Cyprus-Forum.com

[Tim Drayton]

Try this one Tim .... hardly UN monitored area ..... http://www.europeanproperty.com/sales/p ... 084-AGY101

Fair point. On the other hand all the properties shown on the page you first provided a link to are in fact in the unoccupied part of Cyprus. It is unusual to find properties in both parts of the island advertised on the same site.

Tim, you are wrong here. there are many agents that advertise properties in both sides.

Even the main ones like rightmove.co.uk will give you some.

cheers

I stand corrected. I can't say I spend a lot of time surfing estate agency sites, anyway. It seems surprising that estate agents who deal in legitmate property also advertsie stolen property.

Could it be because they are not all "Stolen"like the "RoC" would have us believe!!!!

OK, what about my arguments earlier in this thread that it is pretty dodgy even under TRNC law. Refer to article 159 of the TRNC constitution which requires a specific law to be passed enabling GC owned property to be sold, and thenshow me where that law is. Are foreigners really acquiring full ownership rights of the property they are buying?

[roseandchan]

i think tim ,that is a question they are asking themselves right now. because of the talks in progress. i have noticed a sudden influx of exchangeland / gc land , properties for sale. lots of expats are leaving.

[zan]

Try this one Tim .... hardly UN monitored area ..... http://www.europeanproperty.com/sales/p ... 084-AGY101

Fair point. On the other hand all the properties shown on the page you first provided a link to are in fact in the unoccupied part of Cyprus. It is unusual to find properties in both parts of the island advertised on the same site.

Tim, you are wrong here. there are many agents that advertise properties in both sides.

Even the main ones like rightmove.co.uk will give you some.

cheers

I stand corrected. I can't say I spend a lot of time surfing estate agency sites, anyway. It seems surprising that estate agents who deal in legitmate property also advertsie stolen property.

Could it be because they are not all "Stolen"like the "RoC" would have us believe!!!!

OK, what about my arguments earlier in this thread that it is pretty dodgy even under TRNC law. Refer to article 159 of the TRNC constitution which requires a specific law to be passed enabling GC owned property to be sold, and thenshow me where that law is. Are foreigners really acquiring full ownership rights of the property they are buying?

In the TRNC yes.....Outside of it then...You know the recognition problems. The case in which the UK said they had no jurisdiction in the TRNC is proof of that. Many houses have been built on government land and does not involve GC property unless you accept the 18% crap that Kifeas bandies around. I don't and the TRNC government doesn't. Don't believe all this rubbish that every house sold is GC property. There are a hell of a lot of them that have been given to our refugees to live in and as far as I am concerned they can do what ever the hell they like with them after the OXI to the AP. How long must they wait for a solution.

[miltiades]

Another belligerent post by the Master Hater, to hell he says with those whose ancestral homes have been usurped , sold to foreigners or taken by those in authority. Every man for him self and F..K the rest he says !!

[Oracle]

Your interpretation bears no resemblance to my statements.

As I said, you and Tim suffer from the same affliction of changing things around, then disproving the mutated transcripts to prove them wrong, so that you appear right.

So you too have failed!

Governments also distort facts and documents, Oracle. If world leaders can get away with it...

Well thanks utu, I am not so naive that I was unaware of that fact. But for someone to spend so much time in changing the words of others, on a forum, simply to display their skill in nebulous argument seems the height of wasted effort, oblivious to the need to be concise.

[zan]

Another belligerent post by the Master Hater, to hell he says with those whose ancestral homes have been usurped , sold to foreigners or taken by those in authority. Every man for him self and F..K the rest he says !!

I am sure you would have liked to starve us out Milti baby but it is not going to happen. Deniz has posted what we thought about GC property for years...They will come home we said. Ask Tpap why he did not let them.....

[Tim Drayton]

Try this one Tim .... hardly UN monitored area ..... http://www.europeanproperty.com/sales/p ... 084-AGY101

Fair point. On the other hand all the properties shown on the page you first provided a link to are in fact in the unoccupied part of Cyprus. It is unusual to find properties in both parts of the island advertised on the same site.

Tim, you are wrong here. there are many agents that advertise properties in both sides.

Even the main ones like rightmove.co.uk will give you some.

cheers

I stand corrected. I can't say I spend a lot of time surfing estate agency sites, anyway. It seems surprising that estate agents who deal in legitmate property also advertsie stolen property.

Could it be because they are not all "Stolen"like the "RoC" would have us believe!!!!

OK, what about my arguments earlier in this thread that it is pretty dodgy even under TRNC law. Refer to article 159 of the TRNC constitution which requires a specific law to be passed enabling GC owned property to be sold, and thenshow me where that law is. Are foreigners really acquiring full ownership rights of the property they are buying?

In the TRNC yes.....Outside of it then...You know the recognition problems. The case in which the UK said they had no jurisdiction in the TRNC is proof of that. Many houses have been built on government land and does not involve GC property unless you accept the 18% crap that Kifeas bandies around. I don't and the TRNC government doesn't. Don't believe all this rubbish that every house sold is GC property. There are a hell of a lot of them that have been given to our refugees to live in and as far as I am concerned they can do what ever the hell they like with them after the OXI to the AP. How long must they wait for a solution.

I am sorry, but really you are opening a huge can of worms. You frequently justify Turkey's intervention in Cyprus in 1974 based on the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee. As you know full well this treaty requires its signatories "to take action with the sole aim of re-establishing the state of affairs created by the present Treaty". This means that the guarantor states are duty bound to respect the laws of the RoC and may only intervene to restore the rule of law as it previously existed. Hence, Turkey, if it wishes to justify its intervention based on the treaty has no choice but to respect those property rights which previously existed, and were enshrined under the laws of the RoC that Turkey maintains it intervened to uphold.

The TC authorities justified nationalising abandoned GC land on humanitarian grounds. They were faced by an influx of refugees from the south who had to be given accomodation. This was done under the "equal value" principle whereby people were alloted property of a roughly equivalent value to that they had abandoned in the south. If you examine the law regulating this procedure you will see that it talks about allocation (tahsis) and there is no mention of granting title to that property, which remained under state ownership pursuant to article 159 of the constitution. The law permits property thus allocated to be transfered to third parties, but what is the nature of this right that is transfered? It is not ownership. The understanding was that this land was allocated to refugees as a temporary expedient pending achievement of a lasting settlement of the Cyprus problem. All of the above is consistent with the claim that Turkey intervened in 1974 under the Treaty of Guarantee.

However, if you start confiscating property abandoned by Greek Cypriots who fled in fear of their lives in 1974 and selling this property to foreigners, this changes the whole nature of the 1974 intervention. Turkey then becomes a conqueror which is asserting the right to hold on to booty which it took by armed force, and can no longer make recourse to the Treaty of Guarantee to justify its intervention.

So, in short, you can claim either:

Turkey was justified as a guaranator state under the Treaty of Guarantee in intervening militarily in Cyprus in 1974

or:

Property sold to foreigners in the TRNC is not stolen,

but not both.

Take your pick.

[Oracle]

Good post Tim .....

[zan]

Try this one Tim .... hardly UN monitored area ..... http://www.europeanproperty.com/sales/p ... 084-AGY101

Fair point. On the other hand all the properties shown on the page you first provided a link to are in fact in the unoccupied part of Cyprus. It is unusual to find properties in both parts of the island advertised on the same site.

Tim, you are wrong here. there are many agents that advertise properties in both sides.

Even the main ones like rightmove.co.uk will give you some.

cheers

I stand corrected. I can't say I spend a lot of time surfing estate agency sites, anyway. It seems surprising that estate agents who deal in legitmate property also advertsie stolen property.

Could it be because they are not all "Stolen"like the "RoC" would have us believe!!!!

OK, what about my arguments earlier in this thread that it is pretty dodgy even under TRNC law. Refer to article 159 of the TRNC constitution which requires a specific law to be passed enabling GC owned property to be sold, and thenshow me where that law is. Are foreigners really acquiring full ownership rights of the property they are buying?

In the TRNC yes.....Outside of it then...You know the recognition problems. The case in which the UK said they had no jurisdiction in the TRNC is proof of that. Many houses have been built on government land and does not involve GC property unless you accept the 18% crap that Kifeas bandies around. I don't and the TRNC government doesn't. Don't believe all this rubbish that every house sold is GC property. There are a hell of a lot of them that have been given to our refugees to live in and as far as I am concerned they can do what ever the hell they like with them after the OXI to the AP. How long must they wait for a solution.

I am sorry, but really you are opening a huge can of worms. You frequently justify Turkey's intervention in Cyprus in 1974 based on the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee. As you know full well this treaty requires its signatories "to take action with the sole aim of re-establishing the state of affairs created by the present Treaty". This means that the guarantor states are duty bound to respect the laws of the RoC and may only intervene to restore the rule of law as it previously existed. Hence, Turkey, if it wishes to justify its intervention based on the treaty has no choice but to respect those property rights which previously existed, and were enshrined under the laws of the RoC that Turkey maintains it intervened to uphold.

The TC authorities justified nationalising abandoned GC land on humanitarian grounds. They were faced by an influx of refugees from the south who had to be given accomodation. This was done under the "equal value" principle whereby people were alloted property of a roughly equivalent value to that they had abandoned in the south. If you examine the law regulating this procedure you will see that it talks about allocation (tahsis) and there is no mention of granting title to that property, which remained under state ownership pursuant to article 159 of the constitution. The law permits property thus allocated to be transfered to third parties, but what is the nature of this right that is transfered? It is not ownership. The understanding was that this land was allocated to refugees as a temporary expedient pending achievement of a lasting settlement of the Cyprus problem. All of the above is consistent with the claim that Turkey intervened in 1974 under the Treaty of Guarantee.

However, if you start confiscating property abandoned by Greek Cypriots who fled in fear of their lives in 1974 and selling this property to foreigners, this changes the whole nature of the 1974 intervention. Turkey then becomes a conqueror which is asserting the right to hold on to booty which it took by armed force, and can no longer make recourse to the Treaty of Guarantee to justify its intervention.

So, in short, you can claim either:

Turkey was justified as a guaranator state under the Treaty of Guarantee in intervening militarily in Cyprus in 1974

or:

Property sold to foreigners in the TRNC is not stolen,

but not both.

Take your pick.

Tim

You are talking apples and pears...Makarios himself declared the constitution null and void otherwise why would then try to negotiate year after year. At the time of the intervention the treaty was in place. After that we had no one to give it back to. The "RoC" was and is not the government under the Zurich agreement. The only way that what you say can be true is for the "RoC" to reinstate the original Zurich agreement in full and then Turkey would be in breach of it. It is only because the UN had to recognise the "RoC" as being the government but only in the South.

[Nikitas]

Apples and pears justifies stealing. Reminds me of an old documentary on British TV about criminals when a career thief said he felt no guilt for stealing property which people left at the mercy of a thief.

It was the victim's fault all along.