Cyprus-Forum.com

[bill cobbett]

So now you have signed in you can be fucked on tap???

We signed into the EU so we can fuck Turkey and the "TRNC" when we please.

feel free they are big and bad enough to fight their own battles you have first hand experience remember 1974.

VP. Would you be so good as to be a little more respectful of the feelings of many on CF when you post so provocatively and disrespectfully re 1974.

[Viewpoint]

So now you have signed in you can be fucked on tap???

We signed into the EU so we can fuck Turkey and the "TRNC" when we please.

feel free they are big and bad enough to fight their own battles you have first hand experience remember 1974.

VP. Would you be so good as to be a little more respectful of the feelings of many on CF when you post so provocatively and disrespectfully re 1974.

When I get the same respect back, read back on who started this crap.

[erolz3]

Does that mean you recognise the sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus over the whole of the island? Because the EU and the UN does and as an EU citizen I take it you acknowledge its laws.

It means exactly what I said, that I am a legal citizen of Cyprus and have been since before the EU even existed in its current form. My legal status as a citizen places no requirment on me as an indivdual to accept the legitimacy of an all GC run government as the sole legitimate government of all of Cyprus. No more than my legal status as a British citizen requires me to accept the legitimacy of the British presence in Northern ireland, should I choose not to as a matter of personal conviction, or the Falklands or even SBAs in Cyprus. The idea that a persons legal right to citizenship depends on their personal acceptance that everything done by that state is legitimate is something out of soviet russia of 50 years ago. For me the right to dissent and disagree with ones states policies and actions is as fundamental a right as any other.

I aknowledge EU laws where EU law is in force. When I go to the UK I aknowledge I am subject to UK and EU law. When I go to the RoC I aknowledge I am subject to RoC laws and EU law. When I am in the North I aknowledge I am subject to TRNC law and that EU law is suspended there.

It isn't the Greek Cypriots who have fought to partition the island and live segregated from their fellow citizens.

No they fought to ensure that Cyprus would not exist as a nation or a people and that I would have to today live in my own homeland and not even be able to call myself Turkish in any offical way and to do all this with me and my community having no say in the matter, whilst I am ruled by a people 100s of km away that overwhealmingly do not share my language, my religion or my homeland.

In case you missed it, it's our policy to re-unite the island, not to allow the north to become a Turkish fiefdom.

It has been the stated policy of both sides to seek a solution based on BBF since the late 70's. Your side has been as unsincere as ours about this stated policy at various points and to various degrees since then. I accept and aknowledge the insincerity in both parties. You seem to think it is exclusively ours, persumably because of your ideas about the 'superiority' of your side. I'll ignore the fact that it was before 74 your policy to try and make Cyprus and all of its people a fifedom of Greece and continued to pursue this policy even after solemnly agreeing to forgo such purely communal apsirations and the legal rights granted to the TC community in the 60's agreements and to what degree that created the state of Cyprus as it exists today.

I judge a people not by their race but by their actions.

Then you should learn the difference between saying this act by a given racial / ethnic group was barbaric and saying this racial ethnic group is barbaric. One labels the act the other the group. You do the later than claim you mean the former.

Oh for crying out loud. Spare me your sanctimonious twaddle.

How else is one supposed to answer sanctimonious twaddle but in kind ?

It's Greek and ROC policy to support Turkish entry to the EU.

It is Greek and RoC policy to try and leverage their ability to hinder Turkish EU accession against concession from Turkey re its historic and current positions re Cyprus. Nothing wrong in that. It's just the sacntimonious and racist twaddle that the objective is to 'help' Turks become 'civilised' that your comment risable.

It's because we think it will mean Turkey will give up its aggressive, militaristic past and stop creating trouble for us. Rather like the EU did with the Germans.

The idea that Germans as a group ethnic or racial were or are somehow any more or less uncivilised as a people than other european peoples and they only thing that civilised them was the EU is yet more sanctimonious and racist twaddle from yourself. As a people they undoubtedly have had their dark hours and shameful periods marked by horrific evil and abuses against others, as do pretty much all European nations to one degree or another. What truly marks their emergance from such as a civilised people today is their communal acceptance of the horrors comitted in the past in the name of their people and nation and their determination to not repeat such things, something that sadly has yet to properly occur within the RoC in my own personal view as a Cypriot and a citizen.

And yes that means leaving Cyprus, and all the other little human rights issues that the EU expects. So don't kid yourself that Turkey can just walk into the EU without a whole lot of democratic reforms.

Look I am not a TURK. I am a CYPRIOT. I happen to be a turkish cypriot but I am no more turkish than african americans are african. I want Turkey to be able to leave Cyprus at least as much as you do, but there are also other things that I want as well just as much, like the recognition and acceptance of my communites rights within my own shared homeland. Whilst you denied those rights and showed a willingness to use force to crush my community into accepting their removal as a fait acompli I was prepared to accept and to a degree even welcomed Turkey offering an alternative. As soon as we can agree there restitution in an acceptable fashion to all concerned then I will support the ending of Turkish presence in Cyprus. As long and as far as you seek to continue to deny them I will not.

[erolz3]

oops

[bill cobbett]

It looks like the European Commission did try to exert pressure on the ECJ to defer its ruling in the Orams case pending the "negotiations" .

The following is from the Cyprus Weekly...

..........

Commission tried to block Orams ruling

By Philippos Stylianou

The European Commission tried to get the European Court of Justice to rule that it should not make a decision now in the Orams case as this might damage Cyprus settlement talks.

The revelation came from Constantis Candounas, lawyer for Meletis Apostolides on whose occupied Kyrenia property David and Linda Orams have built a house.

“The Commission tried to argue the inarguable, that legal rights should be foregone, and, in my opinion, this was totally unacceptable,” he said, appearing before Cypriot journalists and foreign correspondents soon after the decision by the ECJ.

Commission Representative Frank Hoffmeister had asked the ECJ to clarify whether the British court could refuse to enforce a Cyprus court ruling demanding the return of the property and the payment of compensation because it was not in line with policy that the Cyprus problem should be solved through negotiations.

The ECJ rejected this, stating that there was no such British policy.

Apostolides can now hope that following the ECJ ruling, the British Court of Appeal will enforce a decision of a Cypriot Court through an EU regulation ordering a British couple to vacate his property in the occupied areas and pay compensation to him.

His lawyer said that there was no way the British Court of Appeal could get around the ECJ ruling, which it had solicited, unless David and Linda Orams and their attorneys came up with new arguments.

In that case, Candounas noted, they would have to ask for the Court’s permission to present these arguments.

Responding to questions, he said that if the British court ordered the decision of the Cypriot court to be enforced in the UK and the Orams refused to comply, they would face the consequences of the law.

For instance, if the Orams refused to pull down the house they had illegally built on Apostolides’ land, the refugee owner could seek a contempt of court order in Britain.

And, if they refuse to compensate him, as the Cypriot court had ordered, Apostolides can then move against their UK property and ask for the liquidation of their assets. According to a rough estimate, the money owed to Apostolides so far amounted to about ?35,000, but there was also the question of meeting his legal costs, which were much higher than that.

Commenting on suggestions that the Orams could appeal to the House of Lords, Candounas said that those who held these views had not read the relevant EU Regulation 44/2001 and they were themselves in need of legal advice.

According to Annex IV of the Regulation, in the UK there was the right of a single further appeal on a point of law, which the Orams had already exhausted.

On the basis of evidence he presented at the press conference, Candounas also rejected continuing claims that the Orams had bought Apostolides’ property in good faith and that they had not had a fair hearing at the Nicosia District Court.

Replying to questions about reports that the Orams had already applied to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg on the grounds of unfair trial, he said that he had been hearing about this for the past two years.

“I contacted the legal department of the Republic, which would be the defendant party in such a case, and they told me they have not received anything so far,” he said.

Candounas made clear that the case was not over yet, although he was quite optimistic about it. Asked what would happen if Apostolides lost at the British Court of Appeal, he said that that would be the end of the story.

He said that he expected the Orams case to be over by next October at the latest.

BOX

78 words

Another case

During the press conference, Candounas revealed that he is handling another case similar to the one he has just won for Meletis Apostolides.

He said it was also against Britons who had bought Greek Cypriot refugee property in Karmi village, Kyrenia.

Candounas had already secured a Cypriot court judgment for his new clients but had agreed to set it aside so as to give the defendants the opportunity to appeal.

The hearing dates have been set for May.

............

[Hermes]

It means exactly what I said, that I am a legal citizen of Cyprus and have been since before the EU even existed in its current form. My legal status as a citizen places no requirment on me as an indivdual to accept the legitimacy of an all GC run government as the sole legitimate government of all of Cyprus.

I asked whether you accept the sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus over the whole of the island as recognised by the EU, the UN and international law. What is so difficult here?

I aknowledge EU laws where EU law is in force. When I go to the UK I aknowledge I am subject to UK and EU law. When I go to the RoC I aknowledge I am subject to RoC laws and EU law. When I am in the North I aknowledge I am subject to TRNC law and that EU law is suspended there.

The difference is that TRNC law is a law unto itself and has no legitimacy outside the sphere of Turkish military dominance. It is illegitimate and unrecognised. You should not equate submission to its 'laws' with your rights as a citizen. The north, however, is still subject to the writ of the ROC. As the ECJ ruling has confirmed. It is an anomaly. But the ROc's writ is valid and enforceable in the international sphere. There is a higher authority in the TRNC than the Turkish army. And that is how it should be.

No they fought to ensure that Cyprus would not exist as a nation or a people and that I would have to today live in my own homeland and not even be able to call myself Turkish in any offical way and to do all this with me and my community having no say in the matter, whilst I am ruled by a people 100s of km away that overwhealmingly do not share my language, my religion or my homeland. I'll ignore the fact that it was before 74 your policy to try and make Cyprus and all of its people a fifedom of Greece and continued to pursue this policy even after solemnly agreeing to forgo such purely communal apsirations and the legal rights granted to the TC community in the 60's agreements and to what degree that created the state of Cyprus as it exists today.

As 82 per cent of the population we have the right to determine our country's fate as we choose. It was the Turkish minority at the instigation of the British which has fought to destroy the legitimate aspirations of the majority. You made your choice and have seen the isolation and virtual elimination of the T/Cs from the island to be replaced by Anatolian settlers.

In case you missed it, it's our policy to re-unite the island, not to allow the north to become a Turkish fiefdom.

It has been the stated policy of both sides to seek a solution based on BBF since the late 70's. Your side has been as unsincere as ours about this stated policy at various points and to various degrees since then. I accept and aknowledge the insincerity in both parties. You seem to think it is exclusively ours, persumably because of your ideas about the 'superiority' of your side.

I don't deny both sides have made mistakes. But the G/C side has been steadfast in refusing a confederation of any sort or of relinquishing the sovereignty of the ROC. It has also insisted on the necessity of EU law to apply throughout the whole island and to reject any sort of solution that would lead to segregation or apartheid.

I judge a people not by their race but by their actions.

Then you should learn the difference between saying this act by a given racial / ethnic group was barbaric and saying this racial ethnic group is barbaric. One labels the act the other the group. You do the later than claim you mean the former.

Depriving a people of access to their homes and land, while revelling in the desecration of their heritage is barbaric. I'm sorry if that offends you. But until you acknowledge the disaster that the "TRNC" has inflicted on Cyprus and all Cypriots then it is entirely appropriate.

It is Greek and RoC policy to try and leverage their ability to hinder Turkish EU accession against concession from Turkey re its historic and current positions re Cyprus. Nothing wrong in that. It's just the sacntimonious and racist twaddle that the objective is to 'help' Turks become 'civilised' that your comment risable.

The objective is to free Turkey from its totalitarian and brutal militarism and to anchor it within the sphere of the West with its liberal and democratic values. Take that as you wish.

[YFred]

It looks like the European Commission did try to exert pressure on the ECJ to defer its ruling in the Orams case pending the "negotiations" .

The following is from the Cyprus Weekly...

..........

Commission tried to block Orams ruling

By Philippos Stylianou

The European Commission tried to get the European Court of Justice to rule that it should not make a decision now in the Orams case as this might damage Cyprus settlement talks.

The revelation came from Constantis Candounas, lawyer for Meletis Apostolides on whose occupied Kyrenia property David and Linda Orams have built a house.

“The Commission tried to argue the inarguable, that legal rights should be foregone, and, in my opinion, this was totally unacceptable,” he said, appearing before Cypriot journalists and foreign correspondents soon after the decision by the ECJ.

Commission Representative Frank Hoffmeister had asked the ECJ to clarify whether the British court could refuse to enforce a Cyprus court ruling demanding the return of the property and the payment of compensation because it was not in line with policy that the Cyprus problem should be solved through negotiations.

The ECJ rejected this, stating that there was no such British policy.

Apostolides can now hope that following the ECJ ruling, the British Court of Appeal will enforce a decision of a Cypriot Court through an EU regulation ordering a British couple to vacate his property in the occupied areas and pay compensation to him.

His lawyer said that there was no way the British Court of Appeal could get around the ECJ ruling, which it had solicited, unless David and Linda Orams and their attorneys came up with new arguments.

In that case, Candounas noted, they would have to ask for the Court’s permission to present these arguments.

Responding to questions, he said that if the British court ordered the decision of the Cypriot court to be enforced in the UK and the Orams refused to comply, they would face the consequences of the law.

For instance, if the Orams refused to pull down the house they had illegally built on Apostolides’ land, the refugee owner could seek a contempt of court order in Britain.

And, if they refuse to compensate him, as the Cypriot court had ordered, Apostolides can then move against their UK property and ask for the liquidation of their assets. According to a rough estimate, the money owed to Apostolides so far amounted to about ?35,000, but there was also the question of meeting his legal costs, which were much higher than that.

Commenting on suggestions that the Orams could appeal to the House of Lords, Candounas said that those who held these views had not read the relevant EU Regulation 44/2001 and they were themselves in need of legal advice.

According to Annex IV of the Regulation, in the UK there was the right of a single further appeal on a point of law, which the Orams had already exhausted.

On the basis of evidence he presented at the press conference, Candounas also rejected continuing claims that the Orams had bought Apostolides’ property in good faith and that they had not had a fair hearing at the Nicosia District Court.

Replying to questions about reports that the Orams had already applied to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg on the grounds of unfair trial, he said that he had been hearing about this for the past two years.

“I contacted the legal department of the Republic, which would be the defendant party in such a case, and they told me they have not received anything so far,” he said.

Candounas made clear that the case was not over yet, although he was quite optimistic about it. Asked what would happen if Apostolides lost at the British Court of Appeal, he said that that would be the end of the story.

He said that he expected the Orams case to be over by next October at the latest.

BOX

78 words

Another case

During the press conference, Candounas revealed that he is handling another case similar to the one he has just won for Meletis Apostolides.

He said it was also against Britons who had bought Greek Cypriot refugee property in Karmi village, Kyrenia.

Candounas had already secured a Cypriot court judgment for his new clients but had agreed to set it aside so as to give the defendants the opportunity to appeal.

The hearing dates have been set for May.

............

The EU will sooner or later realise the mistake they made.

[bill cobbett]

It looks like the European Commission did try to exert pressure on the ECJ to defer its ruling in the Orams case pending the "negotiations" .

The following is from the Cyprus Weekly...

..........

Commission tried to block Orams ruling

By Philippos Stylianou

The European Commission tried to get the European Court of Justice to rule that it should not make a decision now in the Orams case as this might damage Cyprus settlement talks.

The revelation came from Constantis Candounas, lawyer for Meletis Apostolides on whose occupied Kyrenia property David and Linda Orams have built a house.

“The Commission tried to argue the inarguable, that legal rights should be foregone, and, in my opinion, this was totally unacceptable,” he said, appearing before Cypriot journalists and foreign correspondents soon after the decision by the ECJ.

Commission Representative Frank Hoffmeister had asked the ECJ to clarify whether the British court could refuse to enforce a Cyprus court ruling demanding the return of the property and the payment of compensation because it was not in line with policy that the Cyprus problem should be solved through negotiations.

The ECJ rejected this, stating that there was no such British policy.

Apostolides can now hope that following the ECJ ruling, the British Court of Appeal will enforce a decision of a Cypriot Court through an EU regulation ordering a British couple to vacate his property in the occupied areas and pay compensation to him.

His lawyer said that there was no way the British Court of Appeal could get around the ECJ ruling, which it had solicited, unless David and Linda Orams and their attorneys came up with new arguments.

In that case, Candounas noted, they would have to ask for the Court’s permission to present these arguments.

Responding to questions, he said that if the British court ordered the decision of the Cypriot court to be enforced in the UK and the Orams refused to comply, they would face the consequences of the law.

For instance, if the Orams refused to pull down the house they had illegally built on Apostolides’ land, the refugee owner could seek a contempt of court order in Britain.

And, if they refuse to compensate him, as the Cypriot court had ordered, Apostolides can then move against their UK property and ask for the liquidation of their assets. According to a rough estimate, the money owed to Apostolides so far amounted to about ?35,000, but there was also the question of meeting his legal costs, which were much higher than that.

Commenting on suggestions that the Orams could appeal to the House of Lords, Candounas said that those who held these views had not read the relevant EU Regulation 44/2001 and they were themselves in need of legal advice.

According to Annex IV of the Regulation, in the UK there was the right of a single further appeal on a point of law, which the Orams had already exhausted.

On the basis of evidence he presented at the press conference, Candounas also rejected continuing claims that the Orams had bought Apostolides’ property in good faith and that they had not had a fair hearing at the Nicosia District Court.

Replying to questions about reports that the Orams had already applied to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg on the grounds of unfair trial, he said that he had been hearing about this for the past two years.

“I contacted the legal department of the Republic, which would be the defendant party in such a case, and they told me they have not received anything so far,” he said.

Candounas made clear that the case was not over yet, although he was quite optimistic about it. Asked what would happen if Apostolides lost at the British Court of Appeal, he said that that would be the end of the story.

He said that he expected the Orams case to be over by next October at the latest.

BOX

78 words

Another case

During the press conference, Candounas revealed that he is handling another case similar to the one he has just won for Meletis Apostolides.

He said it was also against Britons who had bought Greek Cypriot refugee property in Karmi village, Kyrenia.

Candounas had already secured a Cypriot court judgment for his new clients but had agreed to set it aside so as to give the defendants the opportunity to appeal.

The hearing dates have been set for May.

............

The EU will sooner or later realise the mistake they made.

The judgement of this week was by the ECJ not the EU........

.......................... ...............


.................................................................(plonker )

[bill cobbett]

So now you have signed in you can be fucked on tap???

We signed into the EU so we can fuck Turkey and the "TRNC" when we please.

feel free they are big and bad enough to fight their own battles you have first hand experience remember 1974.

VP. Would you be so good as to be a little more respectful of the feelings of many on CF when you post so provocatively and disrespectfully re 1974.

When I get the same respect back, read back on who started this crap.

..... and the rest of you, show the VPs some respect.

[EricSeans]

Your explanation for difficulties over point 3 seem more a case of mitigation after the fact, surely?

It is very simple actually. Once the Orams are ordered by the British courts to tear down their home in the north and they refuse, they will be held in contempt of the courts decision. Then they will get themselves into further problems with the law, and even sent to jail. It will be the Orams themselves who would tear the home down and no one else.. If they were smart, and since they like to play with fire by being unethical and unprincipled, they should torch their house in the north so to collect the insurance money.

Hi Kikapu,

There are 4 things need to prove contempt of court:

1 existence of a lawful order
2 the contemnor's knowledge of the order
3 the contemnor's ability to comply
4 the contemnor's failure to comply

The problem here is that No. 3 is going to be difficult to prove. They cannot hand back the property to Mr. A nor can the Os demolish the property without TRNC planning permission which is likely to be refused. So they are not in contempt as they do not have the ability to comply, without taking unreasonable actions i.e. demolish without planning permission, that would endanger their safety or liberty in the TRNC. Few if any courts would expect one to act this way.