Cyprus-Forum.com

[wyoming cowboy]

And furthermore any Turkish cypriot lands in the Free areas will be posted with a court ordered lien or memorandum as its called and the Turk cyps who come over for work or whatever will be arrested if they are occcupying a Greek cyps property....

[paliometoxo]

the difference with the tc land in the south is that the turks forced them out so they have no one to blame but turkey did the turks think that the gcs that where forced out of their home in the invasion would live on the streets?

their cases wont hold up in court, and i hope everyone gets their land back gc and tc

[Pyrpolizer]

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.

You are right Copperline. However notice the vast majority of tourists come through Tourist Agents. It is the Tourist Agents they should go after, not the tourists themselves.

Imo there will be an avalanche of developments regarding this issue.

[Hermes]

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.

You are right Copperline. However notice the vast majority of tourists come through Tourist Agents. It is the Tourist Agents they should go after, not the tourists themselves.

Imo there will be an avalanche of developments regarding this issue.

I'm not sure you can dismiss any potential case against tourists so easily. After all, Mr. Candounas claims his latest client has the details of 60 cases of tourists who stayed at the Dome Hotel. “They have their names, addresses, dates, and places where their documents can be served; the full works."

The lawyer said he was “pretty confident” that his clients stood a chance following the positive ruling in the Apostolides case.

Asked whether there was a difference between living and holidaying on Greek Cypriot property, Candounas replied: “The Apostolides case was not about the house built or bought, it was about people occupying the land: trespassing. It would have made no difference if the Orams were renting the place – we mind them being there.”

This case would be tried in the Republic of Cyprus courts wouldn't it? The precedent is for the legal ruling to then be exercised anywhere in Europe. The European courts won't re-try the case, they would merely prosecute the Cyprus' courts decision - as they are now obliged to do.

[B25]

May we borrow the greek leagl team to review this situation and advise how best to deal with it.

Furthermore Copper, I disagree about the part where if the RoC alows the across then it is ok to use the facilities. There are many examples of this rule where it is not by default. ex. you can legally buy a tranceiver, but not allowed to listen to police frequencies. you can legally buy a police radar detector, but not legally allowed to use it.

The RoC could aregue that to protect people it won't allow crossings in case of presecutions and not be in violation of any EU rules.
So I think your reasoning may be somewhat incorrect.

The Roc could insist at the crossing point to see evidence of the accomodation you wish to stay at, any involving GC properties, the tourist could be turned away, of course there could be ways around this, but do you want to sell a holiday package with all the twists and turns and risking the tourist to presecution or being turned away. There are many steps we could take if we wanted to be very difficult.

The whole idea of this court case was one of principle to establish international property rights, they have dome the EU a favour by establishing a presedence. I don't beleiev that they could go after the tourist, but enough bad publicity would have the same affect.

How are you by the way??

[paliometoxo]

so far we have made all the right moves and slowly it is paying off

[Medman]

I farted in the sea off Cyprus in 1978 as a small child. Is anyone out there willing to sue me? I've obviously polluted the sea and must be held to account. Luckily I didn't follow through or I would be in the shit!

[YFred]

I farted in the sea off Cyprus in 1978 as a small child. Is anyone out there willing to sue me? I've obviously polluted the sea and must be held to account. Luckily I didn't follow through or I would be in the shit!

Well that rather depends on whether you are GC or a TC. If you are a TC, if you just breath the air you are libel to be sued, however if you are a GC then you could have followed through and you would be given a medal especially if you did it within TRNC.

[Get Real!]

I farted in the sea off Cyprus in 1978 as a small child. Is anyone out there willing to sue me? I've obviously polluted the sea and must be held to account. Luckily I didn't follow through or I would be in the shit!

Kindly leave your details behind and I'll have a word with Kantounas.

Next idiot please…

[Pyrpolizer]

Imo the RoC government will NOT ALLOW a flood of sueings at the courts. Perhaps they will allow some "selected" cases to have a hearing AFTER APRIL so as to give the current negotiations a last chance. If Eroglu is elected, then the first few strong cases will go ahead. But it will never allow a flood of sueings, otherwise we will have a real problem with our partners in the EU executing our warrants/garnishee orders etc.