Cyprus-Forum.com

[Jerry]

Just got back from London. Bill misunderstood my reference to witch's "shagability", I meant that only wild four-legged Karpasian would be interested in a shag.

It was a really interesting experience, Oram's counsel may or may not be clutching at straws when they say that a bad result for Orams would have serious consequences for peace talks - it depends how much weight the Judges give to this argument. I do hope that Mr A's counsel points out that despite the implications of Orams some four? years ago the "trnc" continued to sell off GC land - they showed little concern for the effect of the case. Orams counsel also claimed that a GC can use ROC and European Courts but TCs cannot use "trnc" Court to reclaim their land in the south. Counsel made reference to the fact that ROC custodian is holding TC so that it may be returned in event of a settlement, Judge then asked if GCs will get their land back in the north. HA bloody HA, much of the land is now occupied by settlers and Orams like carpetbaggers.

Booth waffled on (unconvincingly in my view) about the Orams dream of a place in the sun and the possibility of losing it or their UK home to settle judgement. She added that they would not be able to visit the south if the case goes against them. As Bill said she made great play of the fact that the ECJ presiding judge is Greek BUT they were not complaining about ACTUAL bias but APPARENT bias. She quoted rules as obscure (to me) as The Bangalore Principles in attempt to APPARENTLY discredit the Greek judge without ACTUAlLY saying so. Having said that the GCs have done themselves no favour by bestowing honours on the Greek judge. I find it incredible that Papadopoulos (a lawyer) entertained the Gr judge in Nicosia as a "thank you" for the ECJ decision - bloody fool. There were, however, 11 judges and they are all, one would hope, able to make up their own minds regardless of the conflict of interest (actual or apparent) of the presiding judge.

Judges don't like having their fellow judges criticised and they don't like being influenced by politicians or, presumably, politics but I am not celebrating yet. We could end up with a meaningless "fudged" decision!

Sorry about spelling etc, its been a busy day.

[bill cobbett]

Jerry and I made loads of notes during the day.

The GB Appeal Court is made up of three judges with a majority ruling by the way.

Morning Session
Counsel for the Orams introduced the two new points of "public policy" and "appearance of bias" at the ECJ.

Mr A's counsel interupted to raise objection to admisabilty of new late evidence.

Public Policy - allowed under section 34, a GB court can reject the ECJ ruling on the grounds that it's contrary to GB public policy. He also claimed that it was counter to EU Commision public policy. In both cases because and I quote it " prejudices the peace process". He claimed that GB/EU Commision public policy was to support the peace process.

He accused the ECJ of liberal interpretations and quote "picking and choosing which questions to answer". He claimed that the Advocate General's opinion didn't refer to EC Commision public policy .

Bias
The Os claimed that the Pres of the ECJ, Mr Scouris, was prejudiced by the receipt of an honour from TPap which may lead to "an appearance of bias". He referred to two occasions when he claims Mr Scouris visited CY and which a "fair-minded observer would be concerned".

He went on to widen matters refering to the results of the Anan Scam referendums.

He emphasised the political importance of the case and the "importance of preserving the dynamics of the peace process". He refered a letter from the Unofficial Muhktat Talat in support, refering to him as "President of the Txxx" which Mr A objected. The judges supported this objection.

The Presiding Judge warned of the danger of expanding matters in to a political pursuit.

Mr Os Counsel tried to say that the UN would seemto support the idea that litigation would be harmful to the peace process.

The Presiding judge wasn't happy with this saying that he wasn't convinced by this argument. The Judge asks if "courts should stop operating if there is a peace process?"

The Os go back to consider "bias" and show evidence of bias by refering to the visits by Mr Skouris again.

Mr A challenges this introduction of new evidence for a second time and further says it this is a disgruntled response to the ECJ judgement. The Presiding Judge seems to agree. The Presiding Judge isn't impressed with this late new evidence and says "formalities should be observed".

A second judge shows somilare disapproval as to the lateness and substance of the new evidence by putting in claims of apparent bias. Mr O's Counsel falters here, apologises and promises new application to admit claim of apparent bias.
---------

More to come later. Need a fag.

Sorry if this is a bit disjointed, am following the chronology of the hearing. They were going backwards and forwards covering the same ground.

[bill cobbett]

(Speaking of shagging. Feeling really quite shagged, very tiring day.)

Anyway here's the next part ....

Mr O gets back to the "public policy" business and repeats and emphasises the EU Commission's public policy of supporting the peace negotiations and further says the ECJ didn't consider the policy of the EU Commission. He puts a lot of emphasis on this.

Mr O says that after lunch he'll move on to the role of the Property Commission and his intention of bringing up a letter from Baroness Kinnock, a Ministe at the GB FCO, claimed press comment in the grissy papers and the claimed expert opinion of a Professor Hardy of the ECJ judgement on the peace process.

Adjourned for lunch.

[insan]

The case is simple actually; TRNC administration is guilty of not asking the permission of the land owner before selling it to 3rd parties. It actually doesn't matter if the 3rd party is a foreigner or a TC; refugee or non-refugee.

TRNC government and it's nternationally recognized representative Turkish government r guilty of not asking the permission of land owner.

TRNC administration should have made the required legal regulations and laws in order to protect the rights of GC land/property owners.

Although TRNC exchange/compensation/restitution board was established a bit too late; still can be considered an effective local institution to peacefully solve the properties issue.

From now on, the lands and properties belong to GCs must not be sold to 3rd parties(foreigners or TCs) without getting the permission of GC land/property owner.

[YFred]

(Speaking of shagging. Feeling really quite shagged, very tiring day.)

Anyway here's the next part ....

Mr O gets back to the "public policy" business and repeats and emphasises the EU Commission's public policy of supporting the peace negotiations and further says the ECJ didn't consider the policy of the EU Commission. He puts a lot of emphasis on this.

Mr O says that after lunch he'll move on to the role of the Property Commission and his intention of bringing up a letter from Baroness Kinnock, a Ministe at the GB FCO, claimed press comment in the grissy papers and the claimed expert opinion of a Professor Hardy of the ECJ judgement on the peace process.

Adjourned for lunch.

Things are begining to get clearer. You guys go after the Brits and take them to the cleaners, preferably the London Drycleaners in the North Nicosia, then the peace process goes up the creek and we get to keep 37.55%. Thats fair isn't it. You get what you want and so do we.
The more I think about it, the more I like it.

[Jerry]

The case is simple actually; TRNC administration is guilty of not asking the permission of the land owner before selling it to 3rd parties. It actually doesn't matter if the 3rd party is a foreigner or a TC; refugee or non-refugee.

TRNC government and it's nternationally recognized representative Turkish government r guilty of not asking the permission of land owner.

TRNC administration should have made the required legal regulations and laws in order to protect the rights of GC land/property owners.

Although TRNC exchange/compensation/restitution board was established a bit too late; still can be considered an effective local institution to peacefully solve the properties issue.

From now on, the lands and properties belong to GCs must not be sold to 3rd parties(foreigners or TCs) without getting the permission of GC land/property owner.

Insane, it's a civil case. The question of "guilt" does not arise. The Orams are not being tried for a criminal offence. Apostolides wants restitution and or compensation.

[Sotos]

The case is simple actually; TRNC administration is guilty of not asking the permission of the land owner before selling it to 3rd parties. It actually doesn't matter if the 3rd party is a foreigner or a TC; refugee or non-refugee.

TRNC government and it's nternationally recognized representative Turkish government r guilty of not asking the permission of land owner.

TRNC administration should have made the required legal regulations and laws in order to protect the rights of GC land/property owners.

Although TRNC exchange/compensation/restitution board was established a bit too late; still can be considered an effective local institution to peacefully solve the properties issue.

From now on, the lands and properties belong to GCs must not be sold to 3rd parties(foreigners or TCs) without getting the permission of GC land/property owner.

You forgot to say that the "trnc" was declared on our land without asking the 80% of the people who live there .... they ethnically cleansed them instead! The sale of Apostolides land to the Orams is as illegal as the declaration of the "trnc" on our land!

[insan]

The case is simple actually; TRNC administration is guilty of not asking the permission of the land owner before selling it to 3rd parties. It actually doesn't matter if the 3rd party is a foreigner or a TC; refugee or non-refugee.

TRNC government and it's nternationally recognized representative Turkish government r guilty of not asking the permission of land owner.

TRNC administration should have made the required legal regulations and laws in order to protect the rights of GC land/property owners.

Although TRNC exchange/compensation/restitution board was established a bit too late; still can be considered an effective local institution to peacefully solve the properties issue.

From now on, the lands and properties belong to GCs must not be sold to 3rd parties(foreigners or TCs) without getting the permission of GC land/property owner.

Insane, it's a civil case. The question of "guilt" does not arise. The Orams are not being tried for a criminal offence. Apostolides wants restitution and or compensation.

I was talking abt the essentials of the Orams case in general, u booby!

[Viewpoint]

Hmm, I predict a wishy washy conclusion from the judge, one that pleases no one!

I think it is very thin for the Orams to essentially claim that the ECJ judge is biased when the Orams have as their representative the wife of a former PM!

The face that the judge was Greek is a clear sign of biased...clear for all to see, would you accept it if he was Turkish and the decision went against you GCs?

VP, the ECJ in the Orams case was composed by 12 judges and the president, who was Greek. The president of the court is not the one making the decision, but the votes of the judges. The Orams case was adopted by 11 votes to 1.

It is an insult to the rest of the judges of the ECJ, all of whom are distinguished scholars and lawmen from various EU countries, to claim that they were influenced in their findings by their Greek college who was acting as the president. The British High court will not even bother (is not allowed) to look at the allegation that the ECJ decision was biased, just because the president was Greek or may had any connection with Cyprus. What about the rest of the judges, who almost unanimously adopted the ruling?

He should never have been allowed as Greek because it raises doubt as whether he influenced manipulated and headed the biased and one sided vote, again the Greeks show they cannot be impartial.

[bill cobbett]

Just to finish off little account of this most interesting day ...

After Lunch
Jerry and I introduced ourselves to Mr A and wished him luck. Seemed a very nice chap.

The Os go on about GB/EU public policy and the peace process.

Refer to the risks of "opening Pandora's Box" with a wave of litigation to the alleged detriment of the peace process. He then moves on to
talk about a claimed "assymetry " that exists and would be made worse with grissy litigants making claims for their lands whilst tissy ones are not able to.

Introduces letter from Baroness Kinnock to tissy petitioners as evidence of GB public policy.

Introduces various grissy press statements in further support of the effect on peace process. Presiding Judge casts doubts on this introduction of the press reports.

O's go on to further claim a "private right of restitution would be harmful to the peace process". Presiding Judge responds by saying isn't this .."just political comment.."


The Os make another reference to refering the matter back to the ECJ. Presiding Judge comments that there is little evidence to justify this.

Presiding Judge commented showing keen-ness for seing GB Public Policy as respecting the "territorial integrity and sovereignty of CY". Second Judge agrees and adds a comment that the Anon Scam is superceded by the current negotiations.

The Blah Blah Witch
Jerry covers this bit above so can only add ....

Tries for the sympathy card for the Orams.
Claims they acted in "good faith" !!!!!!!
Goes on about huge legal costs and "anxiety" caused to her clients.
Insists on a fair trial and revisits the "bias" claim by saying the Makarios Collar had been awarded to Mr Skouris but concedes the only evidence is a single reference on the CNA site.
Skouris is condemned on a number of occasions by the Witch.
She asks for all five questions to be refered back to the ECJ.
The Second Judge isn't happy with this.

At the end the Os submit an application for a referral back to the ECJ of all five questions on the basis of the public policy and bias claims.