CopperLine wrote:Tim Drayton wrote:YFred wrote:nurseawful wrote:Well you can all laugh at us getting properties at whatever prices we paid but has it ever occured to you that the houses in the sout.h are built the same way as up here in the North. Conclusion you lot were really ripped of!!
Now I am being as bad as you lot, don't any of you want peace and tranquility on this island? We have a beautiful island why can't we all live in peace have we learned nothing from wars!
Nothing has changed. They are not about to knock houses down. Hang on to your properties, it will all be sorted in the final agreement and if there isn't one, then there is no problem.
Does any one know what the judgement is about persuing the orams for their property in England?
I predict that the property issue - which is an individual right under civil law - will over the next couple of decades become decoupled from efforts to find a political settlement - the latter seemingly impossible.
I'm not sure about this, Tim Drayton. I agree with your premiss but not sure that I understand your conclusion. Are you suggesting that independent of any political settlement civil cases will continue to be pursued over the next couple of decades ? Or are you suggesting that a political settlement will render civil cases unnecessary (because the political settlement will address and resolve all property issues) ?
In general no one should be really surprised by this ECJ judgment. It simply confirms the logic of integration of European union law. Once the RoC was confirmed as new-accession state any lawyer worth their salt should have advised against anybody thinking of buying a Greek Cypriot property in the north. It was simply a question of time before this door was going to be closed. People like Apostolides should be commended for having the determination to push the case all the way through. (This is how law develops; it has to be challenged, tested and clarified).
As a matter of detail, the wording of this thread's news headline is somewhat misleading. Whilst it is true that the original Cyprus court ordered the demolition of the Oram's Lapithos house, and that the ECJ's final judgment confirms the enforceability of the Cyprus court decision in the UK, there is a basic practical problem to enforce the demolition of a house in one country by the powers of another country. Securing compensation from the Orams - basically monetary compensation - via UK enforcement will be the Orams' immediate headache (and doubtless the thousands of others in the UK and EU who have similar kinds of properties/judgments held against them). But how - practically - does a UK court enforce the demolition of a house in northern Cyprus ? In this case the UK's power is no greater than that of the RoC because northern Cyprus, remains under effective administration of Turkey. In short, the Orams could quite easily refuse to demolish the Lapithos house and, until there is a political settlement of the whole Cyprus question (wherein northern Cyprus also be subject to the acquis as an EU territory), that bit of the judgment would remain practically unenforceable.
Even with a settlement, individuals who have no access to there property could follow a similar route.
