Cyprus-Forum.com

[Kifeas]

Put your handbags away - I can't be online 24/7.

You're right the links I provided don't all make total sense - I will try to dig out the correct ones

But the one from the Council for the Protection of Human Rights makes sense if you view Article 7

And Article 34 in the Council Regulation 44/2001 is self explanatory with regard to public policy ie that a UK court will not uphold court judgements that contradict UK government policy - that is support for a comprhensive negotiated settlement along the line of the the UN (Annan) Plan.

Voila mes amis! Bon Appetit.

Anglo, please decide which articles justify your thesis and post them here so that we know what we are talking about.

As for article 34 of the Council Regulation 44/2001, you must be joking!
Since when an proposal plan, which has not been accepted by one of the sides and is still subject to negotiations and potential alterations, can be part of the Public policy of a third country, (non-partner of the negotiations.) Since when the British government can have a public policy which doesn't recognise my property rights in my country, just because it was included in a plan which was given as a solution proposal but I didn't accept. That would also mean that the British government doesn’t recognise or respect the ECHRs decisions of the Council of Europe, in which is the UK is a member and co-signer.

Anglo, this argument is hilarious! Do not say it further down to anyone else.

And as far as the public policy of the UK is concerned, it is not as you imagine it. The UK supports a solution under the auspices of the UN, based on the UN Security Council Resolutions about Cyprus. Go and read these resolutions and then come to talk. As for the A-plan, yes the UK advises, suggests and wishes a solution on its parameters. However, this is far from being public policy, especially when it has not been accepted and consequently, as it is specified within the plan itself, it is null and void if not agreed.

With the same logic, the UK government could say that because in the A-plan the Republic of Cyprus was going to be dissolved and be changed into a federal UCR (United Cyprus Republic,) it does not recognise any longer the existing Republic of Cyprus, nor it’s legal system and framework.

These are the kind of arguments that will support the "EuroPro" thesis?

[Anglo]

Put your handbags away - I can't be online 24/7.

You're right the links I provided don't all make total sense - I will try to dig out the correct ones

But the one from the Council for the Protection of Human Rights makes sense if you view Article 7

And Article 34 in the Council Regulation 44/2001 is self explanatory with regard to public policy ie that a UK court will not uphold court judgements that contradict UK government policy - that is support for a comprhensive negotiated settlement along the line of the the UN (Annan) Plan.

Voila mes amis! Bon Appetit.

Anglo, please decide which articles justify your thesis and post them here so that we know what we are talking about.

As for article 34 of the Council Regulation 44/2001, you must be joking!
Since when an proposal plan, which has not been accepted by one of the sides and is still subject to negotiations and potential alterations, can be part of the Public policy of a third country, (non-partner of the negotiations.) Since when the British government can have a public policy which doesn't recognise my property rights in my country, just because it was included in a plan which was given as a solution proposal but I didn't accept. That would also mean that the British government doesn’t recognise or respect the ECHRs decisions of the Council of Europe, in which is the UK is a member and co-signer.

Anglo, this argument is hilarious! Do not say it further down to anyone else.

And as far as the public policy of the UK is concerned, it is not as you imagine it. The UK supports a solution under the auspices of the UN, based on the UN Security Council Resolutions about Cyprus. Go and read these resolutions and then come to talk. As for the A-plan, yes the UK advises, suggests and wishes a solution on its parameters. However, this is far from being public policy, especially when it has not been accepted and consequently, as it is specified within the plan itself, it is null and void if not agreed.

With the same logic, the UK government could say that because in the A-plan the Republic of Cyprus was going to be dissolved and be changed into a federal UCR (United Cyprus Republic,) it does not recognise any longer the existing Republic of Cyprus, nor it’s legal system and framework.

These are the kind of arguments that will support the "EuroPro" thesis?

Sorry to rain on your parade, Kifeas, but - however hilarious it may seem to you - what ever Jack Straw and Tony Blair say publicly is considered UK public policy as they are the UK Government. They stand by their pre-referendum conviction that the Annan Plan offers the best basis for a fair and viable solution.

Regarding the EU Directive: Under Articles 22 and 34 of the Directive, the general rule for enforcement does not apply inter alia if a court order is in respect of immoveable property in the country where the original order was made (Cyprus) or if the summons to the defendant was defective, or if they were not enabled to enter a proper defence, or if it is manifestly against public policy in the member state where enforcement is sought.

[Kifeas]

Sorry to rain on your parade, Kifeas, but - however hilarious it may seem to you - what ever Jack Straw and Tony Blair say publicly is considered UK public policy as they are the UK Government. They stand by their pre-referendum conviction that the Annan Plan offers the best basis for a fair and viable solution.

Regarding the EU Directive: Under Articles 22 and 34 of the Directive, the general rule for enforcement does not apply inter alia if a court order is in respect of immoveable property in the country where the original order was made (Cyprus) or if the summons to the defendant was defective, or if they were not enabled to enter a proper defence, or if it is manifestly against public policy in the member state where enforcement is sought.

Sorry Anglo to disappoint you but this argument regarding public policy is completely baseless. It is like you are telling me now that I can commit a crime in Cyprus and then run to the UK and if the RoC asks for my extradition, the British government will refuse to do so because according to it’s public policy to support the A-Plan, the RoC is not recognised any more and it should become United Cyprus Republic with the A-plan Federal constitution. The same goes when I travel to the UK and when I show my passport, they tell me that they cannot allow my entry because the passport was issued by the RoC, which according to the UK “public policy” doesn’t exist any longer.

Also when the Cypriot president is going to attend an EU summit, Tony Blair will refuse to attend the meeting because the Cypriot president is the not the president of an existing member State, simply because according to the “public policy” of his government in favour of the A-plan, the RoC does not exist any more.

Don’t you see that this argument is a joke!

As for the rest of your points, I cannot say any problem there either. Can you cut and paste the particular sentence or paragraph and explain in a few words why do you think it supports the non-enforcement argument?

[Yiannis]

Letter by British buyers of property in occupied Cyprus shows the mess created by the occupation regime΄s rush to create new faits accomplisUnder the title Open Letter Turkish Cypriot CYPRUS TIMES newspaper (01.07.05) publishes the following letter addressed to Mr Mehmet Ali Talat, Ferdi Sabit Soyer and Mr Huseyin Ozel, of the occupation regime΄s Public Information Office:

We request your prompt consideration of our request.
We, as named below entered into a legal contract to each purchase a house and land with Bulent Unar & Sons Construction Ltd. All our individual contracts were agreed, stamped and signed in the presence of our respective solicitors. We each paid in stages, as our contracts stipulated, and have receipts for these payments. We have all paid the full amount for our houses, although in many cases the agreed projects were not completed e.g. electricity connection, boundary walls, roads, pavements and driveways. These had to be finished at our own additional expense.

We all now live in our houses, most of us having been in residence between two and three years. We have each asked Bulent Unar for our Title Deeds, but on every occasion have been given absurd excuses as to why he would not transfer the Title Deeds to us. Consequently we approached our solicitors, and discovered that Bulent Unar had committed fraud by breaking the terms and agreements of our contracts. He had raised mortgages on the land that some of our houses are built on and had built some of our houses on land he did not own. We also discovered that he was in considerable debt to a moneylender, and that many court judgements had been raised against him. We approached our solicitors to take appropriate action.

In August 2004 Bulent Unar died, leaving his two sons in charge of the company.

We have been in this situation for nearly three years, under the constant threat of losing our houses despite having paid for them. In addition, we are being harassed for substantial amounts of money we do not have, by the moneylender, and see no reason why we should pay him. We have also been approached by one of the creditors who told us that the moneylender wanted to buy his dept. The person accompanying him stated that a court hearing had just occurred and the houses belonging to Mr Smith and Mr Broomfield were being put up for auction within the next few days. This was found to be untrue and the matter was reported to the police, but has caused even more anguish and worry.

We have adopted Northern Cyprus as our home. We do not have other homes in UK and the reality of evictions will result in a large number of us becoming homeless and destitute. How can the Government allow this to occur? Some of us fought during the conflicts here or had relatives who fought and in some cases died here. We feel the situation we have been forced into is completely unjust. We have many Turkish Cypriot friends who consider this a scandal needing a resolution by Government intervention as speedily as possible.

This is our appeal for our basic human rights to buy our houses and live in peace and security in them as the legal owners. We are all decent reasonable people in trouble because of a fraudulent builder, and all we ask for is your help to overcome these issues and end our troubles by ruling that the financial demands being made against us are both fraudulent and illegal.

You may have received individual letters concerning this situation, but we now wish to be recognised as a group.


Cyprus Press and Information Office: Turkish Cypriot Press Review Directory - Previous Article
From: The Republic of Cyprus Press and Information Office Server at <http://www.pio.gov.cy/>
J & M Broomfiled, J & L Reader,
D & A Jolly, D & C Larter, D & C Craig,

J & C Varley, D & L Barlow, G Stratford,

B & M Graves, A & J Smith, J & C Boyce,

R & J Shippen, T & C Holbrook, M & L Delaney.

(all of Ozankoy)

/SK

I thought it might be interesting to add it here.

[gabaston]

yup


its a complete mess, quite likely to get even worse.

[Anglo]

Sorry to rain on your parade, Kifeas, but - however hilarious it may seem to you - what ever Jack Straw and Tony Blair say publicly is considered UK public policy as they are the UK Government. They stand by their pre-referendum conviction that the Annan Plan offers the best basis for a fair and viable solution.

Regarding the EU Directive: Under Articles 22 and 34 of the Directive, the general rule for enforcement does not apply inter alia if a court order is in respect of immoveable property in the country where the original order was made (Cyprus) or if the summons to the defendant was defective, or if they were not enabled to enter a proper defence, or if it is manifestly against public policy in the member state where enforcement is sought.

Sorry Anglo to disappoint you but this argument regarding public policy is completely baseless. It is like you are telling me now that I can commit a crime in Cyprus and then run to the UK and if the RoC asks for my extradition, the British government will refuse to do so because according to it’s public policy to support the A-Plan, the RoC is not recognised any more and it should become United Cyprus Republic with the A-plan Federal constitution. The same goes when I travel to the UK and when I show my passport, they tell me that they cannot allow my entry because the passport was issued by the RoC, which according to the UK “public policy” doesn’t exist any longer.

Also when the Cypriot president is going to attend an EU summit, Tony Blair will refuse to attend the meeting because the Cypriot president is the not the president of an existing member State, simply because according to the “public policy” of his government in favour of the A-plan, the RoC does not exist any more.

Don’t you see that this argument is a joke!

As for the rest of your points, I cannot say any problem there either. Can you cut and paste the particular sentence or paragraph and explain in a few words why do you think it supports the non-enforcement argument?

No, you're off on a tangent here - the UK Govt simply does not believe the Cyprus situation is best solved on a case by case basis in law courts. It belives in a comprehensive politically negotiated settlement along the line sof the A Plan. It's nothing to do with recognition.

[Kifeas]

No, you're off on a tangent here - the UK Govt simply does not believe the Cyprus situation is best solved on a case by case basis in law courts. It belives in a comprehensive politically negotiated settlement along the line sof the A Plan. It's nothing to do with recognition.

Then why the British legal system adopted the Loizidou case as a precedent?

[MicAtCyp]

does not apply inter alia if a court order is in respect of immoveable property in the country where the original order was made (Cyprus) or if the summons to the defendant was defective, or if they were not enabled to enter a proper defence, or if it is manifestly against public policy in the member state where enforcement is sought.

First of all where did you get the coloured part? Out of your pocket? The way you put it is like saying that no court decisions on immovable property are recognised irrespective of any other reason. Heres what the article actually says:

2. where it was given in default of appearance, if the
defendant was not served with the document which
instituted the proceedings or with an equivalent document
in sufficient time and in such a way as to enable him to
arrange for his defence, unless the defendant failed to
commence proceedings to challenge the judgment when it
was possible for him to do so;

Now tell me was there any arrest warrant issued to anyone who was not given enough time, adequate access to the court etc etc???

Voila mes amis! Bon Appetit.

Merci. Nous ne mangeons pas les "gonnara".

[Michael Coumas]

Yiannis
The letter you posted makes interesting reading. Would you not agree that the buyers concerned should first look to their solicitors professional indemnity insurance for recompense as presumably they failed to advise of the foreseeable problems during the course of their searches. Unless of course they were advised correctly but chose to ignore the advice and accept the gamble. Secondly they should look to themselves for recompense. Although I can truly sympathise in that their dreams may eventually lie in tatters I cannot bring myself to accept ignorance as a defence. Do people no stop to think why it is that thousands of us with the ability to readily buy in the North do not do so purely on principle. Why do thousands of foreign nationals readily buy in the South and only a few in the North?
Whatever drives people to buy property in a Country occupied by a foreign invading force, no matter under what name or reason the invasion was carried out. Might I be forgiven to think it may purely be a speculative decision on the part of the buyers & in which case one must accept that one may win or lose. We must all be accountable for our actions. If however the buyers truly asked that title deeds are verified as being of Turkish Cypriot origin & were perhaps lied to then again the solicitor must be taken to task. That’s why he pays insurance (they must hope). I have a deal ongoing at the moment but one of my first verifications are that title deeds are of Greek Cypriot origin and at no time has any third party had any claim lodged, accepted or refused on or within the property. Please keep us all informed of the progress on this one.
Well done and thank you for sharing it with us.

[metecyp]

Merci. Nous ne mangeons pas les "gonnara".

What's gonnara? Is it a round brown kind of peanut like thing that grows on bushes?