Cyprus-Forum.com

[-mikkie2-]

Well done to Bill and Jerry for giving us a first hand account of proceedings.

It sounds like the Court has little option but to rule in favour of Apostolides. Probably wont get a judgement this side of Christmas but the sound of it.

[bill cobbett]

Well done to Bill and Jerry for giving us a first hand account of proceedings.

It sounds like the Court has little option but to rule in favour of Apostolides. Probably wont get a judgement this side of Christmas but the sound of it.

Wouldn't have missed it for the world brother/sister.

Fear you're right on the time it takes for these things.

As to the result? Well, at the lunchtime recess, when our Jerry and Mr Candounas exchanged smiles (and I swear on my virtual life this did happen) thought it's 100%, a dead cert. At the end on the way back to the station Jerry said 75/25 and I agreed with him on that, so you never know.

[CopperLine]

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 ....

Thanks Bill Cobbett and Jerry for these first hand reports. Very interesting. If I may add a couple of comments about procedure.

Public policy : This is an often ambiguous area to work a case through. Essentially one cannot argue against public policy through law and essentially public policy refers to standing and customary government policy. So, for example, it is the public policy of the UK government confirmed through treaty law to recognise other EU states, including RoC, and not to recognise TRNC. A complainant cannot present a case which would entail or is based on the frustration of public policy. Thus however much someone argues that TRNC should be recognised and even if they could show dozens of advantages of doing so this would be ocntrary to public policy. So the only way in which the public policy argument can be taken up in a law case is if one can show that in the execution of a given policy the government (or other persons) was doing so through illegal or non-legal means. For example, the current torture/Guantanamo case of Binyamiun Mohammed - public policy is to protect against terrorism, fine, but you can't do this by illegal means, eg torturing suspects.

Again, from Jerry and Bill's report, it seems to me that Orams' counsel are clutching at straws. Orams et al have paid a shed load of money to counsel for an argument that any 1st year international law student would have identified as lamentably weak. (But never say never).

Second, BRS et. al. Again, a waste of time and money. It is a basic of court procedure and presentation of cases that you present all your arguments at the earliest opportunity starting with your strongest arguments. You don't say "oh, I forgot this one earlier" or "can I have anther go 'cos I've just thought of something else". Preparation of material is crucial. Indeed preparation is everything.

Third, the case of alleged bias against Skouris is, I'm glad to hear, a non-starter. J & B's report that Skouris' nationality was known before the ECJ case and the Orams said nothing is the clincher.


Anyway, thanks for the report.

[CopperLine]

Let me also add a couple more things :

If you are going to law make sure that you have a good case. Don't go to law because you are losing the political game, because whilst you may think that at least the law will give you a hearing (your day in court) it will not give you your desired outcome. I can understand the logic behind the Orams case, I can understand why they thought it worthwhile going along this route - they (and TRNC) had no other route open to them - but they have been fundamentally misled and insodoing have fundamentally misled others.

If hitting your head against a brick wall hurts then stop. Don't go to law to complain that the bricks are unfairly tough.


Regarding timing and duration of issuing judgment, remember that this was effectively a re-convened appeal interrupted by the referral to the ECJ. The bench will have heard all the arguments before and so will have only heard arguments which were new and arising from the supposed impact of the ECJ decision. So yesterday's proceedings should not add much, if anything, to the time taken to issue a judgment.

[B25]

Thank you so much Jerry, Bill and Copperline.

I like court cases and this was like watching it on TV.

Contrary to what Copper says about timing of result, my own guess is that they will stretch it out until something is decided on the Cyprob, whichever way it goes.

I doubt the UK courts would want to be blamed for stuffing up the carpet baggers.

Anyway, good work guys.

[Oracle]

Thanks to bill and jerry for taking the time to post the details. They have been nail-biting.

And, welcome back with thanks for the in-depth analysis, CopperLine.

Let's hope the decision makers are not swayed away from the path of justice ...

[denizaksulu]

Justice is always welcome. NO ONE has the right to deprive the other of what is legally theirs.

[CopperLine]

Thank you so much Jerry, Bill and Copperline.

I like court cases and this was like watching it on TV.

Contrary to what Copper says about timing of result, my own guess is that they will stretch it out until something is decided on the Cyprob, whichever way it goes.

I doubt the UK courts would want to be blamed for stuffing up the carpet baggers.

Anyway, good work guys.

You may be right B25 but if the appeal court defers its decision for reasons of the not wanting to 'interfere' with the Cyprus negotiations then it would be doing exactly what the Orams' latterly argued and wanted : namely to not allow a court decision to compromise the possibility of settlement. In other words to delay a legal judgment for reasons of political expediency.

Anyway, the judgment will be given when it is, regardless of our guesses. My point was not when the decision will be given so much as that the legal reasoning has already been completed. Thus whilst the judges obviously can't say so now they will have already identified the bases of their decisions and most probably the final decision itself. It will take time to cross the t and dot the i, and to write the judgment - and judges are very busy people : )

[B25]

Thank you so much Jerry, Bill and Copperline.

I like court cases and this was like watching it on TV.

Contrary to what Copper says about timing of result, my own guess is that they will stretch it out until something is decided on the Cyprob, whichever way it goes.

I doubt the UK courts would want to be blamed for stuffing up the carpet baggers.

Anyway, good work guys.

You may be right B25 but if the appeal court defers its decision for reasons of the not wanting to 'interfere' with the Cyprus negotiations then it would be doing exactly what the Orams' latterly argued and wanted : namely to not allow a court decision to compromise the possibility of settlement. In other words to delay a legal judgment for reasons of political expediency.

Anyway, the judgment will be given when it is, regardless of our guesses. My point was not when the decision will be given so much as that the legal reasoning has already been completed. Thus whilst the judges obviously can't say so now they will have already identified the bases of their decisions and most probably the final decision itself. It will take time to cross the t and dot the i, and to write the judgment - and judges are very busy people : )

Copperline, don't take this wrong, but I am getting to like you

My point was that since that had already heard the most of the arguement, then there is no real reason why the final judgement should take that long. I stiil can't help thinking that this is still ploticised in some way. After all they originally sent it to the ECJ for the same reason!

We shall see.

[Jerry]

Thank you so much Jerry, Bill and Copperline.

I like court cases and this was like watching it on TV.

Contrary to what Copper says about timing of result, my own guess is that they will stretch it out until something is decided on the Cyprob, whichever way it goes.

I doubt the UK courts would want to be blamed for stuffing up the carpet baggers.

Anyway, good work guys.

You may be right B25 but if the appeal court defers its decision for reasons of the not wanting to 'interfere' with the Cyprus negotiations then it would be doing exactly what the Orams' latterly argued and wanted : namely to not allow a court decision to compromise the possibility of settlement. In other words to delay a legal judgment for reasons of political expediency.

Anyway, the judgment will be given when it is, regardless of our guesses. My point was not when the decision will be given so much as that the legal reasoning has already been completed. Thus whilst the judges obviously can't say so now they will have already identified the bases of their decisions and most probably the final decision itself. It will take time to cross the t and dot the i, and to write the judgment - and judges are very busy people : )

Copperline, don't take this wrong, but I am getting to like you

My point was that since that had already heard the most of the arguement, then there is no real reason why the final judgement should take that long. I stiil can't help thinking that this is still ploticised in some way. After all they originally sent it to the ECJ for the same reason!

We shall see.

Whilst political expediency may not be a valid reason to delay the judgement it could, in this case, prove to be an advantage to the ROC. The uncertainty and delay could be a "warning shot" to Turkey that the law is catching up with it. Rather than break down the negotiations could see some genuine concessions offered by Turkey.