Cyprus-Forum.com

[brother]

Four arrest warrants issued over developments in north
By Elias Hazou


POLICE yesterday issued European arrest warrants against three Turkish Cypriots and one British national for using occupied Greek Cypriot property, but it remained to be seen how and whether the court summons would be served in the north after authorities warned last week that anyone attempting to do so would be arrested.

One of the four warrants was against Mark Unwin, a British national, a real estate agent charged with developing a land plot in Kyrenia belonging to Greek Cypriots Christos Mazios and Iacovos and Georgios Iacovou. Apparently the land was used to build tourist apartments.

Meanwhile arrest warrants were issued for three Turkish Cypriots, owners of a company that erected a building complex in the village of Kazafani, just south of Kyrenia.

Reports said yesterday that, at least in some of the cases, police took this action on its own initiative, without the affected parties filing suit.

In a separate but related case, the lawyer representing a Turkish Cypriot restaurateur, who last week was handed a summons, appeared in a court in the south yesterday. The plaintiff is well-known businessman Panos Ioannides. The Turkish Cypriot defendant, Huseyin Cayin, has pleaded not guilty (see right).

Following the summons served to Cayin, the north’s ‘Foreign Minister’ Serdar Denktash advised both Turkish Cypriots and foreign nationals not to sign any documents and report bailiffs to authorities.

The statement was coupled with an accusation that the Cypriot government was using the pretext of individual rights to undermine Turkish Cypriot authority in the north.
The Cayin illustrates the complexity of legal action to prevent or punish use of Greek Cypriot properties, given the confusion surrounding who was really responsible for developing the restaurant. Sources in the north said the establishment was given to a family who became refugees in 1974 as compensation for their losses in Paphos. The property was then leased to a Turkish Cypriot who returned from the UK in the late nineties.

In the wake of the Orams case, where a British couple were ordered to demolish their home in occupied Lapithos and pay compensation to the original owners of the Greek Cypriot property they were staying on, and now the summons, European real estate and land development entrepreneurs active in the north formed an association (EuPro) to protect their interests.

Yesterday, it was announced that a corresponding corporation in the south would begin its operations starting today. The company, called “Council for the defense of civil rights Ltd,” was registered about a month ago. It has been set up by Greek Cypriot owners of property in the occupied areas.

A spokesman denied the company was established in reaction to EuPro.

According to Kyrenia mayor Constandinos Orologas, the purpose of the company was to provide legal assistance in “suits against any usurpers of Greek Cypriot properties in the north, be they foreigners, Turks or even Greeks.”

The company’s chief executives will be holding a news conference tomorrow to explain in detail its objectives and prospects.

[turkcyp]

deleted by the author...

[magikthrill]

so are you also occupying GC property in the north turkcyp?

[Viewpoint]

I thought that GCs siad they were not going to arrest TCs or was that a lie???? 3 arrest warrants out and more to follow, best not to travel south turkcyp, to dangerous.

[turkcyp]

deleted by the author...

[turkcyp]

deleted by the author...

[magikthrill]

Translation:
The usage properties that are left behind by GCs in noth Cyprus has been the subject of a wide discussion and effort. I describe this as the “new attack” of the GCs. This attack will especially have political repercussions. TCs, from now on, will think about ten times before they can decide if they want to live together with GCs who does not want to leave them living space.

First of all I'm only guessing what this says but its not that GCs dont want to live with TCs. They would prefer it if the TCs werent living on their property. (some of course dont even care)

Would TCs that have said “Yes” to Annan Plan, even though it was carrying a lot of risks to them, say “Yes” again to a similar plan after all these that happened. I do not know. It looks a little hard for me to convince TCs to say “Yes” to a plan similar to Annan Plan. And the main reason for this as I see it, is the GCs animosity and the main reflection of this animosity the property court cases.

[/quote]

Ok, maybe this might be off topic but cant you explain to me what risks exactly TCs had by voting in favor of the Annan PLan ASIDE from the fact that they would never have their own recognized independent state (As is the case now)

[turkcyp]

deleted by the author...

[magikthrill]

The risk of Annan Plan being accepted, and being later on returned from EU courts (being not EU primary law and all) leaving TCs empty handed with a constitution which is even worse than 1960 constitution in terms of constitutional rights.

So TCs would be more willing to accept the 1960 constitution rather the A PLan?

[metecyp]

So TCs would be more willing to accept the 1960 constitution rather the A PLan?

No. This is turkcyp's personal opinion. My personal opinion is that any solution that doesn't provide some sort of bizonality (including RoC) is not acceptable to TCs.