Cyprus-Forum.com

[erolz3]

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.

And you know or should know my personal views on such as I have expressed them often enough. I do not believe that either pre 74 owners or current users should have a automatic or general right over the other, but that each case should be judged indivdualy on its merits. I believe this represents the fairest solution.

[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?

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.

Or Vengence seeking GCs = 2 wolves

TCs in a unified Cyprus = lamb

[Kifeas]

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.

Erol, the above remark was part of an answer given to VP, who thought of trying to "frighten" the GCs that some TCs will be "double dipping" by taking back their properties in the south (in the present circumstances) as well as selling at the same time GC "exchanged" land to foreigners in the north. I tried to explain that such "threatening" remarks do not really make much sense to the GCs. That was all, and it has nothing to do with what we may or may not agree as part of a comprehensive settlement.

[Hermes]

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.

Isn't one of the implications of the ECJ decision that the rights of the pre-1974 owners are paramount? Indeed, isn't Christofias compelled to use the ECJ ruling as the basis for discussions of the property issue in talks with Talat? I really don't see a way round this for the Turkish side. If they don't accept it then the talks will certainly fail with all the repercussions for the T/C economy, the threat to Turkish assets throughout Europe and the collapse of Turkey's EU ambitions.

[Kifeas]

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.

And you know or should know my personal views on such as I have expressed them often enough. I do not believe that either pre 74 owners or current users should have a automatic or general right over the other, but that each case should be judged indivdualy on its merits. I believe this represents the fairest solution.

Yes, but there must be some pre-agreed comprehensive rules and guidelines as to how each case will be judged on its merits, otherwise there will be a chaos.

[Viewpoint]

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.

Isn't one of the implications of the ECJ decision that the rights of the pre-1974 owners are paramount? Indeed, isn't Christofias compelled to use the ECJ ruling as the basis for discussions of the property issue in talks with Talat? I really don't see a way round this for the Turkish side. If they don't accept it then the talks will certainly fail with all the repercussions for the T/C economy, the threat to Turkish assets throughout Europe and the collapse of Turkey's EU ambitions.

The property issue has now become even more entrenched and being part of the bigger package has now jepardized the whole negotiaitons process....clearly once again showng the goodwill of the GCs.

[Kifeas]

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.

Isn't one of the implications of the ECJ decision that the rights of the pre-1974 owners are paramount? Indeed, isn't Christofias compelled to use the ECJ ruling as the basis for discussions of the property issue in talks with Talat? I really don't see a way round this for the Turkish side. If they don't accept it then the talks will certainly fail with all the repercussions for the T/C economy, the threat to Turkish assets throughout Europe and the collapse of Turkey's EU ambitions.

I am sure you understand that such outwardly blind approach cannot be applied in practice, and in essence there have to be certain unavoidable limitations. Now, which ones these limitations will be, and in which cases they will apply, it remains to be agreed. Some limitations I can think of will be cases in which you have GC land used by affected by past events or permanently repatriated TCs to build theirs or their siblings first or only home in Cyprus, etc, provided adequate (market value) compensation will be provided for the GC owner.

[Kifeas]

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.

Isn't one of the implications of the ECJ decision that the rights of the pre-1974 owners are paramount? Indeed, isn't Christofias compelled to use the ECJ ruling as the basis for discussions of the property issue in talks with Talat? I really don't see a way round this for the Turkish side. If they don't accept it then the talks will certainly fail with all the repercussions for the T/C economy, the threat to Turkish assets throughout Europe and the collapse of Turkey's EU ambitions.

The property issue has now become even more entrenched and being part of the bigger package has now jepardized the whole negotiaitons process....clearly once again showng the goodwill of the GCs.

Whereas by massively cementing GC properties after 2003, you have tried to show your "goodwill" by making the property issue less entrenched and the overall solution more easy!

[Hermes]

The property issue has now become even more entrenched and being part of the bigger package has now jepardized the whole negotiaitons process....clearly once again showng the goodwill of the GCs.

I agree that a settlement is more difficult now - at least on the terms on which the T/Cs wanted. But that was never a realistic option. This latest judgement has reaffirmed the European context in which a proposed solution must operate. Something that is crucial for Greek Cypriots as EU citizens and which the reviled Annan plan conveniently overlooked. Indeed, I don't see how it could be any other way.

[Oracle]

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.

Isn't one of the implications of the ECJ decision that the rights of the pre-1974 owners are paramount? Indeed, isn't Christofias compelled to use the ECJ ruling as the basis for discussions of the property issue in talks with Talat? I really don't see a way round this for the Turkish side. If they don't accept it then the talks will certainly fail with all the repercussions for the T/C economy, the threat to Turkish assets throughout Europe and the collapse of Turkey's EU ambitions.

Hermes ..... you have not realised yet that Kifeas does not want to discuss what is actually happening, but what he envisages as the most debatable hypothetical scenarios in order to engage in meaningful exchanges with the TC element ...