Paphitis wrote:Viewpoint wrote:Kikapu
It would not matter even if the TCs were still in the government, had they listened to Inönü back in 1964 and returned, which Denktash and Küçük refused, but lets put all that aside and say that since 1960 there was not a problem in Cyprus, the RoC government could at any time expropriate land for public projects no matter to whom they belonged to. Don't think for a moment, that since 1974 the RoC has not expropriated GC land in the south also. Common practice in every country. So don't mix oranges and apples, because you will lose this argument...............again.!
Expropriation is as you say common practice in every country but organised calculated acts to swallow up TCs land is totally a different ball game, legal disgused theft.....the surgeon has made his incision.
The couple of cases where it was in the press, that some tried to steal TC land in the south, were caught and prosecuted. Compare that to the north, where your "government" is an active co-conspirators in committing fraud by selling land that does not belong to them, and the ECJ will be used to prosecute anyone and everyone in the future who has dealt in such frauds if a settlement is not reached. No one is going to protect you from the long arm of Justice anymore. The same ECJ will apply to everyone, therefore if the TCs have a claim of the same fraudulent dealings in the south of their land by the GCs, then the GC's will also pay the price of being convicted, but I don't see any GC's worrying about such scenarios as the Brits and TCs are in the north from such cases.
Tip of the iceberg..there are many more that will come to light as I said before the GCs are experts at concealing the truth.
Read it and weep Bozo...
TC Property Management ServiceAs a result of the massive removal of the Turkish Cypriot population, due to the Turkish invasion, to the areas under the occupation of the Turkish invasion forces and the fact that this population is banned from moving to the areas of the Republic of Cyprus, the properties which have been abandoned, both movable and immovable, have come under the management of the Custodian of Turkish Cypriot Properties.
The Republic of Cyprus, in order to protect these properties and also to allocate them on a rational basis in order to serve the basic housing needs and reactivate the thousands of Greek-Cypriot refugees, took over at first the management of the Turkish Cypriot properties since the end of 1974, following the issue for this purpose of a General Order for the Requisitioning of the affected Turkish-Cypriot Properties.
With the lapse of time it became necessary to enact legislation governing the management of Turkish Cypriot Properties. To this end the Turkish Cypriot Properties Management and Other Matters (Temporary Provisions) Law No. 139/91 was enacted. According to this Law, the Minister of the Interior is appointed Custodian of Turkish Cypriot properties and all the Turkish Cypriot properties come under him and he manages them with the aim of meeting the needs of the refugees and serving the interests of the proprietors. According to section 16 of the Law, Regulations were approved in 1992 by the House of Representatives which govern the management of the properties and also include the criteria for their allocation.
Under the same Law a Central Service of Management of Turkish Cypriot Properties is established headed by the Minister of the Interior as "Custodian" of Turkish Cypriot Properties. The Minister of the Interior, in his capacity as "Custodian" of Turkish Cypriot Properties, has delegated some of his powers to the Director of the Turkish Cypriot Properties Management Service as well as to the respective District Officers for the best possible management of Turkish Cypriot properties.
http://www.cyprus.gov.cy/moi/citizensch ... enDocument
Ombudswoman fury at treatment of Turkish Cypriot property enquiries
By Elias Hazou
OMBUDSWOMAN Iliana Nicolaou has lashed the government for giving the runaround to Turkish Cypriots inquiring about the status and value of their land in the free areas.
Nicolaou’s office was alerted to several cases where Turkish Cypriots owning land in the south areas before 1974 wrote to the Guardian of Turkish Cypriot Properties only to receive vague answers and generalities.
One Turkish Cypriot couple owning considerable property contacted the Guardian in May 2004. The couple wanted to know the legal status of their real estate, whether the property had been appropriated, the reason for the appropriation and the estimated amount of a possible compensation.
But with no response forthcoming for six months, the couple instructed their lawyer to write to the Interior Ministry, which acts as the Guardian.
The first signs of life from the ministry came in January 2005, when Giorgos Theodorou, deputy director of the Guardian, cited the provisions of the salient law, informing the Turkish Cypriots that compensation was only possible after a comprehensive settlement to the political problem on the island.
In his letter, Theodorou said the couple’s property was “used” for the construction of a government compound housing refugees. His choice of words was interesting because use of Turkish Cypriot land in the south does not entail compensation, but appropriation does.
In a separate case, part of the land belonging to a Turkish Cypriot woman was appropriated to build the Evretou dam. Theodorou informed the woman that the compensation due “is being deposited” (as opposed to “has been deposited”) into a special fund.
When the exasperated Turkish Cypriot couple wrote a second time to the Interior Ministry for more detailed information, again they received no word, prompting them to report the matter to the Ombudswoman.
Yet Nicolaou herself came up against the same brick wall when she asked the Interior Ministry to explain the delays and the inadequate information. She was simply told that “the matter is being investigated”.
By November, Nicolaou had had enough and asked to meet with Theodorou, who once again was less than enlightening, assuring her that the case was being handled according to the law.
From her first-hand experience with the case, Nicolaou then drafted a damning report, saying she saw no reason why the Turkish Cypriots could not have been given the information they wanted. The Interior Ministry should have all the data on file, she added.
Nicolaou went on to take a dig at the authorities, remarking that “the Guardian should on his own initiative seek to inform interested parties, so as to convince them that their property is being properly and adequately managed.”
That was an oblique way of saying that the Guardian should divulge all information if it had nothing to hide.
“Further, it would totally arbitrary to assume that because the Turkish Cypriots were deprived management of their properties they are also not entitled to information on their properties.
“Whereas the Guardian substitutes the Turkish Cypriot owners vis-?-vis their rights and obligations for the duration of the anomalous situation [division of the island], it nonetheless lacks the essential ingredient of ownership, which remains with the… registered owners.
“Despite the fact that the Guardian has possession of the properties, this does not mean that the Turkish Cypriots’ ownership is mitigated in any way… on the contrary, their ownership rights are not formal but very real, and consequently the interested parties have every right to be informed about the status of the properties.”
On February 24, Nicolaou gave the Interior Ministry a 15-day deadline by which it should answer all the queries of the Turkish Cypriot couple in question. It expires this coming Monday.
Commentators suggest nothing Machiavellian should be read into the Interior Ministry’s reluctance. Instead, they propose a far simpler explanation, namely, that the government has in fact lost track of what happened to many Turkish Cypriot properties in the wake of the 1974 events.
What is suspicious, according to the same observers, is the Guardian’s response that the compensation for appropriated property is “being deposited” in a special fund. This, according to some, is a telltale sign that perhaps the special fund is not as well-run as initially thought.
Copyright © Cyprus Mail 2009
