Cyprus-Forum.com

[CBBB]

Unless they all become either wolves or lambs I can’t see how they can use the same pen…

That wouldnt be an argument for partitoning into two seperate pens would it ?

It’s more like an argument for streamlining citizens into Cypriots (lambs) or foreign nationalists (wolves).

What about us rabbits, not a member of either community, but ostensibly Cypriot? When do I get what I want for lunch?

[erolz3]

Hermes I still remain unconvinced that this judgment seriously changes the parameters of what can be agree re a property settlement in any legal way. I think it potentialy changes the balance of power of the negotiating parties to some degree and thus what parameters each may demand as a basis in a settlement, but not what kind of settlement could potentialy be agreed in a legal sense.

[Hermes]

Hermes I still remain unconvinced that this judgment seriously changes the parameters of what can be agree re a property settlement in any legal way. I think it potentialy changes the balance of power of the negotiating parties to some degree and thus what parameters each may demand as a basis in a settlement, but not what kind of settlement could potentialy be agreed in a legal sense.

I think it does. The ECJ judgement clarifies and strengthens the international legality of the Greek Cypriot position. It also significantly undermines the property provisions as outlined in the Annan Plan - a key factor in its rejection by Greek Cypriots. It blows out of the water any idea that a bi-zonal federation can be based on depriving the original owners of a say in what happens to their property.

It's more likely now that a property settlement will be within the parameters I mentioned earlier - one that gives primary rights to the original owners. It means that any settlement must take into account their claims to ownership and, if necessary, compensate them accordingly.

Of course there are other implications of the ECJ decision - namely the pressure it places on the Turks and T/Cs to stop exploiting Greek Cypriot land in the north. This had led to great resentment in the south and has confirmed the Greek Cypriot view that the occupation and invasion was nothing more than a brutal and bloody land-grab.

[-mikkie2-]

The ECJ judgement DOES change the parameters sourounding the property provisions of any future plan.

You see, the Turks have gotten themselves confused by the bizonality issue. Just because two geographical zones are to be created in Cyprus each one administered by either community, it does not mean that the land ownership will automatically change.

Land ownership and political control of each geographical zone are two seperate things. Solving one does not mean automatically solving the other.

Basically, the TC's need to understand that the original owner must have the last say in what happens to thier land. Any solution MUST accept this otherwise we will continue seeing the issue taken to the courts even after a solution. No matter what is politically agreed by the two communities, the owner of the property or land will have and should have the final say. Anything that undermines this basic principle will doom any settlement plan that is agreed.

What it effectively means is that either the TC's will have to give up much more land under GC control or they must allow all those refugees that want to return to their original land and properties to do so. It really is as simple as that. This is where the poltical aspect needs to start from and I think the issue can be solved alot more easily than people may think. All it requires is the 'political will' from both sides.

[DT.]

The ECJ judgement DOES change the parameters sourounding the property provisions of any future plan.

You see, the Turks have gotten themselves confused by the bizonality issue. Just because two geographical zones are to be created in Cyprus each one administered by either community, it does not mean that the land ownership will automatically change.

Land ownership and political control of each geographical zone are two seperate things. Solving one does not mean automatically solving the other.

Basically, the TC's need to understand that the original owner must have the last say in what happens to thier land. Any solution MUST accept this otherwise we will continue seeing the issue taken to the courts even after a solution. No matter what is politically agreed by the two communities, the owner of the property or land will have and should have the final say. Anything that undermines this basic principle will doom any settlement plan that is agreed.

What it effectively means is that either the TC's will have to give up much more land under GC control or they must allow all those refugees that want to return to their original land and properties to do so. It really is as simple as that. This is where the poltical aspect needs to start from and I think the issue can be solved alot more easily than people may think. All it requires is the 'political will' from both sides.

Or they can create enclaves on tc land and call it poly-zonality.

[erolz3]

Basically, the TC's need to understand that the original owner must have the last say in what happens to thier land.

I am sorry but I just do not accept that this has to be the case, morally or legaly or that is should be. In my view a property settlement , where there are differing wants between pre 74 owners and current users, must take as its starting point trying to find a settlement on a case by case basis the does the least total 'harm' to all parties concerned.

So to take an extreme theortical single indivdual case, where the pre 74 owners land was not used in any way upto the point where they lost control of it and the emotional connection to it was negliable vs current usrs that for the last 35 years have invested in it emotionaly and fincially to a great degree, in a case such as this I think it would be right to conclude that the harm of compelling the current users to move is greater than that of compelling the pre 74 owner to accept compensation in either money or acceptable alternative land.

Such a system cuts both ways. There are TC with pre 74 land in the South where them being compelled to accept compensation for it in one form or another is less 'harming' to them than forcing the current users to vacate is to those current users and in such cases I do not think the TC pre 74 owner has to have the 'last say' either morally or legally.

Any solution MUST accept this otherwise we will continue seeing the issue taken to the courts even after a solution.

I think we will see issues taken to the courts whatever solution is agreed.

What I do not see is that should both communites agree a solution and that agreement is then ratifed by each community and the solution creates and empowers an independent property comission to establish what happens in contentious cases on a case by case basis and in some such cases the comissions decides that it can , on behalf of the newly created state post solution essentialy 'compulsory purchase' land from pre 74 owners in order to meet its obligations as a body to the needs of current users as well, that such a decision would automaticaly and without doubt be considered illegal, by any court, simply because of this ECJ ruling. Or to put it another way I do not understand why such could be considered as a possible solution before this ECJ ruling but not after it. I do not see what it is withint the ECJ ruling that would make this true.

We do not know ultimately how challegable such a system might be legally until we agree it and it gets challenged. I do not see how the ECJ ruling makes it clear and evident that such a system would fail after the fact from legal challenges.

As I see it, what a property comission, created by agreement then ratifed by the communites could legitimately do or not in a post unifed cyprus has little relation to this ECJ ruling that deals with enforcement of RoC rulings re property in the north in other EU states in an unified cyprus. The senarios are so far apart that it seems unrealistic to me to say that the decision of the ECJ in one senario makes it clear without any doubt what the situation would be in the other totaly different senario.

Then again I am not a lawyer.

[boulio]

i think after terrotorial adjustments(better than annan plan)there is room to solve the property issue.

if one looks at alexandros lordos survey in 2005 when t/c and g/c were asked about the five hot topics of a solution we can see there is room for agreemen,take a look at the property sections:

http://www.help-net.gr/OptionsForPeaceTextOnly.pdf

[boulio]

sometimes i really wonder if the leaders of both communities every read this survey.

[Piratis]

Don't you feel ashamed to have elected a leader that lies in such a provocative manner?

To present the actual agreement made by the two communites post 74 under UN offices to allow anyone on either side who wanted to safely move to the other under UN supervision as the communities having made a population exchange agreement, is a cynical manipulation of reality designed to create a biased impression of the truth as possible about an actual reality.

Pretty much in the same way the claim below seeks to do the same about a different reality.

167.000 GC refugees forced out of north Cyprus at gun point, and 40.000 TCs who moved to the north in order to achieve the dream of partition they had since the 1950s.

Then there are the straight bald face lies not based on any reality at all, like TP's imfamous claim that no TC were killed between 63 and 74.

Both sides have and continue to seek to manipulate truth and reality to present their side as favourably as possible and the other as unfavourably as possible. At the indivdual level and at the highest political levels. This is unlikely to change. If we are ever going to get anywhere in discussions like these then in my opinion we have to stop playing this 'look how bad your side' game is , when in reality we have to know that ours are little different.

Yes the calim re population exchanges is outrageous but please lets not pretend that this is something only one side does.

Erolz do you deny that Taksim (partition) was since the 1950s (and remains until today) the desire of most TCs, and that they view anything else as being a compromise?

In the 1950s, even before the inter-communal conflict started, the TCs were demonstrating in the streets, with Turkish flags and maps showing a divided Cyprus, demanding partition. Do you deny this?

And nothing changed since then. "According to the poll, 80 per cent of Greek Cypriots want a unified state with a central government, while 71 per cent of Turkish Cypriots are in favour of two separate states with international recognition. "
http://www.cyprus-mail.com/news/main.php?id=45090

So in what way you dispute what I said?

[Viewpoint]

VP, I have two suggestions to make to you.

1. Better find those worst than you to criticize, rather than throwing stones while being inside your glass home.

2. Search and find the international country rankings regarding democracy, freedom of speech, press, human rights protection, etc, to see where Cyprus is standing. They are among the most enviable, even by western standards.

GCs for GCs...this is normal add TCs to the mix and then you will see where you are in the rankings.