Cyprus-Forum.com

[growuptcs]

How great is it to watch the Orams act like Turks in the courtroom, on top of expecting to beat it like teflon Oram. Their hot-potato just turned into a double-edged sword.

[bill cobbett]

It's finished.

No judgement today.

The Presiding Judge said a draft verdict will be issued.

We could be days or weeks away from issue of the judgement.

Post more on return to Northern London Suburbs.

[B25]

It's finished.

No judgement today.

The Presiding Judge said a draft verdict will be issued.

We could be days or weeks away from issue of the judgement.

Post more on return to Northern London Suburbs.

Oh crap!

Now I have to put the party off 'til then, sod it.

[YFred]

The Orams counsel said that the UN seemed to support the idea that litigation would be harmful to the peace process but the Presiding judge wasn’t happy with this saying that he wasn’t convinced by this argument. The Judge asked if “courts should stop operating if there is a peace process?”

so much for that argument

In years you may have to explain to your children how you lost Guzelyurt forever. Good luck. He who laughs last laughs loudest old boy.

[DT.]

The Orams counsel said that the UN seemed to support the idea that litigation would be harmful to the peace process but the Presiding judge wasn’t happy with this saying that he wasn’t convinced by this argument. The Judge asked if “courts should stop operating if there is a peace process?”

so much for that argument

In years you may have to explain to your children how you lost Guzelyurt forever. Good luck. He who laughs last laughs loudest old boy.

Hello yfronts. I see all this thinking business is still giving you a hard time.

[bill cobbett]

Here's a start on what was said at the court today. Keep in mind that everything in this case now is on the matters of Public Policy and alleged bias by Mr Skouris and whether there should or shouldn't be a referral back to the ECJ.

The other thing to keep in mind is that this is being heard inthe GB Appeal Court and they don't seem to have the more confrontational approach between the parties that we see in the movies. Was surprised by this, there were really few interuptions other than from the judges. Each QC was being allowed to present a case and the judges would ask for further reasoning on the points. When they did this the judges would make further comments, sometimes agreeing with interpretations being presented, at other times not agreeing and in other ways giving clues as to which way they were leaning on the legal points being raised. The result is that you can make a pretty informed guess as to where this is heading.

Anyway ....

Mr A started by objecting again to the late application and service of papers and refers to as an example a letter from Talat regarding the effect this case would have on the peace process. A letter that could have been introduced as early as the High Court case before Justice Jack but wasn't. The Second judge agrees.

Mr A goes on with public policy where he says there is " no GB domestic policy to the effect" ....and if there had been there would be a reference to it in the ECJ opinion. He goes on to say that the same material line was proced by the Os in the last (High Court) case. He says "it didn't strike anyone that it was a runnable argument ". He accuses the Os of "legal ingenuity" .... "unacceptable in the administration of justice" .

On the matter of statements by the EC Commission, he quotes the Commission that such cases .... "may be prejudicial to the talks". .. but emphasises the "may" part and noted that the ECJ considered and rejected this argument.

Mr A carries on with a lot of references to show that the ECJ had considered this public policy issue.

Mr A turned to the claim made by the Witch yesterday in which she claimed the Os had acted in "good faith" when they purchased to which he referred to the Os tesimony at the High Court under cross-examination when they conceded they hadn't acted in this way. Mr A says on this ...."the Orams knew they were taking a risk "...
______

More later

[Kifeas]

Bill, who is copying whom? Are you copying from this website:

http://www.northcyprusfreepress.com/200 ... -november/

or are they copying you from this forum?

[Jerry]

The appeal essentially revolves around two issues; public policy and possible bias of the Greek judge.

The public policy matter concerns the effect of this decision on the peace process. Mr A's counsel pointed out that the ECHR had made several judgments in recent years concerning cases in Cyprus where public policy had not been at issue. He added that in any case it could be argued that one side or the other is bound to be affected by the decision with regard to public policy. An Orams win would mean that even more GC land would be appropriated and this could prejudice the peace process. Mr A's counsel went on to say that all the public policy arguments had been put to the Court previously (ECJ or UK Court, I'm not sure which he meant) and there was no need to bring them up/re-examine again, he also complained that Orams had introduced late evidence that they could have presented much earlier to the Court. He added that there was a danger that this case could create a precedent whereby no case involving north Cyprus could be heard.

I found some of the proceedings difficult to follow at times because of the precedents, rulings and constant cross-referencing. Reference was made to “symmetry”, that is to say that both “sides” should be treated equally but Mr A’s counsel pointed out that accepting symmetry would in effect mean recognition of the “trnc” by the Court. He also commented on the illegality of the occupation and likened the “exceptional action” of the 1974 invasion to that or Iraq into Kuwait.

With regard to bias as I said yesterday Orams were not suggesting actual bias but apparent bias. The test for this is “would a fair minded person see this as bias” Counsel said that Orams knew Judge Skouris was a Greek, they could have complained before the ECJ hearing. Mention was also made of the fact that the judge could have stood down or at least disclosed his GC award (Cross of Makarios) and visits to Cyprus. This was countered by Apostolides Counsel who said that if every judge had to say what he had been awarded and which countries he had visited prior to any trial the Court’s functioning would be impared. He added that Judge Skouris had met a delegation from Turkey in the course of his work. Counsel also said that bias should not be a vehicle for disgruntled claims to be made.

Counsel for Apostolides wound up and sat down whereupon a bewigged gentleman seated in the middle of the Court stood up and spouted something along the lines of bla bla submission. The Judge told him he should have done it earlier, he was too late, sit down. I think he was counsel for British Residents Society but I’m not sure.

Orams counsel then offered some responses but it was not at all clear to me if they were of any importance or could significantly affect the outcome, I suppose it depends on judges' interpretation. Orams counsel did make a faux pas about his client being Turkish?????????. Bill remembers the incident better than me.

It is not absolutely clertain what the outcome will be but I reckon Orams will be losing sleep tonight and Apostolides wont.

[Jerry]

Bill, who is copying whom? Are you copying from this website:

http://www.northcyprusfreepress.com/200 ... -november/

or are they copying you from this forum?

Looks like they are copying us but they could have been in Court.

[bill cobbett]

More ...

Mr A went back to public policy and quoted from accepted authority on the matter when he said public policy should only be considered when there's a "breach to the legal order of the state". The judges agreed that this authority view was significant.

Mr A refers to the application to go back to the ECJ as "reaction material" of " raw political arguments" .

Mr A went on to Bias ...

Condemns the appication as having been "kept up the sleeve" and said the Os knew about it and should have disclosed earlier.makes the points that Mr Skouris has met with a delegation from Turkey as part of his duties as ECJ duties. Makes the point there are 10 other members of the ECJ involved in the opinion. Says Skouris travels frequently to publicise the work of the ECJ and as it's Pres, promote the free movement of judgements.

The CY award in question is the Grand Cross. Mr A says this was awarded in 2006. Refered to the citation. The Os had claimed it made ref to "loyalty" to CY. Mr A says it doesn't it refers to "support".

Mr A says there is a "presumption of integrity".

-----------

One more bit to come ....