Cyprus-Forum.com

[Get Real!]

Cant wait to read about the first arrests, when do you think they will take place? CTA better buy a few more planes.

CTA is bankrupt and you'd better believe it...

[vaughanwilliams]

About how much revenue would you say would by lost to the RoC economy if everyone travelling to TRNC stopped using Larnaca and used Ercan instead? People only use LCA because it is convenient and often cheaper. The threat of arrest might convince the travelling public that it ain't worth it. Just what CTA needs, I'd say.

The carpetbaggers (2,000? 5,000?) are a drop in the ocean compared to the annual 2.5 million tourists that arrive at Larnaca and Paphos.

It's not so much about what LCA would lose, it's about what CTA and ECN would gain.

[Oracle]

About how much revenue would you say would by lost to the RoC economy if everyone travelling to TRNC stopped using Larnaca and used Ercan instead? People only use LCA because it is convenient and often cheaper. The threat of arrest might convince the travelling public that it ain't worth it. Just what CTA needs, I'd say.

The carpetbaggers (2,000? 5,000?) are a drop in the ocean compared to the annual 2.5 million tourists that arrive at Larnaca and Paphos.

It's not so much about what LCA would lose, it's about what CTA and ECN would gain.

They won't gain anything because people would just stop visiting the occupied north, full stop!

Those who once pretended ignorance of what is actually happening are realising such excuses do not count ....

[zan]

About how much revenue would you say would by lost to the RoC economy if everyone travelling to TRNC stopped using Larnaca and used Ercan instead? People only use LCA because it is convenient and often cheaper. The threat of arrest might convince the travelling public that it ain't worth it. Just what CTA needs, I'd say.

The carpetbaggers (2,000? 5,000?) are a drop in the ocean compared to the annual 2.5 million tourists that arrive at Larnaca and Paphos.

It's not so much about what LCA would lose, it's about what CTA and ECN would gain.

They won't gain anything because people would just stop visiting the occupied north, full stop!

Those who once pretended ignorance of what is actually happening are realising such excuses do not count ....

Direct flights to the TRNC, because of your embargoes, will have little or no effect on FULL flights. Fly over Turkey and soon in the TRNC.....Economically the prices will come down and look more attractive.

[bill cobbett]

Bill Cobbett
Whatever the status of the various hotels you mention (expropriated, illegally sold, etc) - and I've no problem with rightful ownership being restored - the implication that those who stay/visit such hotels or other tourist facilities are liable to arrest is really too far fetched. Whilst you are right in principle this is practically impossible to achieve. Trespass is a civil law matter and so would require all of the following improbable requirements to fall into place : tourist X in dodgy hotel Y would have to be seen by rightful property owner Z 'trespassing' in hotel Y. Property owner Z would then have to track and identify tourist X and issue a writ against them from a RoC court. Demonstrating tresspass is not as easy as it might first appear. Doing so against a foreign tourist, back in their home country is nigh on impossible.

In sum, if you treat this as a civil matter between erstwhile owner and tourist then it is, in my view, an empty threat.

By contrast if it was treated as a criminal matter, between the RoC and the tourist then all sorts of possibilities (probabilities) arise. The moment the tourist set foot in RoC (effective administration) they could be arrested, but it would still require some proof of entering/using illegally acquired property. Of course the obvious answer to this is to say that anyone entering the north is, by definition, entering illegally occupied/acquired territory and property. If that is the case then the problem is not with the TRNC but with the RoC to the extent that the latter allows people, tourists included, to travel to and from the north. It is RoC public policy to allow people to move to and fro across the Green Line; and that sends a clear message to tourists (and courts) that it is not regarded as illegal to travel to, use and return from illegally acquired territory/property. And that is the price that RoC has to pay for EU membership. (If RoC claims jurisdiction over the whole island then it is a fundamental of EU membership that it cannot then say that EU citizens, TCs and foreign tourists included, cannot go to and from territories under its jurisdiction).

In sum, in my view, unless RoC public policy changes by 180 degrees and thereby breaches basic EU acquis provisions then tourists in the north are not liable to arrest on criminal grounds and the chances are infinitesimally small on civil grounds.

Reh Copper bou eese reh?

Thanks, so the case of a tourist staying in a Stolen Hotel is civil trespass. A civil matter.

..but here's a summary of the RoC law, the criminal bit which applies to Illegal Hoteliers and it looks to me that it also applies also to Dodgy Tour Operators.....

(From http://www.cyprusembassy.net/home/index ... odule=page )

" It is also important to note that, under Cyprus’s Criminal Code, Cap.154, any person who, with intent to defraud, deals in immovable property belonging to another is guilty of a felony (“fraudulent dealings in immovable property belonging to another”) and is liable to imprisonment for up to seven years. Under the Law a person is deemed to be dealing in immovable property where he/she (a) sells to another, or rents to another, or mortgages to another or encumbers in any way, or makes available for use by another immovable property, or (b) advertises or otherwise promotes the sale or renting out or mortgaging or charging in any way to another of immovable property or the use thereof by another, or (c) concludes an agreement for the sale to another, or the renting out to another, or the mortgaging to another, or the charging in any way to the benefit of another, or the use by another of immovable property, or (d) accepts the immovable property which is the object of the dealing. Depending on the situation, it is also possible that European Arrest Warrants be issued against persons who may be prosecuted for the aforesaid criminal offence in the Republic. "

Seems to be a different kettle of fish now, much easier to trace offenders with enforcement through the criminal courts, if the RoC chose to take this course.

(Once again, nothing said above applies to tissy owned hotels, enjoy your stays there)

[zan]

Bill Cobbett
Whatever the status of the various hotels you mention (expropriated, illegally sold, etc) - and I've no problem with rightful ownership being restored - the implication that those who stay/visit such hotels or other tourist facilities are liable to arrest is really too far fetched. Whilst you are right in principle this is practically impossible to achieve. Trespass is a civil law matter and so would require all of the following improbable requirements to fall into place : tourist X in dodgy hotel Y would have to be seen by rightful property owner Z 'trespassing' in hotel Y. Property owner Z would then have to track and identify tourist X and issue a writ against them from a RoC court. Demonstrating tresspass is not as easy as it might first appear. Doing so against a foreign tourist, back in their home country is nigh on impossible.

In sum, if you treat this as a civil matter between erstwhile owner and tourist then it is, in my view, an empty threat.

By contrast if it was treated as a criminal matter, between the RoC and the tourist then all sorts of possibilities (probabilities) arise. The moment the tourist set foot in RoC (effective administration) they could be arrested, but it would still require some proof of entering/using illegally acquired property. Of course the obvious answer to this is to say that anyone entering the north is, by definition, entering illegally occupied/acquired territory and property. If that is the case then the problem is not with the TRNC but with the RoC to the extent that the latter allows people, tourists included, to travel to and from the north. It is RoC public policy to allow people to move to and fro across the Green Line; and that sends a clear message to tourists (and courts) that it is not regarded as illegal to travel to, use and return from illegally acquired territory/property. And that is the price that RoC has to pay for EU membership. (If RoC claims jurisdiction over the whole island then it is a fundamental of EU membership that it cannot then say that EU citizens, TCs and foreign tourists included, cannot go to and from territories under its jurisdiction).

In sum, in my view, unless RoC public policy changes by 180 degrees and thereby breaches basic EU acquis provisions then tourists in the north are not liable to arrest on criminal grounds and the chances are infinitesimally small on civil grounds.

Reh Copper bou eese reh?

Thanks, so the case of a tourist staying in a Stolen Hotel is civil trespass. A civil matter.

..but here's a summary of the RoC law, the criminal bit which applies to Illegal Hoteliers and it looks to me that it also applies also to Dodgy Tour Operators.....

(From http://www.cyprusembassy.net/home/index ... odule=page )

" It is also important to note that, under Cyprus’s Criminal Code, Cap.154, any person who, with intent to defraud, deals in immovable property belonging to another is guilty of a felony (“fraudulent dealings in immovable property belonging to another”) and is liable to imprisonment for up to seven years. Under the Law a person is deemed to be dealing in immovable property where he/she (a) sells to another, or rents to another, or mortgages to another or encumbers in any way, or makes available for use by another immovable property, or (b) advertises or otherwise promotes the sale or renting out or mortgaging or charging in any way to another of immovable property or the use thereof by another, or (c) concludes an agreement for the sale to another, or the renting out to another, or the mortgaging to another, or the charging in any way to the benefit of another, or the use by another of immovable property, or (d) accepts the immovable property which is the object of the dealing. Depending on the situation, it is also possible that European Arrest Warrants be issued against persons who may be prosecuted for the aforesaid criminal offence in the Republic. "

Seems to be a different kettle of fish now, much easier to trace offenders with enforcement through the criminal courts, if the RoC chose to take this course.

(Once again, nothing said above applies to tissy owned hotels, enjoy your stays there)

I bet Copperlines eyebrows have hit the roof I think Your example is for the rentee and not the renter billy boy

[bill cobbett]

Bill Cobbett
Whatever the status of the various hotels you mention (expropriated, illegally sold, etc) - and I've no problem with rightful ownership being restored - the implication that those who stay/visit such hotels or other tourist facilities are liable to arrest is really too far fetched. Whilst you are right in principle this is practically impossible to achieve. Trespass is a civil law matter and so would require all of the following improbable requirements to fall into place : tourist X in dodgy hotel Y would have to be seen by rightful property owner Z 'trespassing' in hotel Y. Property owner Z would then have to track and identify tourist X and issue a writ against them from a RoC court. Demonstrating tresspass is not as easy as it might first appear. Doing so against a foreign tourist, back in their home country is nigh on impossible.

In sum, if you treat this as a civil matter between erstwhile owner and tourist then it is, in my view, an empty threat.

By contrast if it was treated as a criminal matter, between the RoC and the tourist then all sorts of possibilities (probabilities) arise. The moment the tourist set foot in RoC (effective administration) they could be arrested, but it would still require some proof of entering/using illegally acquired property. Of course the obvious answer to this is to say that anyone entering the north is, by definition, entering illegally occupied/acquired territory and property. If that is the case then the problem is not with the TRNC but with the RoC to the extent that the latter allows people, tourists included, to travel to and from the north. It is RoC public policy to allow people to move to and fro across the Green Line; and that sends a clear message to tourists (and courts) that it is not regarded as illegal to travel to, use and return from illegally acquired territory/property. And that is the price that RoC has to pay for EU membership. (If RoC claims jurisdiction over the whole island then it is a fundamental of EU membership that it cannot then say that EU citizens, TCs and foreign tourists included, cannot go to and from territories under its jurisdiction).

In sum, in my view, unless RoC public policy changes by 180 degrees and thereby breaches basic EU acquis provisions then tourists in the north are not liable to arrest on criminal grounds and the chances are infinitesimally small on civil grounds.

Reh Copper bou eese reh?

Thanks, so the case of a tourist staying in a Stolen Hotel is civil trespass. A civil matter.

..but here's a summary of the RoC law, the criminal bit which applies to Illegal Hoteliers and it looks to me that it also applies also to Dodgy Tour Operators.....

(From http://www.cyprusembassy.net/home/index ... odule=page )

" It is also important to note that, under Cyprus’s Criminal Code, Cap.154, any person who, with intent to defraud, deals in immovable property belonging to another is guilty of a felony (“fraudulent dealings in immovable property belonging to another”) and is liable to imprisonment for up to seven years. Under the Law a person is deemed to be dealing in immovable property where he/she (a) sells to another, or rents to another, or mortgages to another or encumbers in any way, or makes available for use by another immovable property, or (b) advertises or otherwise promotes the sale or renting out or mortgaging or charging in any way to another of immovable property or the use thereof by another, or (c) concludes an agreement for the sale to another, or the renting out to another, or the mortgaging to another, or the charging in any way to the benefit of another, or the use by another of immovable property, or (d) accepts the immovable property which is the object of the dealing. Depending on the situation, it is also possible that European Arrest Warrants be issued against persons who may be prosecuted for the aforesaid criminal offence in the Republic. "

Seems to be a different kettle of fish now, much easier to trace offenders with enforcement through the criminal courts, if the RoC chose to take this course.

(Once again, nothing said above applies to tissy owned hotels, enjoy your stays there)

I bet Copperlines eyebrows have hit the roof I think Your example is for the rentee and not the renter billy boy

Think it applies to both, but let's see what Copper says.

[zan]

Bill Cobbett
Whatever the status of the various hotels you mention (expropriated, illegally sold, etc) - and I've no problem with rightful ownership being restored - the implication that those who stay/visit such hotels or other tourist facilities are liable to arrest is really too far fetched. Whilst you are right in principle this is practically impossible to achieve. Trespass is a civil law matter and so would require all of the following improbable requirements to fall into place : tourist X in dodgy hotel Y would have to be seen by rightful property owner Z 'trespassing' in hotel Y. Property owner Z would then have to track and identify tourist X and issue a writ against them from a RoC court. Demonstrating tresspass is not as easy as it might first appear. Doing so against a foreign tourist, back in their home country is nigh on impossible.

In sum, if you treat this as a civil matter between erstwhile owner and tourist then it is, in my view, an empty threat.

By contrast if it was treated as a criminal matter, between the RoC and the tourist then all sorts of possibilities (probabilities) arise. The moment the tourist set foot in RoC (effective administration) they could be arrested, but it would still require some proof of entering/using illegally acquired property. Of course the obvious answer to this is to say that anyone entering the north is, by definition, entering illegally occupied/acquired territory and property. If that is the case then the problem is not with the TRNC but with the RoC to the extent that the latter allows people, tourists included, to travel to and from the north. It is RoC public policy to allow people to move to and fro across the Green Line; and that sends a clear message to tourists (and courts) that it is not regarded as illegal to travel to, use and return from illegally acquired territory/property. And that is the price that RoC has to pay for EU membership. (If RoC claims jurisdiction over the whole island then it is a fundamental of EU membership that it cannot then say that EU citizens, TCs and foreign tourists included, cannot go to and from territories under its jurisdiction).

In sum, in my view, unless RoC public policy changes by 180 degrees and thereby breaches basic EU acquis provisions then tourists in the north are not liable to arrest on criminal grounds and the chances are infinitesimally small on civil grounds.

Reh Copper bou eese reh?

Thanks, so the case of a tourist staying in a Stolen Hotel is civil trespass. A civil matter.

..but here's a summary of the RoC law, the criminal bit which applies to Illegal Hoteliers and it looks to me that it also applies also to Dodgy Tour Operators.....

(From http://www.cyprusembassy.net/home/index ... odule=page )

" It is also important to note that, under Cyprus’s Criminal Code, Cap.154, any person who, with intent to defraud, deals in immovable property belonging to another is guilty of a felony (“fraudulent dealings in immovable property belonging to another”) and is liable to imprisonment for up to seven years. Under the Law a person is deemed to be dealing in immovable property where he/she (a) sells to another, or rents to another, or mortgages to another or encumbers in any way, or makes available for use by another immovable property, or (b) advertises or otherwise promotes the sale or renting out or mortgaging or charging in any way to another of immovable property or the use thereof by another, or (c) concludes an agreement for the sale to another, or the renting out to another, or the mortgaging to another, or the charging in any way to the benefit of another, or the use by another of immovable property, or (d) accepts the immovable property which is the object of the dealing. Depending on the situation, it is also possible that European Arrest Warrants be issued against persons who may be prosecuted for the aforesaid criminal offence in the Republic. "

Seems to be a different kettle of fish now, much easier to trace offenders with enforcement through the criminal courts, if the RoC chose to take this course.

(Once again, nothing said above applies to tissy owned hotels, enjoy your stays there)

I bet Copperlines eyebrows have hit the roof I think Your example is for the rentee and not the renter billy boy

Think it applies to both, but let's see what Copper says.

Well at least point out the bit where it mentions the latter and make it interesting for him

[CopperLine]

Bill Cobbett
Whatever the status of the various hotels you mention (expropriated, illegally sold, etc) - and I've no problem with rightful ownership being restored - the implication that those who stay/visit such hotels or other tourist facilities are liable to arrest is really too far fetched. Whilst you are right in principle this is practically impossible to achieve. Trespass is a civil law matter and so would require all of the following improbable requirements to fall into place : tourist X in dodgy hotel Y would have to be seen by rightful property owner Z 'trespassing' in hotel Y. Property owner Z would then have to track and identify tourist X and issue a writ against them from a RoC court. Demonstrating tresspass is not as easy as it might first appear. Doing so against a foreign tourist, back in their home country is nigh on impossible.

In sum, if you treat this as a civil matter between erstwhile owner and tourist then it is, in my view, an empty threat.

By contrast if it was treated as a criminal matter, between the RoC and the tourist then all sorts of possibilities (probabilities) arise. The moment the tourist set foot in RoC (effective administration) they could be arrested, but it would still require some proof of entering/using illegally acquired property. Of course the obvious answer to this is to say that anyone entering the north is, by definition, entering illegally occupied/acquired territory and property. If that is the case then the problem is not with the TRNC but with the RoC to the extent that the latter allows people, tourists included, to travel to and from the north. It is RoC public policy to allow people to move to and fro across the Green Line; and that sends a clear message to tourists (and courts) that it is not regarded as illegal to travel to, use and return from illegally acquired territory/property. And that is the price that RoC has to pay for EU membership. (If RoC claims jurisdiction over the whole island then it is a fundamental of EU membership that it cannot then say that EU citizens, TCs and foreign tourists included, cannot go to and from territories under its jurisdiction).

In sum, in my view, unless RoC public policy changes by 180 degrees and thereby breaches basic EU acquis provisions then tourists in the north are not liable to arrest on criminal grounds and the chances are infinitesimally small on civil grounds.

Reh Copper bou eese reh?

Thanks, so the case of a tourist staying in a Stolen Hotel is civil trespass. A civil matter.

..but here's a summary of the RoC law, the criminal bit which applies to Illegal Hoteliers and it looks to me that it also applies also to Dodgy Tour Operators.....

(From http://www.cyprusembassy.net/home/index ... odule=page )

" It is also important to note that, under Cyprus’s Criminal Code, Cap.154, any person who, with intent to defraud, deals in immovable property belonging to another is guilty of a felony (“fraudulent dealings in immovable property belonging to another”) and is liable to imprisonment for up to seven years. Under the Law a person is deemed to be dealing in immovable property where he/she (a) sells to another, or rents to another, or mortgages to another or encumbers in any way, or makes available for use by another immovable property, or (b) advertises or otherwise promotes the sale or renting out or mortgaging or charging in any way to another of immovable property or the use thereof by another, or (c) concludes an agreement for the sale to another, or the renting out to another, or the mortgaging to another, or the charging in any way to the benefit of another, or the use by another of immovable property, or (d) accepts the immovable property which is the object of the dealing. Depending on the situation, it is also possible that European Arrest Warrants be issued against persons who may be prosecuted for the aforesaid criminal offence in the Republic. "

Seems to be a different kettle of fish now, much easier to trace offenders with enforcement through the criminal courts, if the RoC chose to take this course.

(Once again, nothing said above applies to tissy owned hotels, enjoy your stays there)

I think that what you've posted here Bill Cobbett reinforces what I was arguing earlier. In RoC law there's no question that the illicit owner of a hotel/property in the north is open to criminal prosecution within the RoC, always supposing that said person finds themselves in the effectively administered part of RoC. But as I understood the initial post on this thread, the suggestion was that a tourist using said hotel would also be liable in some way, for example, as a trespasser. For it to be trespass the conditions I mentioned earlier still apply. The passage you quoted doesn't seem to me to be applicable to tourists, for example, paying for a hotel room. Sure it applies to the hotelier - although enforcement is still a big problem - but not to the hotel guest. There is a repeated phrase in the extract you give which says quite clearly "where he/she ... sells/advertises/concludes a sale/accepts immovable property ... to another ..." The other person is not liable, only the seller, advertiser, etc,.

Again, in my view, if RoC want to enforce some kind of ban on tourists going north then the only effective way is to prohibit crossings of the Green Line tout court. There is no certainly no effective way of identifying civil trespass violations. But to enforce a ban would be for the RoC to fundamentally violate its EU accession agreement.

PS. I've never stayed in a hotel in Cyprus in my life, TC or otherwise !

[bill cobbett]

Bill Cobbett
Whatever the status of the various hotels you mention (expropriated, illegally sold, etc) - and I've no problem with rightful ownership being restored - the implication that those who stay/visit such hotels or other tourist facilities are liable to arrest is really too far fetched. Whilst you are right in principle this is practically impossible to achieve. Trespass is a civil law matter and so would require all of the following improbable requirements to fall into place : tourist X in dodgy hotel Y would have to be seen by rightful property owner Z 'trespassing' in hotel Y. Property owner Z would then have to track and identify tourist X and issue a writ against them from a RoC court. Demonstrating tresspass is not as easy as it might first appear. Doing so against a foreign tourist, back in their home country is nigh on impossible.

In sum, if you treat this as a civil matter between erstwhile owner and tourist then it is, in my view, an empty threat.

By contrast if it was treated as a criminal matter, between the RoC and the tourist then all sorts of possibilities (probabilities) arise. The moment the tourist set foot in RoC (effective administration) they could be arrested, but it would still require some proof of entering/using illegally acquired property. Of course the obvious answer to this is to say that anyone entering the north is, by definition, entering illegally occupied/acquired territory and property. If that is the case then the problem is not with the TRNC but with the RoC to the extent that the latter allows people, tourists included, to travel to and from the north. It is RoC public policy to allow people to move to and fro across the Green Line; and that sends a clear message to tourists (and courts) that it is not regarded as illegal to travel to, use and return from illegally acquired territory/property. And that is the price that RoC has to pay for EU membership. (If RoC claims jurisdiction over the whole island then it is a fundamental of EU membership that it cannot then say that EU citizens, TCs and foreign tourists included, cannot go to and from territories under its jurisdiction).

In sum, in my view, unless RoC public policy changes by 180 degrees and thereby breaches basic EU acquis provisions then tourists in the north are not liable to arrest on criminal grounds and the chances are infinitesimally small on civil grounds.

Reh Copper bou eese reh?

Thanks, so the case of a tourist staying in a Stolen Hotel is civil trespass. A civil matter.

..but here's a summary of the RoC law, the criminal bit which applies to Illegal Hoteliers and it looks to me that it also applies also to Dodgy Tour Operators.....

(From http://www.cyprusembassy.net/home/index ... odule=page )

" It is also important to note that, under Cyprus’s Criminal Code, Cap.154, any person who, with intent to defraud, deals in immovable property belonging to another is guilty of a felony (“fraudulent dealings in immovable property belonging to another”) and is liable to imprisonment for up to seven years. Under the Law a person is deemed to be dealing in immovable property where he/she (a) sells to another, or rents to another, or mortgages to another or encumbers in any way, or makes available for use by another immovable property, or (b) advertises or otherwise promotes the sale or renting out or mortgaging or charging in any way to another of immovable property or the use thereof by another, or (c) concludes an agreement for the sale to another, or the renting out to another, or the mortgaging to another, or the charging in any way to the benefit of another, or the use by another of immovable property, or (d) accepts the immovable property which is the object of the dealing. Depending on the situation, it is also possible that European Arrest Warrants be issued against persons who may be prosecuted for the aforesaid criminal offence in the Republic. "

Seems to be a different kettle of fish now, much easier to trace offenders with enforcement through the criminal courts, if the RoC chose to take this course.

(Once again, nothing said above applies to tissy owned hotels, enjoy your stays there)

I think that what you've posted here Bill Cobbett reinforces what I was arguing earlier. In RoC law there's no question that the illicit owner of a hotel/property in the north is open to criminal prosecution within the RoC, always supposing that said person finds themselves in the effectively administered part of RoC. But as I understood the initial post on this thread, the suggestion was that a tourist using said hotel would also be liable in some way, for example, as a trespasser. For it to be trespass the conditions I mentioned earlier still apply. The passage you quoted doesn't seem to me to be applicable to tourists, for example, paying for a hotel room. Sure it applies to the hotelier - although enforcement is still a big problem - but not to the hotel guest. There is a repeated phrase in the extract you give which says quite clearly "where he/she ... sells/advertises/concludes a sale/accepts immovable property ... to another ..." The other person is not liable, only the seller, advertiser, etc,.

Again, in my view, if RoC want to enforce some kind of ban on tourists going north then the only effective way is to prohibit crossings of the Green Line tout court. There is no certainly no effective way of identifying civil trespass violations. But to enforce a ban would be for the RoC to fundamentally violate its EU accession agreement.[/i]

Yes ok mate, got your point re "the guest" from your earlier post.

Now would agree the hotelier is liable, but what about the tour operator, the travel agent who is advertising the holidays and profiting from the situation? One who would have entered into a contract with the hotelier to send guests?