Cyprus-Forum.com

[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.[/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?

Possibly. But practically it is very, very difficult to do. First you've got the old problem of effective jurisdiction (where would such a case be heard ? how would you get the parties into the courtroom ?) Second, you've got to have a string of reliable and robust evidence. One break in the chain and your case falls. And anything which doesn't involve immovable property i.e, real estate, is obviously not subject to trespass. If you are a bus operator ferrying tourists from A to B and, let's say, insodoing you cross unknown to you some GC land through which the road has been built there's really no credible case against you.

I think that if there's any mileage in this strategy at all - it is still a very long shot - it would be against estate agencies in the north. (Here you might even get some cooperation between disgruntled buyers and RoC authorities). In my view the collusion between estates agents, a large set of lawyers, land developers and TRNC authorities has been truly criminal. I've got little to no sympathy for the Orams' of this world, but I've met decent ex-pat Brits whose worst crime is stupidity, who have been led a merry dance by estate agents. These are agents who lie and deceive to gullible and naive foreigners. Now, if the RoC authorities, using the full power of EU law, together with TCs and expropriated GCs, got together to pursue the estate agents then that would be a truly beautiful sight to behold.

[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?

Possibly. But practically it is very, very difficult to do. First you've got the old problem of effective jurisdiction (where would such a case be heard ? how would you get the parties into the courtroom ?) Second, you've got to have a string of reliable and robust evidence. One break in the chain and your case falls. And anything which doesn't involve immovable property i.e, real estate, is obviously not subject to trespass. If you are a bus operator ferrying tourists from A to B and, let's say, insodoing you cross unknown to you some GC land through which the road has been built there's really no credible case against you.

I think that if there's any mileage in this strategy at all - it is still a very long shot - it would be against estate agencies in the north. (Here you might even get some cooperation between disgruntled buyers and RoC authorities). In my view the collusion between estates agents, a large set of lawyers, land developers and TRNC authorities has been truly criminal. I've got little to no sympathy for the Orams' of this world, but I've met decent ex-pat Brits whose worst crime is stupidity, who have been led a merry dance by estate agents. These are agents who lie and deceive to gullible and naive foreigners. Now, if the RoC authorities, using the full power of EU law, together with TCs and expropriated GCs, got together to pursue the estate agents then that would be a truly beautiful sight to behold.

Thanks for taking the time to give your opinion mate.

Yes I suspect there were some who were taken in by the spin of exchange land etc. Seduced by the agents and the sun and sea and the appealing life-style, but as you will know better than most of us, ignorance of the law isn't a defence.
As to your last comment, yes that would be nice. You touched upon the shortsightedness of CYs in another very interesting post earlier today. The opportunities are there for co-operation in ways that I think would further isolate the Regime.

[Raymanoff]

I didn't follow this topic at all but given the title of it i could answer straight and simple:

ROC law considers occupied territories still under their jurisdiction... its been like that for more than 30 years... you can bark as loud as you can but... give then fact that the legal points of entry into this island are: Pafos, Larnaca, Limassol... all the rest would consider illegal. A Russian property owner was arrested last year for illegal entry throu Ercan when she tried to pass into free areas, she was lately deported through Larnaca Airport... fun fun... i want to see more cases like that int he future.

[Viewpoint]

I didn't follow this topic at all but given the title of it i could answer straight and simple:

ROC law considers occupied territories still under their jurisdiction... its been like that for more than 30 years... you can bark as loud as you can but... give then fact that the legal points of entry into this island are: Pafos, Larnaca, Limassol... all the rest would consider illegal. A Russian property owner was arrested last year for illegal entry throu Ercan when she tried to pass into free areas, she was lately deported through Larnaca Airport... fun fun... i want to see more cases like that int he future.

Well done and Russian to boot...arrest as many as you can...go ahead I dare you.

[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 ....

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.

Why would the prices come down? More Turkish subsidies to prop up their illegal regime?

[AWE]

What if the list linked to is in correct?

Aziz Kent: I’ll sue for damages over arrest warrant
By Simon Bahceli
(archive article - Thursday, May 12, 2005)

AZIZ Kent, one of the four people in the north to be served with a European arrest warrant by the Cypriot government for allegedly building on Greek Cypriot lands, said yesterday he would fight to clear his name and was considering whether to sue the Cyprus government for damages to his business and reputation.

“Both of my hotels were built on Turkish Cypriot land and I have the title deeds to prove it,” Kent told the Cyprus Mail yesterday, adding: “I’ll sue them for loss of earnings.”
A defiant Kent said also that he would be traveling to the UK on Friday and that if the British authorities were intent on arresting on behalf of the Greek Cypriots, he would fight to prove his innocence there too. Under the EU arrest warrant system, suspects wanted in one EU country can be arrested in any of the nations of the 25 state bloc.
“I’ll take the title deeds and all the documents with me to show them,” Kent said.

Kent, who opened his Celebrity Hotel in 1977, yesterday showed the Cyprus Mail the title deeds of the lands on which his hotel was built, saying he bought in 1971. He also produced a certificate dating from 1973 granting him permission to build the hotel.
Kent was first alerted to the fact that the Cypriot authorities were targeting him when his hotel appeared on a list of Greek Cypriot hotels “under Turkish occupation” published on the internet by the Cyprus embassy in Sweden.

“My agent in Sweden called me and said, ‘your hotel is Greek’. After that I wrote to the foreign minister George Iacovou telling him of the mistake. I also sent a copy of the letter to the EU representative Adriaan van der Meer,” Kent explained.

Kent says that soon after his complaint the internet announcement was amended – albeit falsely.

“This time they said my hotel was 50 per cent Greek Cypriot owned. This is also not true.”

He said the confusion over ownership may have arisen from the fact that he was forced by the Greek Cypriot-run Kyrenia district office to employ a Greek Cypriot manager.
“I was told at the time that the only way I would get a building permit was if I got myself a Greek Cypriot management partner, which is something I arranged to do. But I must underline that my Greek Cypriot friend was not a partner in ownership of the hotel.”
Kent’s words are backed by a letter sent by Lagis Kyriakides Pandeli, the son of his Greek Cypriot manager, to foreign minister George Iavovou. In the letter, Pandeli says: “there was never any question of my father or my family having any interest in the land or buildings of the hotel. It was always very clear that Mr Aziz was the sole owner of the freehold and that my father only had a 12-year lease as a partner in the operation.”
The letter also pours praise and affection on Aziz for the help he gave the Pandeli family during the 1974 war.

“We were among the first to be held as prisoners by the Turkish army in Trimiti, and during this time we were separated from my father. As you know, a lot of men were sent to Turkey to be held as prisoners of war, and some never returned. My father was one of the ones to be sent out there. Mr Aziz constantly pressed the Turkish government for the release of my grandmother, my brothers, sisters and myself. We were among the first to be released after two weeks. Remarkably, after more lobbying on our behalf by Mr Aziz, my father was sent back to the Dome Hotel rather than two Turkey. I shudder to think what might have happened to my father had he not intervened.”

Aziz says he has sent copies of all the hotel’s relevant documents to the foreign ministry in Nicosia in the hope that the government revokes the arrest warrant.

“If they go for people like me, how many people do they think they will find to make a solution with in the future?”

Copyright © Cyprus Mail 2009

I know that list has been updated since the point mentioned above, but also know that at least 1 hotel claimed to be GC owned is in fact British owned and a lawyer has formally written to the RoC to require the list be amended, so far as I know no answer or acknowledgement has been received from the RoC some 3 years later.

Finally, the list is not published by the High Commission in the UK and I wonder if this maybe to do so would make them subject to UK liable law?

[Oracle]

archive article - Thursday, May 12, 2005)

AZIZ Kent, one of the four people in the north to be served with a European arrest warrant by the Cypriot government for allegedly building on Greek Cypriot lands, said yesterday he would fight to clear his name and was considering whether to sue the Cyprus government for damages to his business and reputation.

After four years and no result, I guess he decided he may have got his "deeds" mixed up ...

[YFred]

The problem arises because when it comes to non GC property, the mode of transport used is an old man of a hundred years old on a donkey. Where is the old codger when he is needed. That's why they never get to their destination, cause the old donkey can't swim even if the old codger is a sailor.

[AWE]

archive article - Thursday, May 12, 2005)

AZIZ Kent, one of the four people in the north to be served with a European arrest warrant by the Cypriot government for allegedly building on Greek Cypriot lands, said yesterday he would fight to clear his name and was considering whether to sue the Cyprus government for damages to his business and reputation.

After four years and no result, I guess he decided he may have got his "deeds" mixed up ...

The list linked to now shows the Celebrity Hotel as being TC owned - but look what he had to do to get this changed! I would assume the title deeds in the RoC show that the land in TC owned but either this was not checked before publication or was done deliberately.

[YFred]

archive article - Thursday, May 12, 2005)

AZIZ Kent, one of the four people in the north to be served with a European arrest warrant by the Cypriot government for allegedly building on Greek Cypriot lands, said yesterday he would fight to clear his name and was considering whether to sue the Cyprus government for damages to his business and reputation.

After four years and no result, I guess he decided he may have got his "deeds" mixed up ...

The list linked to now shows the Celebrity Hotel as being TC owned - but look what he had to do to get this changed! I would assume the title deeds in the RoC show that the land in TC owned but either this was not checked before publication or was done deliberately.

There is another explanation. It is just one of many properties that roc has doctored the deeds to make it look like it is GC owned.