Cyprus-Forum.com

[erolz]

http://www.cyprus-mail.com/news/main.ph ... 8&cat_id=1

But Interior Minister Andreas Christou, though confirming Helvacioglu’s demands, downplayed the possibility of the case going to court in the Republic, and ruled out any compensation before a settlement of the political issue on the island.

No indivdual settlements on property issue before a political settlement then? [/quote]

[Kifeas]

http://www.cyprus-mail.com/news/main.php?id=20288&cat_id=1

But Interior Minister Andreas Christou, though confirming Helvacioglu’s demands, downplayed the possibility of the case going to court in the Republic, and ruled out any compensation before a settlement of the political issue on the island.

No indivdual settlements on property issue before a political settlement then?

Well, this person apparently was given a large area (12 donums) on the seaside nearby kyrenia and he recently sold it out to another TC developer. He got his cash from the GC land that he sold and now he also wants to get his cash from his own property in Larnaka, which he traded with Denktash for the GC property in Kyrenia.

[erolz]

Well, this person apparently was given a large area (12 donums) on the seaside nearby kyrenia and he recently sold it out to another TC developer. He got his cash from the GC land that he sold and now he also wants to get his cash from his own property in Larnaka, which he traded with Denktash for the GC property in Kyrenia.

If this is the case I would imagine it would have relevance in any court case they might persue in the South. I would think it might be possible for the TRNC to try and take action against them as well, as if what you say is true, they are effectively trying to 'sell' land that under TRNC law they no longer own.

However none of this is relevant to the point I was making, which is not really to do with this case specificaly but the (presumably) general position of the GC interior minister that their can be no compensation before a political settlement. Do you agree with this 'line' from the interior minsiter and where does it leave GC seeking compensation before a poltical settlement?

[Kifeas]

Well, this person apparently was given a large area (12 donums) on the seaside nearby kyrenia and he recently sold it out to another TC developer. He got his cash from the GC land that he sold and now he also wants to get his cash from his own property in Larnaka, which he traded with Denktash for the GC property in Kyrenia.

If this is the case I would imagine it would have relevance in any court case they might persue in the South. I would think it might be possible for the TRNC to try and take action against them as well, as if what you say is true, they are effectively trying to 'sell' land that under TRNC law they no longer own.

However none of this is relevant to the point I was making, which is not really to do with this case specificaly but the (presumably) general position of the GC interior minister that their can be no compensation before a political settlement. Do you agree with this 'line' from the interior minsiter and where does it leave GC seeking compensation before a poltical settlement?

The sale in the north as well as the initial trading with Denkatash, of his property in the south with a GC property in the north, cannot have relevance in a RoC court because they are not recognised as legal transactions.

The GCs are not seeking compensation before a political settlement per se, but only to end the construction in GC properties and the subsequent selling of them to foreigners and other third parties, because this complicates the property situation even further and sabotages the prospects for a political settlement. You cannot equate the estrangement of a small piece of TC land by the RoC in order to contract a public benefit project such as an airport, with what currently happens to GC properties in the north.

[erolz]

The sale in the north as well as the trading of his property in the south with a GC property in the north cannot have relevance in a RoC court because they are not recognised as legal transactions.

Just because they do not recognise the legality of such exchanges in the North is it really the case that they can have no relevance on a judgment? It is one thing to recognise such transaction as legaly valid and nother to simply pretend they do not exist at all, at least as far as I can see.

The GCs are not seeking compensation before a political settlement per se,

The Loizidou case? The Orams case? These are both cases of GC seeking compensation / resolution seperate and divorced from any poltical settlement, yet any cases in reverse (however similar or not) can not be settled, according to your interior minister, without a poltical settlement. Do you really see no inconsistency here ?

[Kifeas]

The sale in the north as well as the trading of his property in the south with a GC property in the north cannot have relevance in a RoC court because they are not recognised as legal transactions.

Just because they do not recognise the legality of such exchanges in the North is it really the case that they can have no relevance on a judgment? It is one thing to recognise such transaction as legaly valid and nother to simply pretend they do not exist at all, at least as far as I can see.

The GCs are not seeking compensation before a political settlement per se,

The Loizidou case? The Orams case? These are both cases of GC seeking compensation / resolution seperate and divorced from any poltical settlement, yet any cases in reverse (however similar or not) can not be settled, according to your interior minister, without a poltical settlement. Do you really see no inconsistency here ?

The Loizidou case is an individual case carried out by Loizidou against Turkey in the ECHRs. Loizidou didn't seek compensation for the loss of the land itself, because she doesn't accept, neither the ECHRs did, that her property doesn't belong to her anymore. She sought the re-instatement of her property rights and subsequent compensation for the prohibition of not using it for so many years. Loizidou didn't choose to abandon her property voluntarily and move to the south in order to exploit another TC property. She was forced to do so by the Turkish army in 1974. This is unlike the case of the TC from Larnaka, who voluntarily abandoned his property in the south in 1975, in order to move, live and consequently use a GC property in the north. The expropriation of any individual’s property, be it of a TC or a GC ownership, is a legal action that any legal government -like the RoC, can undertake practically in every country in the world. This can be done only when there is a need for the construction of a public benefit project. The compensation was assigned and has been deposited into an account and bears all interest, ever since.

The Orams case should be seen from a different perspective. The owner (Apostolides,) did not necessarily seek compensation per se. The prime motive was to send a message to all those foreigners that bought or plan to buy GC properties in the north, that this activity is illegal under the RoC laws and also under international law. This action became necessary by the individual owners because there was no other way for this activities to end, except by scaring the potential foreign buyers of the possible legal consequences of such actions. Should the TC authorities themselves have taken the appropriate measures towards ending these constructions and sales of GC land to foreigners and not just refusing to do anything about it, there would be no need for Apostolides to take Orams to the court.

However, when such a case makes it to the court, the court's decision can only be based on the existing laws. If the laws provide for compensation, besides the order for demolishment, the courts will assign both remedies. The court is not allowed to see the case from a political perspective but purely from a legal perspective, irrespective of whatever political motives the plaintiff might initially have had.

[erolz]

The Orams case should be seen from a different perspective

Again I would have to ask you, do you see no inconsistency between the RoC courts ruling on the Orams case and the reported statements from your own interior minister "ruling out any compensation before a settlement of the political issue on the island."

[Piratis]

The government has the right to expropriate land. There is nothing illegal about that.
If they expropriate this persons land, then they have to pay him accordingly.

However, this person should go to trial for his illegal actions also. If he was illegally using GC land, then he has to serve the punishment for his illegal action (e.g. some time in jail) + pay back the real owners of the property and return the property to them.

All laws should be respected, not only the ones we like.

Of course RoC showed that can be flexible with the laws for the benefit of TCs. However I guess this person choose not to take advantage of this flexibility offered by RoC, and it is definitely his right.

[-mikkie2-]

Again I would have to ask you, do you see no inconsistency between the RoC courts ruling on the Orams case and the reported statements from your own interior minister "ruling out any compensation before a settlement of the political issue on the island."

Erol there is a massive difference in so far as all property owned by GC's in the north automaticaly became state property of the 'trnc' to do as it pleases with. The land in the south is still owned by the original TC owners. Also, I believe that the amount of TC expropriated land is very similar in % terms to GC expropriated land and in addition this % amounts to a tiny fraction of overal ownership.

The interior minister has said that compensation has been paid and deposited in a bank account awaiting a solution to the problem. He also stated that he TC is free to take the case to court if he thinks the amount of compensation paid was not adequate. In any case, the compensation will be paid upon the political problem being solved.

I do feel that as long as the 'trnc' continues to exploit GC owned property and still thinks it is 'state' property to do as it pleases with then it really has very little, if any, moral or legal justification to complain when people wish to take control of their rightful lands and property.

[erolz]

Was there not a discussion recently (in fact many in the past) where TC posters were expressing the view that property settlements should be part of a political solution and not indivduals actions? Was there not vociferous GC objection to this idea that property settlement should be part of and dependent on a political settlement ? Did I just dream this up?

Now we have the RoC minister of the interior quoted as saying

and ruled out any compensation before a settlement of the political issue on the island.

Though of course this is in relation to a TC seeking action against his claimed land in the north. I do not recall the interior minister saying anything like the above in the Orams case.

So what is the deal here? Any TC claims against land in the South can not / will not / should not be settled without a political solution, but GC claims against property in the North do not, should not and will not depend on a poltical solution? Is that what is being said?

Is there not a single GC poster here who can see the inconsistency of this statement with the Orams case? Or the inconsistency of the RoC government position as expressed in this quote by the interior minister and with the 'wailing' of some GC here when it was suggested by TC that there should be not settlement of property issues except as part of a wider political settlement?

Come on people !

Is the minister of interior right or worng? Right for TC claims but wrong for GC claims? Just plain wrong? Forget this sepecif case. Read what he is reported as saying

and ruled out any compensation before a settlement of the political issue on the island.

Should claims on property be dependent on a political solution or not? Should they for TC claims but not for GC claims? That is simple question I am saking and it would seem that so far not a single GC posters has answered it.