Cyprus-Forum.com

[turkcyp]

deleted by the author...

[Kifeas]

IF ECHR tomorrow returns its case, and say that property commission in TRNC is acceptable (That is a big IF but nevertheless theoretically it is feasible), what would GC do
a) Accept the decision as legal and go and apply to property commission.
b) Cry foul and complain that the same court that has delivered justice to them in the past is not legal anymore.

And please be honest.

ps. Apply the scenario to any other court for example, IF UK court tomorrow rules against them about Orams case or in another case.

An absolutely impossible thing to happen because "TRNC" can never produce any property compensation commission that will satisfy the ECHR.

As for the British high court turning down Orams case execution. Impossible too. They may delay it but they will never turn it down.

[magikthrill]

turkcyp

i see you view this property comission as a tiny streak of light at the end of the tunnel.

if the ECHR does accept this comission as legal (Which it probably won't) then this decision could easily be overturned because:

Article 1 – Protection of property
Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his
possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the
public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by
the general principles of international law.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right
of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use
of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the
payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.

so you might need a few more options in your poll because apparently you are under the impression that human rights can be overturned in courts by paying people off...

[gabaston]

Why do some people read things and only understand the bits they like?
Please read again and try to understand there are two very important words

1) Except
2) Public Interest.

Please don’t ask me to explain what except and public interest mean,just assume that except means except even if RoC doesnt like it, and Public interest means public interest, even if that is contrary to RoC interest.

Wot is so hard to understand?

[Anglo]

KIFEAS: As for the British high court turning down Orams case execution. Impossible too. They may delay it but they will never turn it down.[/quote]


This judgement is asking a UK court to go against stated EU/UK public policy - namely that the property issue must be solved within the framework of a comprehensive negotiated settlement.

[turkcyp]

deleted by the author...

[Kifeas]

KIFEAS: As for the British high court turning down Orams case execution. Impossible too. They may delay it but they will never turn it down.

This judgement is asking a UK court to go against stated EU/UK public policy - namely that the property issue must be solved within the framework of a comprehensive negotiated settlement.

The above statement of yours shows how little you understand about the functioning of laws in member states and in the E.U. When there are laws regulating issues, the politics (public policy as you say) come second. This is a very basic principle for any democratic state, any E.U. member and the E.U. it self. The public policy of the U.K. is a political desire. Nothing else. The law of the U.K. and the E.U. is a law. And laws are made in order to be observed. In the absence of a solution to the Cyprus problem which will regulate things differently, then what remains and what prevails is the existing legal framework.

[magikthrill]

Who decides how that Human rights are interpreted? ECHR.
If in a remoter probability that ECHR says that property commission is an effective local remedy, then is at that point GC reaction would be “acceptance or call fault”

wow turkcyp i knew you were hopeful but not dillusional.

if the ECHR does accept the property comission then any laywer can go to the ECHR and say that such a law violates the european convention on human rights as stated by the article I previously posted.

im not sure how exactly you acn interpret this article on property rights?

No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the
public interest

Maybe you can assume that by GCs handing their property to foreign settlers this will be in the benefit of public interest? Maybe. Oh but way that sentence doesnt end there:

No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the
public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by
the general principles of international law.

Oh crap. Apparently Turkey's invasion or "peace opearation" and occupation violate int'l law. Damn it. So close...

[turkcyp]

deleted by the author...

[Kifeas]

What part of hypothetical you do not understand? Theoretically it is possible, even if as I have said it is a BIG IF. What I was trying to understand is if GCs would have accepted the decision of ECHR as legal or would they not? Because right now it is all about a legality this and legality that because the court interpreted the law according to GC desires. I was wandering if GCs would think so positive of ECHR if they interpret the law against their wishes, would they still accept that as legal or would they this time start saying that the whole world including ECHR is against them.

In this highly unlike scenario that ECHR decides to sent cases to the “TRNC” property commission (almost as likely to happen as for the sun rise from the west,) then definitely some GCs will apply to this committee and after their claims are not satisfied (which most likely will no be satisfied) they will again go back to the ECHR for a final ruling.

But you are right about one thing UK court cannot overturn RoC courts decision, because it does not have jurisdiction over RoC. What it can do however is to stay that this decision is not applicable in UK/ You may claim that it will not do that. But the fact is it can. Otherwise why is there a need for court cases anyway, if there is no two alternatives but one.

Then GCs will just stay with the E.U. arrest warrants only and try to push all the E.U. countries to enforce them.

Human rights can not be overturned by the court but expropriation of property can be limited and prevented by fair payment as it is stated in the same human rights declarations.

Only in the rare cases that public interest is affected. That means public benefit projects. Certainly, a public interest is not affected if the property was sold to a foreigner or it was developed for an individuals benefit. Furthermore it strictly prohibited by the convention for the protection of human rights to restrict any individual’s human rights for the achievement of political objectives. Even a solution of the Cyprus problem, which will regulate the property issue, is highly disputable whether it will not be rented invalid (the property provisions part) by the ECHR.