Cyprus-Forum.com

[Get Real!]

These two belong in a pig sty not a home!

That's an insult to pigs

They should call them the Oinkams...

[BirKibrisli]

U.K. Couple Should Demolish Cyprus Home, EU Aide Says
By Caroline Byrne

Dec. 18 (Bloomberg) -- A British couple ordered by a judge in southern Cyprus to demolish their vacation home in northern Cyprus should be bound by the ruling, an adviser to the European Union’s highest court said in a non-binding opinion today.

Can someone who knows about the Law tell us why this opinion is "non-binding"???? What is the point of having an opinion if it is non-binding???
Could this opinion have been "binding"???? Under what circumstances???

Know-alls like GR! need not bother to reply...

[bill cobbett]

U.K. Couple Should Demolish Cyprus Home, EU Aide Says
By Caroline Byrne

Dec. 18 (Bloomberg) -- A British couple ordered by a judge in southern Cyprus to demolish their vacation home in northern Cyprus should be bound by the ruling, an adviser to the European Union’s highest court said in a non-binding opinion today.

Can someone who knows about the Law tell us why this opinion is "non-binding"???? What is the point of having an opinion if it is non-binding???
Could this opinion have been "binding"???? Under what circumstances???

Know-alls like GR! need not bother to reply...

Hi Bir

I'm not a lawyer but as I understand things... The opinion is that of one of the Advocates General who has the job of doing the donkey work, of researching the law and giving his/her opinion as to how the case stands with regard to the relevent laws to the actual judges of the European Court. These judges will in turn will make the final decision or ruling. The judges are not bound to take the AG advice but in most cases they do.

A ruling from the judges themselves, the final decision, is not due for some months.

[BirKibrisli]

U.K. Couple Should Demolish Cyprus Home, EU Aide Says
By Caroline Byrne

Dec. 18 (Bloomberg) -- A British couple ordered by a judge in southern Cyprus to demolish their vacation home in northern Cyprus should be bound by the ruling, an adviser to the European Union’s highest court said in a non-binding opinion today.

Can someone who knows about the Law tell us why this opinion is "non-binding"???? What is the point of having an opinion if it is non-binding???
Could this opinion have been "binding"???? Under what circumstances???

Know-alls like GR! need not bother to reply...

Hi Bir

I'm not a lawyer but as I understand things... The opinion is that of one of the Advocates General who has the job of doing the donkey work, of researching the law and giving his/her opinion as to how the case stands with regard to the relevent laws to the actual judges of the European Court. These judges will in turn will make the final decision or ruling. The judges are not bound to take the AG advice but in most cases they do.

A ruling from the judges themselves, the final decision, is not due for some months.

Thanks ,Bill...I guess all such opinions have to be non-binding by definition..This opinion has already stirred things up considerably in the trnc. Imagine what would happen if the judges finally agree...Hmmmm...We live in interesting times,as the Chinese curse go...

[Tim Drayton]

U.K. Couple Should Demolish Cyprus Home, EU Aide Says
By Caroline Byrne

Dec. 18 (Bloomberg) -- A British couple ordered by a judge in southern Cyprus to demolish their vacation home in northern Cyprus should be bound by the ruling, an adviser to the European Union’s highest court said in a non-binding opinion today.

Can someone who knows about the Law tell us why this opinion is "non-binding"???? What is the point of having an opinion if it is non-binding???
Could this opinion have been "binding"???? Under what circumstances???

Know-alls like GR! need not bother to reply...

One can only give the sarcastic repy of "because it is so". The following extract from the page on EU's website explaining the functioning of the European Court of Justice describes the duties of the advocate-general as follow:

http://europa.eu/institutions/inst/justice/index_en.htm

How is the Court's work organised?

Cases are submitted to the registry and a specific judge and advocate-general are assigned to each case.

The procedure that follows is in two stages: first a written and then an oral phase.

At the first stage, all the parties involved submit written statements and the judge assigned to the case draws up a report summarising these statements and the legal background to the case.

Then comes the second stage – the public hearing. Depending on the importance and complexity of the case, this hearing can take place before a chamber of three, five or 13 judges, or before the full Court. At the hearing, the parties’ lawyers put their case before the judges and the advocate-general, who can question them. The advocate-general then gives his or her opinion, after which the judges deliberate and deliver their judgment.

Since 2003, advocates general are required to give an opinion on a case only if the Court considers that this particular case raises a new point of law. Nor does the Court necessarily follow the advocate-general’s opinion.

Judgments of the Court are decided by a majority and pronounced at a public hearing. Dissenting opinions are not expressed. Decisions are published on the day of delivery.

The procedure in the Court of First Instance is similar, except that there is no opinion from an advocate-general.

[Jerry]

I wonder if this opinion is a "warning shot" to the negotiators to pull their fingers out before the Court's final judgment, bearing in mind there is a chance the decision could go either way.

[Oracle]

It sounds like a quick preemptive decision to seriously warn against any further "transactions" and also prevent those panicking to sell in order to escape punishment, from managing to do so.

This should (rightfully) halt all sales now.

[Kikapu]

They may not, allowing for the reprecussions it will have just as the 2 sides try to negotiate a deal, it will put on the back burner for a few more years.

The world does not stop revolving just because the GC's and TC's can't, won't or unable to sort their problems out. The rest of the world goes on about their business as if there was no Cyprus problem. I think you have reminded of this fact to us few times in the past, so I do not expect the EU to put anything on hold just to please us. If anything, this legal opinion becoming law will help narrow the discussions on GC's property in the north, so everyone will knows exactly where they stand. If we had this ruling before 2004, you could have ripped off few hundred pages from the Annan Plan, almost saving a tree from paper wasted .!

Why do you have to mix scarcasm with everything you write, you know its the lowest form of intelligence and dont count your chickens before they hatch, lets all read the ruling when its made and act accordingly, the majority of Brits are still to obtain deeds from the TRNC so with no evidence they they have actually purchased land in the TRNC the GCs will be very hard pushed to prove anything, they can always take the TC or Turk to court in the GC courts but what would be the outcome?

I don't think saving trees is being sarcastic.!

This opinion, if and when it becomes law, is not only designed to effect the foreign investor in GC properties, but ALL GC properties which was used as an "exchange" and was given to the TC's. Basically, upon a settlement regardless what the leaders agree on, I believe any person holding onto GC properties can be sued if their properties are not returned by those who currently holding on to them, whether there is an old shack on it from 1974 or a mansion that was built last year costing millions.

[miltiades]

VP ought to realize that the law of the jungle has NO place in Cyprus . You cant just take my property and sell it with dodgy deeds and expect the civilized world to sanction such acts. The Brits who purchase such properties deserve all the get , it serves them bloody right .

[Floda]

VP ought to realize that the law of the jungle has NO place in Cyprus . You cant just take my property and sell it with dodgy deeds and expect the civilized world to sanction such acts. The Brits who purchase such properties deserve all the get , it serves them bloody right .

Well put miltiades, absolutely 'Spot On'