Cyprus-Forum.com

[Viewpoint]

Now the Oramses should counter sue the "ROC" for the land in the south and the GCs can no longer link anything to a solution or else they should have done the same in this case.

Sue them VP! I hope you all do, and I hope you all come and take your properties. With only very few exceptions, it is all here waiting for you. In fact, the more of you do so, the more our position regarding our properties in the north is strengthened, because you will no longer use the lies you tell the British regarding "exchange" land.

PS: Your newly elected leader, Eroglu, among other rubbish and nonsense he uttered in his interview in "Simerini" newspaper on Sunday, he also said that after 1974 we have made an "exchange of populations" agreement, between north and south[sic!] When did this happen and none of us is aware of it? Don't you feel ashamed to have elected a leader that lies in such a provocative manner?

Kifeas believe it or not there are TCs who have not claimed anything but due to a hardening of views they are now considering taking the "RoC" to court just on principle either to prove they discriminate or to get the right to their land in the south prior to a solution.

The other side of the coin are those who now will use the exchanged land is not valid arguement and still claim land in the south, this will open the way for double dipping which the GCs have no way of checking as they adamantly do not communicate with the TRNC authorities which in this case they should.

What are the property prices like in the Gandu area?

VP, I am afraid you have not yet realized that the fairytale of the so-called exchange land is now over and totally irrelevant, and that whatever claims some or many TCs do in the north is just a pie in the sky, without any legal substance. If some TCs will be "double dipping" as you say, the only people they harm are those thinking of "buying" properties from them, but also the rest of you TCs and the people of Turkey, who will one day be called upon paying the bill of your leadership's irresponsibility.

Let me ask you a question here. Why do you think the GC side will have a problem allowing you to claim all your properties in the south, so that we will be able to more effectively claim all our properties in the north, if yours in the south amount to only 1/4 of the GC properties in the north, and in terms of value the difference may even be bigger?

The exchanged land concept is still very much in tact in the TRNC as you are unable to undo the knot and force people to vacate for obvious reasons. To do this you will need to negotiate a comprehensive solution as the land issue is part and parcel of the larger agreement, without one element you cannot have the others.

Thats why I say the GC side should work with the TRNC authorities to stop double dipping and not allow TCs to also sell off their land in the south but true to form your vegence seeking antics will make the problem even more complicated to a degree that a solution will be avoided at all costs.

In answer to your question do you know the hurdles we have to jump in order to get our properties back in a GC state using GC lawyers going through GC courts, living in a GC environment, only to be told we have to wait until a solution is found. Well this Orams case if finalized as you wish allows us the opportunity to take the "RoC" to the ECHR if they do not hear our cases, delay our applications, place discriminative hurdles in our path or rule a GC should get their land back immediately and not a TC when the TC land in south under their control.

Do you know about values in the Gandu area? why did you avoid this question?

[Viewpoint]

74LB this case is going for quite some time yet, so I am afraid you will just have to ignore it until its finalised. One thing for certain though is that the people in the north who created this situation are back in power.

The TC civil iniatives and media should pressurize UBP to give priority to solve the property ownership but not with one sided and self-favoured TRNC property compensation/exchange board.

insan I get the feeling the new TRNC government is preparing something and the GCs are not gonna like it.

Wouldn't it be better to preapre something the refugees of both communities will like?

When has that ever been the case? neither side thinks that way itsjust a matter of scoring point and running the other side into the ground.

True but i really believe that the establishment of an impartiali bi-communal properties board would be beneficial for both sides. Such a properties board must allow all legal owners to claim whatever they wish.(restitution and/or exchange and/or compensation).

The GCs would never accept that as it is not in their national interest.

[Viewpoint]

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch"

Erolz, just out of curiosity, did you vote in the recent elections in the north, or yet still, have you ever voted in any democratic elections.??

Thank you Benjamin, great saying fits our situation perfectly, we all know who the wolves are and who the lam is?

[erolz3]

VP, I am afraid you have not yet realized that the fairytale of the so-called exchange land is now over and totally irrelevant,

I do not think that things are quite so simple Kifeas. If we accept that anyone should be free to do what they want with property as per pre 74, then in theory TC with property were and are free to assign their rights to such property to any entity they wish to, even the TRNC. As such the entity they assigned their properties too should also be free (not as a recongised sovreign state but just as an entity) to offer such properties to those from the south who WANT exchange. Yet all this is and would be prohibited by the RoC.

Similarly rent owed by users of TC pre 74 properties in the South should not be 'held back' until a settlement is reached from either the pre 74 owners of such properties or anyone they chose to give their properties too, even if that is the TRNC. Yet they are.

The whole senario is complex and there are discrepancies all over the place. Yes in the main barring a few exceptions the RoC did not simply assign freehold deeds to pre 74 TC property to GC following 74 (though they have in a few cases) as TC leaderships did post 84. However that does not mean there are not huge 'holes' in how TC property and ownership rights of such have been treated and continue to be treated by the RoC post 74. Maybe in the absense of an agreed comprehensive settlement thousands of indivdual litigations that take years and years and make many lawyers rich from people in both communites and that still provide little or no permanent closure of the issues is the only thing to do. Then again maybe all such will achieve is partial and phyrric victories for a few here and there, whilst leaving Cypriots as a whole no closer or even futher away from achieving what they really need, namely a comprehensive settlement.

[Kifeas]

The problem with just saying that 'everyone should just return to their homes as of pre 74' is that it leaves the TC community as it was from 64-74. Whilst that may be no problem for GC surely you have to understand why such is a problem for TC ?

We want the property issue to be sorted, as fairly and justly as is possible given what has happend, sorted at the indivdual and communal levels but this for us is simply not the only issue that needs to be sorted out and we do fear the piecemeal approch to a 'solution' that seeks to address the GC communites issues created post 74 whilst ingoring our prior to 74.

The GC side does not propose a comprehensive and direct “piecemeal” approach, because such will indeed create a chaos. The GC side is proposing an indirect “piecemeal” approach, within pre-agreed rules, guidelines and parameters as to which cases the GC (or TC) owner has the first saying /option, and in which cases (and for what amount of land) the user (and which type of user) has the first saying/option; provided there is adequate and pre-agreed compensation to be paid, either directly or via a property exchange fund.

The essential difference between what the GC side maintains and what the TC side does, is that the general rule will be that all properties are returned back to their legal (initial) owners, and the rights of current users (and which users) will be the exception to the rule; whereas the TC side maintains the exact opposite, i.e. that as a rule the users (all users) will keep the properties, and the exception will be the return of land to their legal owners.

[bill cobbett]

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch"

Erolz, just out of curiosity, did you vote in the recent elections in the north, or yet still, have you ever voted in any democratic elections.??

Thank you Benjamin, great saying fits our situation perfectly, we all know who the wolves are and who the lam is?

Absolutely appropriate for democratic elections in the Occupied North....

Majority Settlers = lions, Outnumbered Minority northern friends = lamb

Nice One Jurkey, they haven't got it yet.

[erolz3]

For the record, regardless of what happened between GCs and TCs during 1964-74, there has never been a single usurpation of TC property during that period or afterwards, and their status remained as it was between 1960-63. Therefore, everyone (GCs and TCs alike) returning back to their legally owned properties, does not by default leave the TC community as it was from 1964-74.

It is not entirely true to say there has not been a single usurpation of pre 74 TC properties in the South. There are cases , though they are also ver very few compared to total numbers, where the RoC state compulsary purchased pre 74 TC land in order to assign the freehold deeds of it to GC. Even if one accepts that the RoC had a right to make such a cumplosry purchase in such a case, none of the money supposedly 'put aside' from such 'purchases' has been or under current RoC law will be given to the pre 74 TC owner until such time as a comprehensive settlement is agreed.

The point about leaving us as we were from 63-74 is not leaving us as were were property wise but as we were re our rights as a community under the original 1960 agreements.

We fear if property issues are just sorted along the lines of 'everyone return' then what of the TC communites rights? Do we have to just accept that even though we had rights to veto as a community and all sorts of others under the 60s agreements, these have been removed, in our absensce and without our consent? That is the 'other' issue for TC and that is why we have concerns about a piecmeal approach that seeks to solve GC issues re property post 74 but ignore ours re the status of the TC community following the effective breakdown of the RoC as defined in the 60's agreements from 63 onwards.

[erolz3]

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch"

Erolz, just out of curiosity, did you vote in the recent elections in the north, or yet still, have you ever voted in any democratic elections.??

If your assumption or implication is that someone who says such a quote or uses it must not beleive in democray at all, then I suggest that you look at WHO the quote is from. Do you think that Benjamin Franklin was 'anti' democracy because he said such ?

I suggest you consider why such a champion of democracy as Benjamin Franklin would say such a thing. What was he getting at in sayiong such ? That democracy is bad ? Or perhaps he was trying to highlight the limits and weaknesses of democracy in its purest form of one person one vote exactly because he was such a believer in it ?

[miltiades]

Now the Oramses should counter sue the "ROC" for the land in the south and the GCs can no longer link anything to a solution or else they should have done the same in this case.

Oramses should counter sue?? Counter sue for what?

Maybe the word counter was not right but my intention was for the Orams to indirectly sue the "RoC" using the TC whos land was exchnaged for this land in the north who knows they may end up making a big profit.

VP , you are talking shit !

[Viewpoint]

Now the Oramses should counter sue the "ROC" for the land in the south and the GCs can no longer link anything to a solution or else they should have done the same in this case.

Oramses should counter sue?? Counter sue for what?

Maybe the word counter was not right but my intention was for the Orams to indirectly sue the "RoC" using the TC whos land was exchnaged for this land in the north who knows they may end up making a big profit.

VP , you are talking shit !

Why, the is land in the south that was given to the TRNC government, so now these will be contested, dont you like your own medicine?