Cyprus-Forum.com

[boulio]

relax vp dont get worked up for nothing.if you can translate it would be appreciated.

[erolz3]

Like Piratis said if it would be right to conclude what you conclude then the ECHR will agree with you.

First off if you follow the actualy discussion my point was about to what degree this latest ECJ has changed the parameters that can be considered for a property solution in legal terms.

If the argument is that some form of property comission as part of a settlement that had an ability in indivdual cases to put current users ahead of pre 74 owners is impossible because of ECHR rulings, then MY argument that this latest ruling has not changed things is the same. THis was (alledgedly) the case pre the ECJ ruling and it stays the same after. In fact I do not personally think that the ECHR rulings about indivdulas rights under the current status quo means that such a solution is not possible with necessary agreement, but either way my point that this latest ECJ does not change the legal position remains.

In fact in some ways as far as I can see this latest ECJ ruling is at odds with previous ECHR rulings. In the Orams case no defense was made that in line with ECHR rulings the plantiff should seek first redress through the PC. I suspect that if futher cases are persued within the RoC courts such a defense will be brought and if the RoC courts refuse that defense then it will then go to the ECHR. How it will rule re the issue of should such claims by indivduals have to exhaust redress via the PC vs Turkey first before being heard in RoC courts against indivdual defendants or not I do not know. However I think such a challenge in future cases if and when they happen will be made.

If it was my land that you build on and used for 35 years profiting and becoming rich while I was living in some shitty refugee housing then I would sue your ass off and demand rent for those 35 years!

No one is saying , least of all me, that people who lost property as a result of the events of 74 should not have fair and due recompense for that loss as indivduals.

What I was talking about was what I think should be the basis for a property settlement in any agreement package and specificaly what the 'principles' should be when there is a conflict of wants between current users and pre 74 owners and why I hold the views that I do.

I still believe that the 'guiding principle' in such a property settlement should be a case by case independent assement of what solution creates the less overall 'harm' to conerned parties in total in that given case, rather than a starting point of 'pre 74 owners must always have the final say' regrdless of how much extra hardship that may place on indivduals compared with the first option. I believe this because I consider it it to be the fairest basis for a settlement and I do not consider such an agreement should it be made and ratifed in referenda would automaticaly be deemed illegal in international courts.

In indivdual cases where current users are placed before pre 74 owners , those pre 74 owners should still get fair and just comensation for any loss of land either in monetary form or alternative land and compensation for loss of use of that land from 74 to the date of the settlement. Similarly in cases were the pre 74 owners are placed before current users, appropriate compensation and or state assistance should be given to the current users.

In short my approach is not a 'legalistic' one but a 'humanistic' one that seeks to solve a very complex situation whilst minimising the harm done to indivduals as much as is possible in such a senario. That is any indivdual regardless of if they are GC or TC. It is an approach that has the premise that as indivduals neither group is totaly innocent or totaly guilty for the situation as it exists today. Whilst it is 'humanistic' in its starting premise and not 'legalistic' I do not see how existing ECHR or ECJ rulings about the current senario would exclude the possiblity of it as a negotiated and agreed forumla.

Your approach it seems to me is based in a notion that the GC are innocents and the TC are the guilty party and that any 'settlement' should correctly impose punishments upon TC whilst expecting no compromise from any GC at all. This is not I think an approach that can ever hope to achieve an agreed settlement in my view.

[Viewpoint]

Why dont you do us all a favour and summerize it?

why cant read?we have seen your grammer.if you like go back and read it if not who cares.it will show you that most t/c and g/c can actually come to agreements on the fundimental aspects of a future plan.

something that probably scares you.

Whats my grammer got to do with anything, you GCs have this stupid and childish habit of either using insults of critisizing grammer, lowest form of intelligence dont you know.

You mean grammar?

You pick on my grammar but not boulios, is it because hes a GC?.

[Viewpoint]

relax vp dont get worked up for nothing.if you can translate it would be appreciated.

Have you not seen the stick I get? it would be suicide doing such a translation.

[Viewpoint]

Here's the link:

http://www.kibrisgazetesi.com/popup.php ... c_Haberler

Thats an interview with Metin Hakkı not with A Lordos.

[polis]

In short my approach is not a 'legalistic' one but a 'humanistic' one that seeks to solve a very complex situation whilst minimising the harm done to indivduals as much as is possible in such a senario.

The complex situation being that living in someone else's property doesn't make the property yours unless, a. you never paid rent for the property, b. the owner has either being murdered or ethnically cleansed, and c. you don't think that the owner will ever be able to evict you. Attila the Hun Code, Volume II, Article 125.

[Viewpoint]

71% of TCs want a 2 state solution becuase they do not want to just another minority in a Gc state run by GCs where they can be discriminted against.

So the way not to be a minority is to kill and ethnically cleanse the majority? This is how a criminal like you thinks! The easiest way not to be a minority in Cyprus is if you didn't keep invading us and bringing your Settlers on our island!

Its called survival against a hostile GC majority hell bent on making Cyprus Greece.

Again VP, when you started your demands for partition in the 50s the only hostility up until that point, 300 years of it, were coming from you against us.

Apparently it was fine for you to make Cyprus part of your empire against the will of the Cypriot people, but you did not recognize the right of the Cypriot people to belong where they democratically choose.

1821 vs 1950 ehhh which came first? enosis has been your down fall the sad part is you dont even realize it.

What came first was your invasion in 1571. 1821 was our revolution for freedom from the Mongoloid invaders of your kind. If it wasn't for the Turkish aggression and expansionism Cyprus would be a peaceful democratic island with no problems!

Do you even know when you invaded?

[Sotos]

Like Piratis said if it would be right to conclude what you conclude then the ECHR will agree with you.

First off if you follow the actualy discussion my point was about to what degree this latest ECJ has changed the parameters that can be considered for a property solution in legal terms.

If the argument is that some form of property comission as part of a settlement that had an ability in indivdual cases to put current users ahead of pre 74 owners is impossible because of ECHR rulings, then MY argument that this latest ruling has not changed things is the same. THis was (alledgedly) the case pre the ECJ ruling and it stays the same after. In fact I do not personally think that the ECHR rulings about indivdulas rights under the current status quo means that such a solution is not possible with necessary agreement, but either way my point that this latest ECJ does not change the legal position remains.

In fact in some ways as far as I can see this latest ECJ ruling is at odds with previous ECHR rulings. In the Orams case no defense was made that in line with ECHR rulings the plantiff should seek first redress through the PC. I suspect that if futher cases are persued within the RoC courts such a defense will be brought and if the RoC courts refuse that defense then it will then go to the ECHR. How it will rule re the issue of should such claims by indivduals have to exhaust redress via the PC vs Turkey first before being heard in RoC courts against indivdual defendants or not I do not know. However I think such a challenge in future cases if and when they happen will be made.

If it was my land that you build on and used for 35 years profiting and becoming rich while I was living in some shitty refugee housing then I would sue your ass off and demand rent for those 35 years!

No one is saying , least of all me, that people who lost property as a result of the events of 74 should not have fair and due recompense for that loss as indivduals.

What I was talking about was what I think should be the basis for a property settlement in any agreement package and specificaly what the 'principles' should be when there is a conflict of wants between current users and pre 74 owners and why I hold the views that I do.

I still believe that the 'guiding principle' in such a property settlement should be a case by case independent assement of what solution creates the less overall 'harm' to conerned parties in total in that given case, rather than a starting point of 'pre 74 owners must always have the final say' regrdless of how much extra hardship that may place on indivduals compared with the first option. I believe this because I consider it it to be the fairest basis for a settlement and I do not consider such an agreement should it be made and ratifed in referenda would automaticaly be deemed illegal in international courts.

In indivdual cases where current users are placed before pre 74 owners , those pre 74 owners should still get fair and just comensation for any loss of land either in monetary form or alternative land and compensation for loss of use of that land from 74 to the date of the settlement. Similarly in cases were the pre 74 owners are placed before current users, appropriate compensation and or state assistance should be given to the current users.

In short my approach is not a 'legalistic' one but a 'humanistic' one that seeks to solve a very complex situation whilst minimising the harm done to indivduals as much as is possible in such a senario. That is any indivdual regardless of if they are GC or TC. It is an approach that has the premise that as indivduals neither group is totaly innocent or totaly guilty for the situation as it exists today. Whilst it is 'humanistic' in its starting premise and not 'legalistic' I do not see how existing ECHR or ECJ rulings about the current senario would exclude the possiblity of it as a negotiated and agreed forumla.

Your approach it seems to me is based in a notion that the GC are innocents and the TC are the guilty party and that any 'settlement' should correctly impose punishments upon TC whilst expecting no compromise from any GC at all. This is not I think an approach that can ever hope to achieve an agreed settlement in my view.

You are trying to circumvent legality and deny to us our human rights. That is not what I call "humanistic" Your demands are rejected. If you have any right then you should be able to win the case isn't it? So what are you afraid of? The courts and the ECHR are for everyone and they can serve justice. You think you know better of what is "humanistic" than the Court of Human Rights? And you made the PC in order to delay the process. But now with the ECJ we are right back and can go faster than ever before. You can't stop justice.

[Sotos]

71% of TCs want a 2 state solution becuase they do not want to just another minority in a Gc state run by GCs where they can be discriminted against.

So the way not to be a minority is to kill and ethnically cleanse the majority? This is how a criminal like you thinks! The easiest way not to be a minority in Cyprus is if you didn't keep invading us and bringing your Settlers on our island!

Its called survival against a hostile GC majority hell bent on making Cyprus Greece.

Again VP, when you started your demands for partition in the 50s the only hostility up until that point, 300 years of it, were coming from you against us.

Apparently it was fine for you to make Cyprus part of your empire against the will of the Cypriot people, but you did not recognize the right of the Cypriot people to belong where they democratically choose.

1821 vs 1950 ehhh which came first? enosis has been your down fall the sad part is you dont even realize it.

What came first was your invasion in 1571. 1821 was our revolution for freedom from the Mongoloid invaders of your kind. If it wasn't for the Turkish aggression and expansionism Cyprus would be a peaceful democratic island with no problems!

Do you even know when you invaded?

We didn't invade you. You invaded us. If you had not invaded us then we wouldn't have any problems today.

[insan]

Here's the link:

http://www.kibrisgazetesi.com/popup.php ... c_Haberler

Thats an interview with Metin Hakkı not with A Lordos.

I thought Metin Hakkı was the interviewer.