situation. It need not be difficult. All that is required is the political will and some degree of political honesty and courage by the leadership in Britain.
d) Should the British Government alter its relationship with the North?
The obvious answer to this question must be ‘yes’.
The British Government should work towards honouring the pledges, made by the Prime Minister and other political leaders after the April 2004 referendum, to end the isolation of the TRNC by lifting economic, social and political embargoes.
Finally, the British government should recognise that the government of South Cyprus does not, and never has, represented North Cyprus and therefore should endeavour to free the North Cyprus Government from the subordination the South Cyprus Government continues to seek to impose.
ADDENDUM
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, 24 April 2004
“I applaud the Turkish Cypriots who approved the plan notwithstanding the significant sacrifices that it entailed for many of them…(I) hope that ways will be found to ease the plight in which the people find themselves through no fault of their own”
US Secretary of State Colin Powell, interview with the press, 26 April 2004.
“The Turkish Government displayed great courage. The Turkish Cypriots did, as well, on voting for it (UN Plan). And so, I think, there should be some benefits to the Turkish Cypriots for having voted “yes” for this plan.”
Gunther Verheugen, EU Enlargement Commissioner, 26 April 2004-10-13
“Turkish Cypriots must not be punished for this result….Now we have to end the isolation of the North. The (EU) Commission is ready to take various measures for that aim.”
Tony Blair, Prime Minister of the UK, during his visit to Turkey, 18 May 2004
“I think it is important, as I indicated to the Prime Minister, that we end the isolation of Northern Cyprus…We made it clear we must act now to end the isolation of Northern Cyprus. That means lifting the embargoes in respect to trade, in respect to air travel…”
The European Parliamentary Assembly Resolution no 1376 (2004).
The international community and in particular the Council of Europe and the European Union cannot ignore or betray the expressed desire of the majority of Turkish Cypriots for greater openness and should take rapid and appropriate steps to encourage it. The Turkish Cypriots’ international isolation must cease.”
- halil
- Main Contributor
- Posts: 8804
- Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2007 2:21 pm
- Location: nicosia
by Get Real! » Mon Jun 02, 2008 12:24 pm
halil wrote:MEMORANDUM OF EVIDENCE BY THE
BRITISH RESIDENTS SOCIETY
OF
NORTH CYPRUS
INTRODUCTION
Here's the only memorandum these criminals should be worried about...
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998) defines "the transfer directly or indirectly by the Occupying power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies" as a War Crime indictable by the International Criminal Court. (Article 7, Crimes Against Humanity.)
Article 46 of the Hague Convention prohibits the confiscation of private property in occupied territory. The confiscation of land by the Turkish government for settlement construction is in violation of this article. (Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague II); July 29, 1899)
Article 55 of the Hague Convention stipulates that "the occupying state shall be regarded only as administrator and *usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct." In other words, the occupying power cannot take over or use territories or private properties in the occupied territories to serve the interests of its civilian population. (Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague II); July 29, 1899)
* A person who has the use and enjoyment of something, especially property
-
Get Real! - Forum Addict
- Posts: 48333
- Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:25 am
- Location: Nicosia
by Paphitis » Mon Jun 02, 2008 12:26 pm
Illegal Exploitation of Greek Cypriot properties by Turkey in occupied areas
The northern area of the Republic of Cyprus, under military occupation by Turkey since 1974, has been experiencing an unprecedented construction and "property sale" boom. The vast majority of the properties affected by this boom are owned by Greek Cypriots who were forcibly expelled from their homes due to the Turkish invasion. These displaced people are to this day prevented by the Turkish Armed Forces from returning and repossessing their homes and properties. A recent development is that the occupied area has become a haven for corrupt and unscrupulous businessmen out to make a quick profit from the illegal "sale" of Greek Cypriot property.
According to the 1964 Land and Registry record, approximately 82% of the privately owned land in the territory now under Turkish occupation was owned by persons belonging to the Greek Cypriot community, while persons belonging to the Turkish Cypriot community owned approximately 16.7%. That position still obtained in 1974.
The building and "sales" boom exploded after the submission, in 2002, of a controversial United Nations plan to solve the Cyprus Problem. The proposed Plan only minimally facilitated the legal right of displaced persons to get property restitution. The Plan’s provisions favoured the transfer of property titles to the current occupiers of these properties. A large proportion of the properties from which Greek Cypriot owners were expelled were unlawfully distributed to and are currently being used by the 120,000 Turkish settlers illegally brought into the occupied area by Turkey, to change the demographic structure of Cyprus.
Had the UN Plan been implemented, it would have allowed for the settlers to continue to stay on such properties, thus legitimising Turkey’s policy of ethnic cleansing in Cyprus. Moreover, the Plan propagated the separation of Cyprus’ two indigenous communities of Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots.
In August 2004 Ahmet Uzun, the so-called "Finance Minister" of Turkey’s puppet regime in the occupied area, stated that the UN Plan provided an incentive to build on Greek Cypriot property located there, because persons investing in such property could have had priority over the legitimate Greek Cypriot refugee title-holder in its ownership. Such provisions were indeed an incentive, and facilitated the rush to build on usurped properties and to "sell" them mainly to British and other European citizens seeking a home in the sunny Mediterranean.
On 23 August 2004, Turkey’s Deputy Prime Minister and Minister responsible for Cypriot affairs, Abdullatif Sener, was reported by Milliyet as having stated that the amount of properties that foreigners had "bought" in the occupied areas of Cyprus had increased tenfold over the last two years!
Nonetheless, anyone who has "bought" or is seeking to "buy" Greek Cypriot owned property in the occupied part of the Republic does so illegally. As first discovered by a British couple in October 2004, anyone contributing to the ongoing plunder of such properties becomes a potential target for criminal and civil law suits in the courts of the Republic of Cyprus. The resulting arrest warrants and decisions could then be judicially enforced abroad.
LEGAL PARAMETERS
International organisations and treaties protect basic human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the rights of ownership and restitution of properties.
The United Nations Security Council and General Assembly have repeatedly stressed, in several of their resolutions on Cyprus, the violation of human rights by the Turkish occupation forces. In particular, the UN General Assembly, through its resolution 37/253 (13/5/1983), “calls for the restoration and respect of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all Cypriots, including the freedom of movement, the freedom of settlement and the right to property.”
The right of refugees to restitution the world over was reaffirmed in August 2004. The UN Sub- Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights unanimously approved "Principles on Housing and Property Restitution for Refugees and Displaced Persons" and declared that these principles "emphasized the importance of restitution as a form of restorative justice… They reflect the view that a human rights approach to return and restitution will yield equitable and sustainable results in achieving the restoration of housing and property rights for refugees and displaced persons and in creating long-term stability."
Moreover, the European Court of Human Rights, in its decision of 18 December 1996, on the appeal by a Greek Cypriot refugee from Kyrenia Mrs. Titina Loizidou against Turkey, concluded that Turkey violated the ownership rights of Mrs. Loizidou by preventing her from enjoying her property in Kyrenia.
The same Court, having examined the Fourth Interstate Appeal of Cyprus against Turkey, ruled on 10 May 2001, by 16 votes for and one against - that of Turkey - that Turkey is committing a “continuous violation of Article one of Protocol No.1 (protection of property), because the Greek Cypriot land owners in north Cyprus are deprived of their right to free access and control, use and enjoyment of their property as well as any compensation for the interference with their property rights (paragraph 189).” The Government of Turkey is obliged to compensate the refugees for the time period of the deprivation of use and to allow them to return to their homes. Ankara has not done this, thus violating the fundamental human rights principles with which an EU candidate country must comply in order to start accession negotiations.
The Court also decided that “the Republic of Cyprus remains the sole legal Government of Cyprus. This means that the Republic of Cyprus continues to maintain full legal rights over its entire area and population, albeit temporarily hindered from exercising such rights in the occupied areas due to the use of military violence”. As a result, no so-called “authority” in occupied Cyprus has jurisdiction to perform administrative acts on any issue including the transfer of property ownership. This is the message sent to the international community and to Britain in particular, since more and more Britons are reportedly lining up to buy houses and plots of land in the Turkish occupied areas of Cyprus at very low prices. Such sales are illegal and invalid, and the buyers will not only lose their money but also commit a criminal offence by violating the right of ownership of the legal owners.
ECHR: “Compensation Commission” of pseudo-state not considered an effective domestic remedy
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) decided on 6 April 2005 that the so-called “Compensation Commission” that has been established in the Turkish-occupied areas is not considered as an effective or adequate remedy to which Greek Cypriots must apply with regard to claims on their property in the Turkish- occupied areas. Consequently the Greek Cypriots are not obliged to exhaust domestic remedies to be able to appeal directly to the European Court of Human Rights.
This decision concerns the application lodged in the case of Myra Xenides- Arestis v. Turkey, which was declared admissible by the Court and will take its course before it. The decision, which was taken by the Third Section of the Court, was unanimous, with the Turkish judge also voting in favour.
With this decision, the European Court of Human Rights reconfirms all its previous decisions which concern this issue.
Summary of the facts
Mrs Myra Xenides-Arestis, who was born in Famagusta in 1945, lodged an application against Turkey on 4 November 1998. In the application it is stated that in August 1974 Mrs Arestis and her family were forced by the Turkish military forces to abandon their home, property and possessions. Since then, Mrs Arestis has been prevented from having access to, from using and enjoying her home and property. The applicant complaints of a continuing violation of her rights under Article 8 (right to respect for home) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 1 of Protocol No 1 (protection of property) to the Convention, in that, since August 1974, she has been deprived of her right to property and her home. She also claims that the Turkish military forces prevent her from having access to, from using and enjoying her home and property because she is Greek Orthodox and of Greek Cypriot origin, in violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention in conjunction with the two previous articles.
Observations by the Attorney General of the Republic
The Attorney General of the Republic Mr Solon Nikitas, in a statement on 6.4.2005, welcomed the decision by the European Court of Human Rights stressing that the decision consolidates and strengthens the statehood and international status of the Republic of Cyprus.
He also notes that the ECHR emphatically stresses three points:
1. That the fact that the two communities had an equal status and treatment during the negotiations on the Annan Plan does not signify recognition of the illegal regime neither does it give this regime the status of a state.
2. That Turkey continues to exercise absolute military control in the northern part of Cyprus and was not in a position to show any kind of change in this respect.
3. That the rejection of the Annan Plan by the Greek Cypriots does not have the legal consequence of bringing to an end the continuing violation of the displaced persons rights, because even the adoption of the Plan would not have afforded immediate redress.
Purchasers of land will have to face a European arrest warrant
European citizens who are thinking of buying or exploiting properties belonging to Greek Cypriots in the Turkish-occupied area of the Republic of Cyprus will have to think very hard before doing so, since their action constitutes a criminal offence for which they will have to face a European arrest warrant in whichever one of the 25 EU countries they may be.
More specifically, in the event that a Cypriot citizen appeals to a Court of the Republic of Cyprus accusing a European citizen who lives in the Turkish-occupied areas of illegally possessing or exploiting his property, the Court may approve the issue of a warrant for his arrest so that he can be charged. In the impossibility of an arrest because the European defendant lives in the occupied areas or has already left for another European country, the Court will have the power to issue a European arrest warrant. Consequently, the defendant will be liable for an arrest in whichever one of the 25 countries he may find himself.
The Courts of the Republic of Cyprus have this power following the passing of a law on 17.3.2005 by the Cyprus House of Representatives with amends Article 281 of the Penal Code, as a result of which the crime of illegal occupation, cultivation, distribution or use of immovable property carries a prison sentence of up to two years or/and a fine of up to ₤5000. Before the approval of the amendment the law provided, for this crime, a prison sentence of 6 months or/and a fine of ₤450, which did not allow for the issue of an arrest warrant to trespassers. The reason for this was that for a European arrest warrant to be issued, on the basis of the community law which also applies to Cyprus, the crime for which the warrant is issued must carry a prison sentence of at least one year.
Foreign Governments and professional associations issue warnings
Britain
The British Government strongly advises its citizens interested in purchasing property in occupied Cyprus to seek independent qualified legal advice since property issues are closely linked to the political situation on the island. The aforementioned advice is included in the website of the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office (see Travel advice by country), in which it is noted, inter alia, that “The non-recognition of the ‘Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus’ and the possibility of a future political settlement in Cyprus could have significant practical or financial implications for those considering buying property in the north” and “there is also a risk that purchasers would face legal proceedings in the courts of the Republic of Cyprus”.
Furthermore, the National Association of Estate Agents (NAEA) warned Britons considering buying a property in the occupied areas of the island to exercise caution and conduct thorough research into the ownership of the land it is built on. In a press release posted on NAEA's website on 21 November 2005, interested buyers are being warned that they could be violating the Greek owners' legal rights which might lead to serious legal and financial consequences. Special reference is made to the several cases on this issue that have already been filed before the courts, both in the Republic of Cyprus and in the European Court of Human Rights, and to the Orams case in particular.
Canada
The Canadian Foreign Ministry has included in its website a travel directive on the possible dangers in relation to the purchase of immovable property in the Turkish occupied areas. The directive states that Canadian citizens who are interested in purchasing property in occupied Cyprus should seek independent qualified legal advice due to the possibility of facing law suits and their property being questioned by Cypriots who were displaced in 1974.
France
The French Government also warns about the risks of purchasing property in Cyprus’ occupied areas and calls on French citizens to seek legal advice before any purchase of property there. In a statement included on its website, the French Foreign Ministry notes that because the “Turkish republic of northern Cyprus” is not internationally recognized, and in anticipation of a solution to the Cyprus problem, any action concerning property in the northern part of the island poses “serious financial and legal risks”. It further notes that since Cyprus’ accession to the European Union on 1st May 2004, those who have purchased property or who are living in property that is in dispute (an issue of illegal exploitation of property since 1974) could be faced with lawsuits, not only by the Republic of Cyprus but also by any EU member state.
Russia
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation has issued a travel advice discouraging Russian citizens from purchasing Greek Cypriot properties in the Turkish occupied areas of Cyprus, while pointing out that decisions by Cypriot courts could be executed in Russia as well. The advice specifically recommends that Russians take into account the legal right of property of Greek Cypriots who own property in the occupied north, and warns that any move overlooking that right of property could lead to long court proceedings and hefty fines.
Spain
The Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs included a travel instruction in its website, warning travellers to Cyprus of the legal and other consequences arising from the illegal purchase of Greek Cypriot properties in the Turkish occupied areas. More specifically, the travel instruction warns Spanish citizens of the risks associated with the purchase of properties in the occupied areas of Cyprus, because many pieces of land and properties, which are on offer, belong to Greek Cypriots, who lost them after the Turkish invasion of 1974. The travel instruction points out that the Greek Cypriots continue to claim their title deeds through legal means, as a result of which, on many occasions, the Courts of the Republic have issued decisions against tourists, asking them to demolish the houses that they had acquired through fraudulent legal means.
United States
The US State Department has included a travel instruction in the consular information section of its official website on the purchase of property in the Turkish occupied areas of the Republic, noting the following: "US citizens who buy or lease property, particularly in northern Cyprus, may find their ownership challenged by people displaced in 1974. Prospective property buyers should seek legal advice before buying."
Foreign media report on the unlawful misappropriation of property
The British newspaper “Observer” stresses in an article by Ben West on Sunday 27 March 2005 that the buying of property in the Turkish occupied area of Cyprus “could become a financial and legal nightmare.” The article which is entitled “Tread carefully in Paradise” warns the British who have been fuelling the buying boom in the Turkish-occupied part of Cyprus to watch out and adds: “Properties in the TRNC have Turkish, foreign or TRNC title deeds. The first two demonstrate Turkish Cypriot or foreign ownership pre-1974 and are in short supply. They therefore cost considerably more than those with TRNC title deeds which comprise the majority of properties in northern Cyprus and were Greek-owned before 1974.” The author of the article refers to the 168,000 Greek Cypriots who own property and land in northern Cyprus, which they were forced to abandon in 1974 and points out that “for any one who now owns a property with TRNC title deeds, there remains the possibility that a Greek owner who lost his home in 1974, could reclaim it.”
In addition, the Dutch state radio broadcasted on 28 April 2005, during the popular show “Radio 1 Journaal”, a report by journalist Bernard Bouwman from Cyprus, drawing attention to the dangers entailed in the purchase of a holiday home in the occupied areas on land belonging to Greek Cypriots. The report includes an interview with Greek Cypriot lawyer Mr Costas Kantounas who outlines the legal issues pertaining to occupied G/C properties in the north. Following the radio broadcast, the Dutch daily NRC Handelsblad published on 4 May 2005 an article by the same journalist entitled “Holiday homes in north Cyprus can be a trap”.
The Belgian newspaper “Gazet van Antwerpen” notes, in an article by Paul Verbraeken on 11 May 2005 entitled “The Turks sell off occupied land in Cyprus to tourists”, that in a new attempt to prevent Greek Cypriots from returning to their occupied properties the Turkish regime is selling G/C land to tourists from West Europe. That could have serious repercussions for tourists, especially British, German and Dutch, the article warns, while it clarifies that this does not concern Belgians. The journalist points out that on a legal level, serious problems might arise for tourists who bought holiday homes built on “illegal” plots of land in occupied Cyprus, and makes reference to the decision of a Cyprus court in the Orams case and the ECHR decision in the case of Myra Xenides-Arestis.
RECENT FACTS, FIGURES AND STATEMENTS EVIDENCING ILLEGAL PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT
1. Imports of construction materials into the occupied territories
IRON TONNES IRON VALUE
(US$) CEMENT TONNES CEMENT VALUE (US$)
YEAR
2001 17,856 3,672,000 50,914 2,654,000
2002 23,848
(+33.6%) 5,528,000 50,950
(+0.07%) 2,570,000
2003 38,222
(+60.3%) 11,392,000 85,268
(+67.4%) 4,366,000
2004 (until July) 42,335
(+10.8%) 17,979,000 106,200
(+24.5%) 5,489,000
(Turkish Cypriot newspaper Kibris, 2 August 2004)
2. Applications lodged with the occupation regime by foreign nationals for the "purchase" of immovable properties in the occupied territories:
YEAR APPLICATIONS
2000 228
2001 309 (+35.5%)
2002 591 (+91.3%)
2003 955 (+61.6%)
2004 (until 8 September) 1,701 (+78.1%)
N.B.: The so-called "minister of interior" of the puppet regime, Mr. Ozkan Murat, predicted that by the end of 2004 the number of applications for the said year will match the total number of applications for ALL previous years taken together!
(Turkish Cypriot newspaper Yeni Dόzen,
3 October 2004).
(Turkish Cypriot newspaper Yeni Duzen, 9 September 2004)
3. Referring to the intense land development being observed in the occupied territories since 2002, Turkey’s Deputy Prime Minister and State Minister, Mr. Abdullatif Sener, stated, inter alia, that:
· in 2001 foreigners "purchased" 63,000 square meters ("s.m.") of land,
· in 2002, 290,000 s.m.,
· in 2003, 613,000 s.m.
Mr. Sener admitted that Greek Cypriot properties are involved in the abovementioned transactions.
(Turkish newspaper Milliyet, 23 August 2004).
4. The so-called "finance minister" of the puppet regime, Mr. Ahmet Uzun, admitted that the property provisions of the Annan Plan gave investors the incentive to build on Greek Cypriot properties and observed that construction activities will make the return of Greek Cypriots to the northern part of Cyprus more difficult.
(Turkish Cypriot newspaper Kibrisli, 20 August 2004).
5. Turkish Cypriot politician, Mr. Izzet Izcan, stated on 2 September 2004 that in the period April-September 2004 the value of property "sales" in the occupied territories reached $2 billion.
(Phileleftheros, 4 September 2004).
6. Noting that the sale of residences in the occupied territories had reached 10,000 the former chairman of the Turkish Cypriot Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Eren Ertanin, stated that over the past two years the prices of immovable properties there have doubled.
(Turkish newspaper Milliyet, 12 October 2004).
7. The chairman of the Turkish Cypriot Chamber of Industry, Mr. Salih Tunar, stated that the on-going construction of 4 large hotels in the vicinity of the occupied Greek Cypriot village of Vokolidha will substantially increase the already existing number of tourist beds in the puppet regime.
(Turkish Cypriot newspaper Kibris, 12 October 2004).
Legal and practical implications of unlawful misappropriation of property
1. Aggravation of continuing violations of the home and property rights of lawful owners in a manner that could potentially engage both criminal and civil responsibility of all persons assisting in the illegal development by supplying goods, services and capital to the actual trespassers.
2. Potentially prejudicing, on a daily basis, a just and law-conforming settlement
of the Cyprus problem that will respect and safeguard the twin freedoms of establishment and property ownership/possession across the country.
3. Creation of conditions which encourage the transfer of labourers from Turkey who end up settling down and colonizing the occupied territories with Turkey’s blessing and in direct violation of international law.
4. Destruction of the natural environment and of archaeological sites to make room for unbridled development.
5. Construction upon mass graves, reportedly containing the remains of Greek
Cypriot missing persons murdered during Turkey’s military invasion of 1974, desecrating their memory and complicating efforts to identify and transfer their remains to their loved ones for proper burial.
Source: Press and Information Office
Links
Ministry of Foreign Affairs: illegal exploitation of G/C properties in the Turkish occupied area
The northern area of the Republic of Cyprus, under military occupation by Turkey since 1974, has been experiencing an unprecedented construction and "property sale" boom. The vast majority of the properties affected by this boom are owned by Greek Cypriots who were forcibly expelled from their homes due to the Turkish invasion. These displaced people are to this day prevented by the Turkish Armed Forces from returning and repossessing their homes and properties. A recent development is that the occupied area has become a haven for corrupt and unscrupulous businessmen out to make a quick profit from the illegal "sale" of Greek Cypriot property.
According to the 1964 Land and Registry record, approximately 82% of the privately owned land in the territory now under Turkish occupation was owned by persons belonging to the Greek Cypriot community, while persons belonging to the Turkish Cypriot community owned approximately 16.7%. That position still obtained in 1974.
The building and "sales" boom exploded after the submission, in 2002, of a controversial United Nations plan to solve the Cyprus Problem. The proposed Plan only minimally facilitated the legal right of displaced persons to get property restitution. The Plan’s provisions favoured the transfer of property titles to the current occupiers of these properties. A large proportion of the properties from which Greek Cypriot owners were expelled were unlawfully distributed to and are currently being used by the 120,000 Turkish settlers illegally brought into the occupied area by Turkey, to change the demographic structure of Cyprus.
Had the UN Plan been implemented, it would have allowed for the settlers to continue to stay on such properties, thus legitimising Turkey’s policy of ethnic cleansing in Cyprus. Moreover, the Plan propagated the separation of Cyprus’ two indigenous communities of Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots.
In August 2004 Ahmet Uzun, the so-called "Finance Minister" of Turkey’s puppet regime in the occupied area, stated that the UN Plan provided an incentive to build on Greek Cypriot property located there, because persons investing in such property could have had priority over the legitimate Greek Cypriot refugee title-holder in its ownership. Such provisions were indeed an incentive, and facilitated the rush to build on usurped properties and to "sell" them mainly to British and other European citizens seeking a home in the sunny Mediterranean.
On 23 August 2004, Turkey’s Deputy Prime Minister and Minister responsible for Cypriot affairs, Abdullatif Sener, was reported by Milliyet as having stated that the amount of properties that foreigners had "bought" in the occupied areas of Cyprus had increased tenfold over the last two years!
Nonetheless, anyone who has "bought" or is seeking to "buy" Greek Cypriot owned property in the occupied part of the Republic does so illegally. As first discovered by a British couple in October 2004, anyone contributing to the ongoing plunder of such properties becomes a potential target for criminal and civil law suits in the courts of the Republic of Cyprus. The resulting arrest warrants and decisions could then be judicially enforced abroad.
LEGAL PARAMETERS
International organisations and treaties protect basic human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the rights of ownership and restitution of properties.
The United Nations Security Council and General Assembly have repeatedly stressed, in several of their resolutions on Cyprus, the violation of human rights by the Turkish occupation forces. In particular, the UN General Assembly, through its resolution 37/253 (13/5/1983), “calls for the restoration and respect of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all Cypriots, including the freedom of movement, the freedom of settlement and the right to property.”
The right of refugees to restitution the world over was reaffirmed in August 2004. The UN Sub- Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights unanimously approved "Principles on Housing and Property Restitution for Refugees and Displaced Persons" and declared that these principles "emphasized the importance of restitution as a form of restorative justice… They reflect the view that a human rights approach to return and restitution will yield equitable and sustainable results in achieving the restoration of housing and property rights for refugees and displaced persons and in creating long-term stability."
Moreover, the European Court of Human Rights, in its decision of 18 December 1996, on the appeal by a Greek Cypriot refugee from Kyrenia Mrs. Titina Loizidou against Turkey, concluded that Turkey violated the ownership rights of Mrs. Loizidou by preventing her from enjoying her property in Kyrenia.
The same Court, having examined the Fourth Interstate Appeal of Cyprus against Turkey, ruled on 10 May 2001, by 16 votes for and one against - that of Turkey - that Turkey is committing a “continuous violation of Article one of Protocol No.1 (protection of property), because the Greek Cypriot land owners in north Cyprus are deprived of their right to free access and control, use and enjoyment of their property as well as any compensation for the interference with their property rights (paragraph 189).” The Government of Turkey is obliged to compensate the refugees for the time period of the deprivation of use and to allow them to return to their homes. Ankara has not done this, thus violating the fundamental human rights principles with which an EU candidate country must comply in order to start accession negotiations.
The Court also decided that “the Republic of Cyprus remains the sole legal Government of Cyprus. This means that the Republic of Cyprus continues to maintain full legal rights over its entire area and population, albeit temporarily hindered from exercising such rights in the occupied areas due to the use of military violence”. As a result, no so-called “authority” in occupied Cyprus has jurisdiction to perform administrative acts on any issue including the transfer of property ownership. This is the message sent to the international community and to Britain in particular, since more and more Britons are reportedly lining up to buy houses and plots of land in the Turkish occupied areas of Cyprus at very low prices. Such sales are illegal and invalid, and the buyers will not only lose their money but also commit a criminal offence by violating the right of ownership of the legal owners.
ECHR: “Compensation Commission” of pseudo-state not considered an effective domestic remedy
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) decided on 6 April 2005 that the so-called “Compensation Commission” that has been established in the Turkish-occupied areas is not considered as an effective or adequate remedy to which Greek Cypriots must apply with regard to claims on their property in the Turkish- occupied areas. Consequently the Greek Cypriots are not obliged to exhaust domestic remedies to be able to appeal directly to the European Court of Human Rights.
This decision concerns the application lodged in the case of Myra Xenides- Arestis v. Turkey, which was declared admissible by the Court and will take its course before it. The decision, which was taken by the Third Section of the Court, was unanimous, with the Turkish judge also voting in favour.
With this decision, the European Court of Human Rights reconfirms all its previous decisions which concern this issue.
Summary of the facts
Mrs Myra Xenides-Arestis, who was born in Famagusta in 1945, lodged an application against Turkey on 4 November 1998. In the application it is stated that in August 1974 Mrs Arestis and her family were forced by the Turkish military forces to abandon their home, property and possessions. Since then, Mrs Arestis has been prevented from having access to, from using and enjoying her home and property. The applicant complaints of a continuing violation of her rights under Article 8 (right to respect for home) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 1 of Protocol No 1 (protection of property) to the Convention, in that, since August 1974, she has been deprived of her right to property and her home. She also claims that the Turkish military forces prevent her from having access to, from using and enjoying her home and property because she is Greek Orthodox and of Greek Cypriot origin, in violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention in conjunction with the two previous articles.
Observations by the Attorney General of the Republic
The Attorney General of the Republic Mr Solon Nikitas, in a statement on 6.4.2005, welcomed the decision by the European Court of Human Rights stressing that the decision consolidates and strengthens the statehood and international status of the Republic of Cyprus.
He also notes that the ECHR emphatically stresses three points:
1. That the fact that the two communities had an equal status and treatment during the negotiations on the Annan Plan does not signify recognition of the illegal regime neither does it give this regime the status of a state.
2. That Turkey continues to exercise absolute military control in the northern part of Cyprus and was not in a position to show any kind of change in this respect.
3. That the rejection of the Annan Plan by the Greek Cypriots does not have the legal consequence of bringing to an end the continuing violation of the displaced persons rights, because even the adoption of the Plan would not have afforded immediate redress.
Purchasers of land will have to face a European arrest warrant
European citizens who are thinking of buying or exploiting properties belonging to Greek Cypriots in the Turkish-occupied area of the Republic of Cyprus will have to think very hard before doing so, since their action constitutes a criminal offence for which they will have to face a European arrest warrant in whichever one of the 25 EU countries they may be.
More specifically, in the event that a Cypriot citizen appeals to a Court of the Republic of Cyprus accusing a European citizen who lives in the Turkish-occupied areas of illegally possessing or exploiting his property, the Court may approve the issue of a warrant for his arrest so that he can be charged. In the impossibility of an arrest because the European defendant lives in the occupied areas or has already left for another European country, the Court will have the power to issue a European arrest warrant. Consequently, the defendant will be liable for an arrest in whichever one of the 25 countries he may find himself.
The Courts of the Republic of Cyprus have this power following the passing of a law on 17.3.2005 by the Cyprus House of Representatives with amends Article 281 of the Penal Code, as a result of which the crime of illegal occupation, cultivation, distribution or use of immovable property carries a prison sentence of up to two years or/and a fine of up to ₤5000. Before the approval of the amendment the law provided, for this crime, a prison sentence of 6 months or/and a fine of ₤450, which did not allow for the issue of an arrest warrant to trespassers. The reason for this was that for a European arrest warrant to be issued, on the basis of the community law which also applies to Cyprus, the crime for which the warrant is issued must carry a prison sentence of at least one year.
Foreign Governments and professional associations issue warnings
Britain
The British Government strongly advises its citizens interested in purchasing property in occupied Cyprus to seek independent qualified legal advice since property issues are closely linked to the political situation on the island. The aforementioned advice is included in the website of the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office (see Travel advice by country), in which it is noted, inter alia, that “The non-recognition of the ‘Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus’ and the possibility of a future political settlement in Cyprus could have significant practical or financial implications for those considering buying property in the north” and “there is also a risk that purchasers would face legal proceedings in the courts of the Republic of Cyprus”.
Furthermore, the National Association of Estate Agents (NAEA) warned Britons considering buying a property in the occupied areas of the island to exercise caution and conduct thorough research into the ownership of the land it is built on. In a press release posted on NAEA's website on 21 November 2005, interested buyers are being warned that they could be violating the Greek owners' legal rights which might lead to serious legal and financial consequences. Special reference is made to the several cases on this issue that have already been filed before the courts, both in the Republic of Cyprus and in the European Court of Human Rights, and to the Orams case in particular.
Canada
The Canadian Foreign Ministry has included in its website a travel directive on the possible dangers in relation to the purchase of immovable property in the Turkish occupied areas. The directive states that Canadian citizens who are interested in purchasing property in occupied Cyprus should seek independent qualified legal advice due to the possibility of facing law suits and their property being questioned by Cypriots who were displaced in 1974.
France
The French Government also warns about the risks of purchasing property in Cyprus’ occupied areas and calls on French citizens to seek legal advice before any purchase of property there. In a statement included on its website, the French Foreign Ministry notes that because the “Turkish republic of northern Cyprus” is not internationally recognized, and in anticipation of a solution to the Cyprus problem, any action concerning property in the northern part of the island poses “serious financial and legal risks”. It further notes that since Cyprus’ accession to the European Union on 1st May 2004, those who have purchased property or who are living in property that is in dispute (an issue of illegal exploitation of property since 1974) could be faced with lawsuits, not only by the Republic of Cyprus but also by any EU member state.
Russia
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation has issued a travel advice discouraging Russian citizens from purchasing Greek Cypriot properties in the Turkish occupied areas of Cyprus, while pointing out that decisions by Cypriot courts could be executed in Russia as well. The advice specifically recommends that Russians take into account the legal right of property of Greek Cypriots who own property in the occupied north, and warns that any move overlooking that right of property could lead to long court proceedings and hefty fines.
Spain
The Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs included a travel instruction in its website, warning travellers to Cyprus of the legal and other consequences arising from the illegal purchase of Greek Cypriot properties in the Turkish occupied areas. More specifically, the travel instruction warns Spanish citizens of the risks associated with the purchase of properties in the occupied areas of Cyprus, because many pieces of land and properties, which are on offer, belong to Greek Cypriots, who lost them after the Turkish invasion of 1974. The travel instruction points out that the Greek Cypriots continue to claim their title deeds through legal means, as a result of which, on many occasions, the Courts of the Republic have issued decisions against tourists, asking them to demolish the houses that they had acquired through fraudulent legal means.
United States
The US State Department has included a travel instruction in the consular information section of its official website on the purchase of property in the Turkish occupied areas of the Republic, noting the following: "US citizens who buy or lease property, particularly in northern Cyprus, may find their ownership challenged by people displaced in 1974. Prospective property buyers should seek legal advice before buying."
Foreign media report on the unlawful misappropriation of property
The British newspaper “Observer” stresses in an article by Ben West on Sunday 27 March 2005 that the buying of property in the Turkish occupied area of Cyprus “could become a financial and legal nightmare.” The article which is entitled “Tread carefully in Paradise” warns the British who have been fuelling the buying boom in the Turkish-occupied part of Cyprus to watch out and adds: “Properties in the TRNC have Turkish, foreign or TRNC title deeds. The first two demonstrate Turkish Cypriot or foreign ownership pre-1974 and are in short supply. They therefore cost considerably more than those with TRNC title deeds which comprise the majority of properties in northern Cyprus and were Greek-owned before 1974.” The author of the article refers to the 168,000 Greek Cypriots who own property and land in northern Cyprus, which they were forced to abandon in 1974 and points out that “for any one who now owns a property with TRNC title deeds, there remains the possibility that a Greek owner who lost his home in 1974, could reclaim it.”
In addition, the Dutch state radio broadcasted on 28 April 2005, during the popular show “Radio 1 Journaal”, a report by journalist Bernard Bouwman from Cyprus, drawing attention to the dangers entailed in the purchase of a holiday home in the occupied areas on land belonging to Greek Cypriots. The report includes an interview with Greek Cypriot lawyer Mr Costas Kantounas who outlines the legal issues pertaining to occupied G/C properties in the north. Following the radio broadcast, the Dutch daily NRC Handelsblad published on 4 May 2005 an article by the same journalist entitled “Holiday homes in north Cyprus can be a trap”.
The Belgian newspaper “Gazet van Antwerpen” notes, in an article by Paul Verbraeken on 11 May 2005 entitled “The Turks sell off occupied land in Cyprus to tourists”, that in a new attempt to prevent Greek Cypriots from returning to their occupied properties the Turkish regime is selling G/C land to tourists from West Europe. That could have serious repercussions for tourists, especially British, German and Dutch, the article warns, while it clarifies that this does not concern Belgians. The journalist points out that on a legal level, serious problems might arise for tourists who bought holiday homes built on “illegal” plots of land in occupied Cyprus, and makes reference to the decision of a Cyprus court in the Orams case and the ECHR decision in the case of Myra Xenides-Arestis.
RECENT FACTS, FIGURES AND STATEMENTS EVIDENCING ILLEGAL PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT
1. Imports of construction materials into the occupied territories
IRON TONNES IRON VALUE
(US$) CEMENT TONNES CEMENT VALUE (US$)
YEAR
2001 17,856 3,672,000 50,914 2,654,000
2002 23,848
(+33.6%) 5,528,000 50,950
(+0.07%) 2,570,000
2003 38,222
(+60.3%) 11,392,000 85,268
(+67.4%) 4,366,000
2004 (until July) 42,335
(+10.8%) 17,979,000 106,200
(+24.5%) 5,489,000
(Turkish Cypriot newspaper Kibris, 2 August 2004)
2. Applications lodged with the occupation regime by foreign nationals for the "purchase" of immovable properties in the occupied territories:
YEAR APPLICATIONS
2000 228
2001 309 (+35.5%)
2002 591 (+91.3%)
2003 955 (+61.6%)
2004 (until 8 September) 1,701 (+78.1%)
N.B.: The so-called "minister of interior" of the puppet regime, Mr. Ozkan Murat, predicted that by the end of 2004 the number of applications for the said year will match the total number of applications for ALL previous years taken together!
(Turkish Cypriot newspaper Yeni Dόzen,
3 October 2004).
(Turkish Cypriot newspaper Yeni Duzen, 9 September 2004)
3. Referring to the intense land development being observed in the occupied territories since 2002, Turkey’s Deputy Prime Minister and State Minister, Mr. Abdullatif Sener, stated, inter alia, that:
· in 2001 foreigners "purchased" 63,000 square meters ("s.m.") of land,
· in 2002, 290,000 s.m.,
· in 2003, 613,000 s.m.
Mr. Sener admitted that Greek Cypriot properties are involved in the abovementioned transactions.
(Turkish newspaper Milliyet, 23 August 2004).
4. The so-called "finance minister" of the puppet regime, Mr. Ahmet Uzun, admitted that the property provisions of the Annan Plan gave investors the incentive to build on Greek Cypriot properties and observed that construction activities will make the return of Greek Cypriots to the northern part of Cyprus more difficult.
(Turkish Cypriot newspaper Kibrisli, 20 August 2004).
5. Turkish Cypriot politician, Mr. Izzet Izcan, stated on 2 September 2004 that in the period April-September 2004 the value of property "sales" in the occupied territories reached $2 billion.
(Phileleftheros, 4 September 2004).
6. Noting that the sale of residences in the occupied territories had reached 10,000 the former chairman of the Turkish Cypriot Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Eren Ertanin, stated that over the past two years the prices of immovable properties there have doubled.
(Turkish newspaper Milliyet, 12 October 2004).
7. The chairman of the Turkish Cypriot Chamber of Industry, Mr. Salih Tunar, stated that the on-going construction of 4 large hotels in the vicinity of the occupied Greek Cypriot village of Vokolidha will substantially increase the already existing number of tourist beds in the puppet regime.
(Turkish Cypriot newspaper Kibris, 12 October 2004).
Legal and practical implications of unlawful misappropriation of property
1. Aggravation of continuing violations of the home and property rights of lawful owners in a manner that could potentially engage both criminal and civil responsibility of all persons assisting in the illegal development by supplying goods, services and capital to the actual trespassers.
2. Potentially prejudicing, on a daily basis, a just and law-conforming settlement
of the Cyprus problem that will respect and safeguard the twin freedoms of establishment and property ownership/possession across the country.
3. Creation of conditions which encourage the transfer of labourers from Turkey who end up settling down and colonizing the occupied territories with Turkey’s blessing and in direct violation of international law.
4. Destruction of the natural environment and of archaeological sites to make room for unbridled development.
5. Construction upon mass graves, reportedly containing the remains of Greek
Cypriot missing persons murdered during Turkey’s military invasion of 1974, desecrating their memory and complicating efforts to identify and transfer their remains to their loved ones for proper burial.
Source: Press and Information Office
Links
Ministry of Foreign Affairs: illegal exploitation of G/C properties in the Turkish occupied area
-
Paphitis - Leading Contributor
- Posts: 32303
- Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 2:06 pm
by Paphitis » Mon Jun 02, 2008 12:32 pm
The British High Commission
British High Commission spokesman Stewart Summers confirmed that a recent warning about buying property in the north added to the Foreign Office travel advisory of an increase in numbers of Britons making enquiries on house buying in the occupied areas.
The amendment to the High Commission website, instigated by Mr. Summers, was made last month, and the advice on buying property follows immediately after the British government’s recommendations on visiting northern Cyprus.
It reads: “The non-recognition of the ‘Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus’ and the possibility of a future political settlement in Cyprus could have implications for those considering buying northern Cyprus properties. Before purchasing a north Cyprus property you are advised to appraise yourself fully of the situation and seek legal advice.”
Summers said, “The government has decided to take a more pro-active, rather than reactive approach (to the subject of buying North Cyprus Property) in the light of it becoming a more regular occurrence, and the subsequent attention it has received in the media.”
Commenting on the change, he added, “legally we can’t tell people ‘don’t do it’, but we are trying to make them fully aware of the potential hazards.”
http://www.cyprus-property-sales-resale ... operty.htm
British High Commission spokesman Stewart Summers confirmed that a recent warning about buying property in the north added to the Foreign Office travel advisory of an increase in numbers of Britons making enquiries on house buying in the occupied areas.
The amendment to the High Commission website, instigated by Mr. Summers, was made last month, and the advice on buying property follows immediately after the British government’s recommendations on visiting northern Cyprus.
It reads: “The non-recognition of the ‘Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus’ and the possibility of a future political settlement in Cyprus could have implications for those considering buying northern Cyprus properties. Before purchasing a north Cyprus property you are advised to appraise yourself fully of the situation and seek legal advice.”
Summers said, “The government has decided to take a more pro-active, rather than reactive approach (to the subject of buying North Cyprus Property) in the light of it becoming a more regular occurrence, and the subsequent attention it has received in the media.”
Commenting on the change, he added, “legally we can’t tell people ‘don’t do it’, but we are trying to make them fully aware of the potential hazards.”
http://www.cyprus-property-sales-resale ... operty.htm
-
Paphitis - Leading Contributor
- Posts: 32303
- Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 2:06 pm
by pythona » Mon Jun 02, 2008 12:44 pm
The turkish Cypriots lost nothing. Their land and property still is theirs to take. Only the GCs are prevented by turkish army from using their properties. So like English would say "What is tcs belongs to tcs, but what is GCs also belongs to tcs".
-
pythona - New Member
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 10:32 pm
by pantheman » Mon Jun 02, 2008 12:48 pm
CanDiaz wrote:Has there been any land lost by the TC's in the south? & if yes are they able to sell it to GC's if they still own their title?
If the TCs live in the RoC for a min of 6 months they can reclaim their properties unlike the GCs in the North.
They are free to dispose of their properties as they see fit since they are the legal owners, unlike the GCs in the north. Now tell me who is doing the compromising here ?
-
pantheman - Regular Contributor
- Posts: 1553
- Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2005 1:21 pm
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
© 2002 - 2015 Cyprus-Forum.com
