Cyprus-Forum.com

[B25]

You see M, I agree with most of your reasoning until you mention the word thieves. These lands did not fall off the back of the lorry and now who is being childish. What really annoys me are these facts.
1. RoC is behind this case and are picking up the tabs if it should fail.
2. This unfortunate brit bought this land from a TC who has land in the south (I assume)
3. This TC's land is at the moment in the hands of the roc and has been since 1974.
4. The final reason is the fact that this is a political trial intending to destroy the construction industry in the north.
Where is the principle here that allows the roc to keep the TC's land and take the orams to court. As I said before, it stinks of bullshit no matter which way you look at it.

And BTW please don't insult me by saying this has nothing to do with the roc.

1. Show us evidence of this or shut up. We know for sure that the Turks are behind the orams!
2. Assumptions are a mother of all fuck ups and as you don't know you assume FFS.
3. The TC land is in the CARE of the RoC, there are mechanisms to get it back, unlike the GCs getting theres back. What more do you F want, jam? Do you see adverts offering TC land for sale anywhere in the South?? Idiot.
4. Construction industry, give me a break, it's all crooked land stealing and in any case the 'construction industry' was destroyed the moment the ECJ made its ruling. You have nothing and when the UK judges finally acknowledge the authority of the ECJ and rule against you, it will be the happiest day of my life.

Until you are man enough to tell us what your previous guise was, you can continue with your diy sexual preferences, old boy. What?

Ha Ha just as I expected, no arguement again, you are so predictable, you resort to gibberish when you have nothing of use to say.

I have no other guise, idiot, you just like to think so.

So look at my answers and weep as you just know I am right.

Sucker

[YFred]

You see M, I agree with most of your reasoning until you mention the word thieves. These lands did not fall off the back of the lorry and now who is being childish. What really annoys me are these facts.
1. RoC is behind this case and are picking up the tabs if it should fail.
2. This unfortunate brit bought this land from a TC who has land in the south (I assume)
3. This TC's land is at the moment in the hands of the roc and has been since 1974.
4. The final reason is the fact that this is a political trial intending to destroy the construction industry in the north.
Where is the principle here that allows the roc to keep the TC's land and take the orams to court. As I said before, it stinks of bullshit no matter which way you look at it.

And BTW please don't insult me by saying this has nothing to do with the roc.

1. Show us evidence of this or shut up. We know for sure that the Turks are behind the orams!
2. Assumptions are a mother of all fuck ups and as you don't know you assume FFS.
3. The TC land is in the CARE of the RoC, there are mechanisms to get it back, unlike the GCs getting theres back. What more do you F want, jam? Do you see adverts offering TC land for sale anywhere in the South?? Idiot.
4. Construction industry, give me a break, it's all crooked land stealing and in any case the 'construction industry' was destroyed the moment the ECJ made its ruling. You have nothing and when the UK judges finally acknowledge the authority of the ECJ and rule against you, it will be the happiest day of my life.

Until you are man enough to tell us what your previous guise was, you can continue with your diy sexual preferences, old boy. What?

Ha Ha just as I expected, no arguement again, you are so predictable, you resort to gibberish when you have nothing of use to say.

I have no other guise, idiot, you just like to think so.

So look at my answers and weep as you just know I am right.

Sucker

Bambo, happy bayram.

[B25]

You see M, I agree with most of your reasoning until you mention the word thieves. These lands did not fall off the back of the lorry and now who is being childish. What really annoys me are these facts.
1. RoC is behind this case and are picking up the tabs if it should fail.
2. This unfortunate brit bought this land from a TC who has land in the south (I assume)
3. This TC's land is at the moment in the hands of the roc and has been since 1974.
4. The final reason is the fact that this is a political trial intending to destroy the construction industry in the north.
Where is the principle here that allows the roc to keep the TC's land and take the orams to court. As I said before, it stinks of bullshit no matter which way you look at it.

And BTW please don't insult me by saying this has nothing to do with the roc.

1. Show us evidence of this or shut up. We know for sure that the Turks are behind the orams!
2. Assumptions are a mother of all fuck ups and as you don't know you assume FFS.
3. The TC land is in the CARE of the RoC, there are mechanisms to get it back, unlike the GCs getting theres back. What more do you F want, jam? Do you see adverts offering TC land for sale anywhere in the South?? Idiot.
4. Construction industry, give me a break, it's all crooked land stealing and in any case the 'construction industry' was destroyed the moment the ECJ made its ruling. You have nothing and when the UK judges finally acknowledge the authority of the ECJ and rule against you, it will be the happiest day of my life.

Until you are man enough to tell us what your previous guise was, you can continue with your diy sexual preferences, old boy. What?

Ha Ha just as I expected, no arguement again, you are so predictable, you resort to gibberish when you have nothing of use to say.

I have no other guise, idiot, you just like to think so.

So look at my answers and weep as you just know I am right.

Sucker

Bambo, happy bayram.

Why thank you Bonzo, same to you.

[insan]

It's illegal to sell the properties of anyone without the permission of land owner. In Orams case, the so-called owner of A's land(TC refugee) sold a piece of A's land to O with permission of TRNC council of ministers. What if the so-called owner of A's land sold it to a Turk or a TC(refugee or non-refugee)? Would it make any difference? No! Still, the so-called owner of A's land or his representatives should ask the permission of the owner of the land.

Had a bi-communal properties board been established in second half of 70's when they agreed to find a solution in frame of a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation, Mr. "A" might have exchanged, compensated or restituted.

The primary responsibles of all property cases r the incapable, incompetent, self-seeker, illiterate politicians of both sides.

Some other illiterates claim that 40.000 Turkish troops don't allow GCs to return their homes... If u wished return of all refugees, so why did u agreed to find a bi-zonal, bi-communal solution to Cyprus problem... This is the greatest hypocrisy keep coming from the illiterates of GC side.

People were discouraged to contact the TRNC bodies with the full force of the roc. Especially TPapa government.

Against all odds, TC side could unilaterally establish the properties board that it was established too late in 2006. The primary excuse of TC side cannot be the difficulties created by GC leadership...

[Jerry]

Let's not get carried away with this, it's not a done deal yet. Whilst I still believe the decision is likely to be in MrA's favour I still have a nagging doubt about the claim of bias. At the time in Court I saw the argument about actual and apparent bias as legal nit picking, now I'm not so sure. The importance of this difference is the test for apparent bias.

Ask yourself, as a fair-minded person, if you saw a Greek judge sitting on a case between a Greek speaker and another would you assume an element of bias. That is the question the judges need to address, they could decide there was apparent bias but the presence of the other judges negated this. Mr A's counsel countered the bias claim with lengthy and complex (to me at least) arguments. We do not yet know the judges reaction to them but they did not appear to "pull up" Mr Beasley in the same way they had Orams counsel the day before.

Politics probably wont come into it but we will never know if a delayed or fudged decision is the result of someone having a quiet word in another's ear.

Bill my have thoughts on this, I'm off for the day.

[B25]

Let's not get carried away with this, it's not a done deal yet. Whilst I still believe the decision is likely to be in MrA's favour I still have a nagging doubt about the claim of bias. At the time in Court I saw the argument about actual and apparent bias as legal nit picking, now I'm not so sure. The importance of this difference is the test for apparent bias.

Ask yourself, as a fair-minded person, if you saw a Greek judge sitting on a case between a Greek speaker and another would you assume an element of bias. That is the question the judges need to address, they could decide there was apparent bias but the presence of the other judges negated this. Mr A's counsel countered the bias claim with lengthy and complex (to me at least) arguments. We do not yet know the judges reaction to them but they did not appear to "pull up" Mr Beasley in the same way they had Orams counsel the day before.

Politics probably wont come into it but we will never know if a delayed or fudged decision is the result of someone having a quiet word in another's ear.

Bill my have thoughts on this, I'm off for the day.

Jerry, all this talk of bias it total bollocks, there were 11 other judges of all nationalities and the Greek (not Cypriot) judge didn't make the ruling on his own nor have the deciding vote.

What would be bias is if the appeal judges find in favour of the Orams as this would be total British bias. Putting the interest of the Brits above that of a Cyp!!!

Stupid, probably, so where do you draw the line.

They have no arguement, they are resorting to technicalities as a way out and any high court judge should tell them where to go.

Seriously, after all the evidence was presented and the UK court referred it to the ECJ THEMSELVES are they now considering not taking the advice in which they sought????

We could just go on forever like this. Orams are as guilty as sin and the judges should just do their job properly and say so.

If they don't, then this would have made a mockery of the whole ECJ process and we should all be doubting anything EU from here on.

Orams out!

[YFred]

Let's not get carried away with this, it's not a done deal yet. Whilst I still believe the decision is likely to be in MrA's favour I still have a nagging doubt about the claim of bias. At the time in Court I saw the argument about actual and apparent bias as legal nit picking, now I'm not so sure. The importance of this difference is the test for apparent bias.

Ask yourself, as a fair-minded person, if you saw a Greek judge sitting on a case between a Greek speaker and another would you assume an element of bias. That is the question the judges need to address, they could decide there was apparent bias but the presence of the other judges negated this. Mr A's counsel countered the bias claim with lengthy and complex (to me at least) arguments. We do not yet know the judges reaction to them but they did not appear to "pull up" Mr Beasley in the same way they had Orams counsel the day before.

Politics probably wont come into it but we will never know if a delayed or fudged decision is the result of someone having a quiet word in another's ear.

Bill my have thoughts on this, I'm off for the day.

This sentence is the most telling. " We do not yet know the judges reaction to them but they did not appear to "pull up" Mr Beasley in the same way they had Orams counsel the day before." Judges are meant to ask searching questions to both lawyers and the lack of these questions to Mr A's side is not sounding as fair as it should have been. Does it?

[bill cobbett]

Let's not get carried away with this, it's not a done deal yet. Whilst I still believe the decision is likely to be in MrA's favour I still have a nagging doubt about the claim of bias. At the time in Court I saw the argument about actual and apparent bias as legal nit picking, now I'm not so sure. The importance of this difference is the test for apparent bias.

Ask yourself, as a fair-minded person, if you saw a Greek judge sitting on a case between a Greek speaker and another would you assume an element of bias. That is the question the judges need to address, they could decide there was apparent bias but the presence of the other judges negated this. Mr A's counsel countered the bias claim with lengthy and complex (to me at least) arguments. We do not yet know the judges reaction to them but they did not appear to "pull up" Mr Beasley in the same way they had Orams counsel the day before.

Politics probably wont come into it but we will never know if a delayed or fudged decision is the result of someone having a quiet word in another's ear.

Bill my have thoughts on this, I'm off for the day.

Morning Fellow Reporter Jerry, and all.

Yes all I can "add" on this bias business is to repeat some of what we reported. Allegations were made with no evidence to back them up and that the Judges will, as they said, accept "a presumption of integrity" unless proved otherwise.

I can add this (and I speak from memory). Here's an example of the nature of the "evidence" to back up bias. ... One of the visits to CY referred to the court was a visit by Skouris to CY to attend a mini-conference at the University of Cyprus, Nicosia, on an unknown subject, but one related to the work of the ECJ. Judge for yourselves if this is evidence of bias?

Yes as had been said by B25 and others, there were 10 other judges at the ECJ, and they were working to a report prepared by the Advocate General and her team of legal experts. So all in all there were probably dozens of lawyers involved in the ECJ judgement. How was Skouris's alleged "apparent bias" going to influence all these people?

------

Apart from a couple of lines in the CY Mail, the only more detailed coverage of the hearing I have found is in the CY Weekly ....

http://www.cyprusweekly.com.cy/main/92, ... 3737-.aspx

Their reporter adds one or two more details including more info on how the verdict will be made available.

[Malapapa]

This is the most annoying fact about the GC thinking. It's alright to take so long as you don't sell it.

What? It's all right to take? Since when? It's NOT all right to take, OK?

The problem with that is that roc is free to trade so don't need to sell. Which is why this argument just does nort wash.

Argument wash with who? You? Or the judge? If this is your case, it's lousy. You can't sell what doesn't belong to you. Why is that so difficult to understand?

TC man waited for decades for a bit a peace and did he get it? No.
So the answer is no no and another double no.
Or Oxi Oxi je thio Oxi.

YFred. I'm sorry your case is illogical, as well as immoral. And then you have the audacity to scream "unfair".

[YFred]

This is the most annoying fact about the GC thinking. It's alright to take so long as you don't sell it.

What? It's all right to take? Since when? It's NOT all right to take, OK?

The problem with that is that roc is free to trade so don't need to sell. Which is why this argument just does nort wash.

Argument wash with who? You? Or the judge? If this is your case, it's lousy. You can't sell what doesn't belong to you. Why is that so difficult to understand?

TC man waited for decades for a bit a peace and did he get it? No.
So the answer is no no and another double no.
Or Oxi Oxi je thio Oxi.

YFred. I'm sorry your case is illogical, as well as immoral. And then you have the audacity to scream "unfair".

Of course it is alright to take if you are a GC. I haven't seen many TC being given back their property despite applying years ago. Stop pretending not to understand. roc has taken 450000 donums of TC land. In 35 years how much of it did they give back? There are plenty of applications, but they seem to send the deeds man on donkey to karpaz and back.