Cyprus-Forum.com

[Sotos]

I think erolz3 is using Greek Cypriot property in the north. I asked him about it and he avoided answering. And I think that if he has any property in the south it is too little compared to what they gave him in the north. Think about it and then you will understand why he talks in this way! He is like all those British who bought GC land in the north. He is trying to find ways to avoid legality and keep what he took from us and give us much less than what our property worth.

My personal situation is irrelevant to my arguments. It is a fairly standard practice on fora such as these , when on has run out of attacks on the arguments made by a given poster to start attacks on them as an indivdual and not their arguments and try and imply motives that may or may not exist as to why they argue as they do.

In reality unlike too many Cypriots I would personaly give up anything I have in Cyprus if that was the price for achieving a settlement I believed to be fair and had realistic chances of being lasting.

I do not seek to avoid legality and certainly not for personal gain and nor do I seek to try and cast legality in solely terms such that it meets my communites maximal demands at the expense of yours.

There is nothing illegal in the principle of the state compelling indivduals to sell their private properties to the state for the greater good of society as a whole. In principle an agreement could be brokered that gave an indpendent body the ability to effectively and legaly compulsorly purchase property from pre 74 owners in specific cases and under specific and agreed guidelines as to in what cases they can or can not do this, in order to achieve a settlement that creates the least additional burden and hardship on all Cypriots as a whole regardless of ethnic group and in the name of the greater good of Cypriot society.

Of course you reject such a concept and principle and instead seek to convince yourslef that legality can only possibly allow for your side to get its maximals desires from a settlement.

You confuse your own good with the greater good. If it was for the greater good then don't you think that the 82% of the population would agree with you? Taking my property to build a highway is something that is for the greater good. If you ask the people if they wanted highways linking the cities then almost all of them would say yes because all of them would use those highways and benefit. How is taking my property and giving it to you for the greater good? The only one who benefits from this is you! It is this illogical conclusions of yours and your arrogant idea that you know what is humane better than the ECHR that let me to believe that your issue is personal!

[-mikkie2-]

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.

This is complete rubbish I am afraid.

This is not about imposing punishments on TC's! The TC's can today if they so wish reclaim their property in the south of the island. They have the legal means to do so but in most cases they choose not to.

The fact remains, that all court rulings of GC's vs Turkey have confirmed and re-confirmed the rights of the original property owners. All rulings have demanded compensation for LOSS OF USE of the property and for its RETURN to the rightful owner. THis would also be true for TC's that own property in the south. In fact a number of TC's have already reclaimed their property in the south via the RoC and it has led to the GC occupier of the TC property to move out and into alternative accomodation.

Now, as I stated in a previous post, there seems to be much confusion in the north between geographical control of the northern part of Cyprus and property ownership. Geographical political control of a region does not mean property ownership is also under control of the political entity in that region.

This is a conundrum that the TC's need to get their head around and understand. I would bet that the kind of bizonal bicommunal federation the TC's want will be challenged by individuals if their rights under EU law are being compromised.

[erolz3]

Yes you are.

If the quality of discussion with you polis is going to be 'yes you are' 'no I am not' 'yes you are' then I fear I will soon give up such discussion as far as you are concerned.

Because the refugee occupying the TC property is still a refugee and he wasn't very happy handing over the property to the Turkish owner without being able to claim his own land back. Can't you read the point made before replying?

Actualy my understanding was the current user was a she not a he and an elderly she at that and that having to move to make way for the pre 74 owner caused her considerable hardship. Nor is it clear that this hardship to her would have been removed had she been able to reclaim land in the North that she may have had prior to 74.

If you can not see the hardship that this legal decision won after 10 years in the courts had on her and think there is no merit in suggesting that such hardship should be able to be considered in a case by case basis and judged against the 'hardship' of compelling a pre 74 owner to take an alternative piece of land or fair monetary recompense and compensation for their loss of use, then clearly you will never see my point.

[erolz3]

They have the legal means to do so but in most cases they choose not to.

They do but only if they accept the validity of the RoC as it exists today, complete with the removal and ammendments of thier communal rights that was done unilaterlay from 65 onwards.

The fact remains, that all court rulings of GC's vs Turkey have confirmed and re-confirmed the rights of the original property owners.

correct

All rulings have demanded compensation for LOSS OF USE of the property and for its RETURN to the rightful owner. THis would also be true for TC's that own property in the south.

Actually in generic terms what the ECHR have said (quite correctly in my view) is that Turkey can not simply deprive pre 74 owners of their rights without giving them recourse to a local means of valid remedy. They have said that such a local means of valid remedy MUST be able to offer return as one means of redressing loss of use. They have not said that this is the ONLY means of redress they would ever consider acceptable should it be the one the pre 74 owner wants. To what degree the property comission could offer a remedy other than return and in what situations and still be considered a valid means of local redress by the ECHR has not yet been tested.

In fact a number of TC's have already reclaimed their property in the south via the RoC and it has led to the GC occupier of the TC property to move out and into alternative accomodation.

In almost all such cases the RoC has sought to solve the conflict by offering alternatives to either the current user or the pre 74 owner. In the one case to date were neither was willing to accept such it took 10 years of batteling in RoC courts and going all the way to the supreme court for the pre 74 TC owner to finally get return.

My approach for a property solution would mirror this one but with the only difference being that in those exceptional cases where a 'friendly' settlement can not be reached SOMETIMES the body apointed with the task could decide in favour of current users over pre 74 owners if that case met the pre defined criteria and rules for such a judgment, rather than demanding that in every case whatever the cirumstances they have to always favour the pre 74 owner over the current user.

[polis]

Yes you are.

If the quality of discussion with you polis is going to be 'yes you are' 'no I am not' 'yes you are' then I fear I will soon give up such discussion as far as you are concerned.

Because the refugee occupying the TC property is still a refugee and he wasn't very happy handing over the property to the Turkish owner without being able to claim his own land back. Can't you read the point made before replying?

Actualy my understanding was the current user was a she not a he and an elderly she at that and that having to move to make way for the pre 74 owner caused her considerable hardship...

That is what you wanted to understand. The house was occupied by a family and the concern was that Turkish Cypriots would be allowed to double dip: get their properties in the free areas and keep our properties in the occupied areas. Nobody even hinted that that Cyprus refugees should get to keep Turkish Cypriot properties for ever.

[Sotos]

In almost all such cases the RoC has sought to solve the conflict by offering alternatives to either the current user or the pre 74 owner. In the one case to date were neither was willing to accept such it took 10 years of batteling in RoC courts and going all the way to the supreme court for the pre 74 TC owner to finally get return.

My approach for a property solution would mirror this one but with the only difference being that in those exceptional cases where a 'friendly' settlement can not be reached SOMETIMES the body apointed with the task could decide in favour of current users over pre 74 owners if that case met the pre defined criteria and rules for such a judgment, rather than demanding that in every case whatever the cirumstances they have to always favour the pre 74 owner over the current user.

We are not "pre 74 owners". We are the owners, pre 74 and after 74. The title deeds that your pseudo state issued worth less than used toilet paper. A commission can play the role of trying to find something which is acceptable to both the owner and the current user. But they can not force one citizen to sell his property to another! This is unheard of and a violation of human rights!

[Hermes]

At least Mehmet Ali Talat understands the implications of the ECJ decision:

"Talat had warned after the ruling that the decision would have political consequences. He told journalists: “After the decision, even if Christofias wanted to, he couldn’t make concessions on property”.

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

I hope that's clear enough.

[Kikapu]

Kifeas, he is as black as Mrs Thatcher was a woman. Obama is black because he told us he was black. He has not involved himself in any way with any black issues in America or with any black civil rights people. To somehow champion democracy in US because of his election is being a little false. He is the grand son of a diplomat and was raised by him. He probably hadn’t met a black person before he got elected to congress.

Now that he is elected, whose interest is he serving? Is it the ordinary folk in the street or big business?

He has just discovered that there are people in the CIA who have been torturing people and chose to do nothing. Does that answer the question?

Obama is black because he told us he was black.

What's the matter YFred, don't you believe your own eyes as to what colour Obama is or are you just plain colour blind.??

Perhaps this is what you mean, that Obama sees himself as a white guy just like JFK.!



But wait, no, that can't be, because Obama sees JFK as a black also.!

Perhaps Obama is one of these guys who just paints himself before he goes into the public.!

[YFred]

Kifeas, he is as black as Mrs Thatcher was a woman. Obama is black because he told us he was black. He has not involved himself in any way with any black issues in America or with any black civil rights people. To somehow champion democracy in US because of his election is being a little false. He is the grand son of a diplomat and was raised by him. He probably hadn’t met a black person before he got elected to congress.

Now that he is elected, whose interest is he serving? Is it the ordinary folk in the street or big business?

He has just discovered that there are people in the CIA who have been torturing people and chose to do nothing. Does that answer the question?

Obama is black because he told us he was black.

What's the matter YFred, don't you believe your own eyes as to what colour Obama is or are you just plain colour blind.??

Perhaps this is what you mean, that Obama sees himself as a white guy just like JFK.!



But wait, no, that can't be, because Obama sees JFK as a black also.!

Perhaps Obama is one of these guys who just paints himself before he goes into the public.!

How right you are, tanks a million sor.
Yep, JFK was more black than Obama alright!

[Kikapu]

Kifeas, he is as black as Mrs Thatcher was a woman. Obama is black because he told us he was black. He has not involved himself in any way with any black issues in America or with any black civil rights people. To somehow champion democracy in US because of his election is being a little false. He is the grand son of a diplomat and was raised by him. He probably hadn’t met a black person before he got elected to congress.

Now that he is elected, whose interest is he serving? Is it the ordinary folk in the street or big business?

He has just discovered that there are people in the CIA who have been torturing people and chose to do nothing. Does that answer the question?

Obama is black because he told us he was black.

What's the matter YFred, don't you believe your own eyes as to what colour Obama is or are you just plain colour blind.??

Perhaps this is what you mean, that Obama sees himself as a white guy just like JFK.!



But wait, no, that can't be, because Obama sees JFK as a black also.!

Perhaps Obama is one of these guys who just paints himself before he goes into the public.!

How right you are, tanks a million sor.
Yep, JFK was more black than Obama alright!

Oh yes, I see what you mean!