from someone who knows what they are talking about, thanks classy!
Unforceable Judgement
UNENFORCEABLE JUDGMENT
Rauf R. Denktaş
Courts of Law are very careful in not giving out judgments which they know cannot or will not legally be enforced.
That is why the British Court in the Dome Hotel case (Hesperides Hotels & Aegeam Travel/ Müftüzade decided not to intervene, saying that the property in question is out of their jurisdiction and that furthermore “talks were going on and they would not intervene lest they adversely affected their outcome”.
Mr. Apostolides brought a similar case before the British Courts demanding “as a registered owner of a piece of land in Lapithos” that the land be returned to him in its original condition, thus asking David and Linda Orams , the bona fide buyers of this piece of land in open market, to demolish the beautiful residence they had built upon it, and to pay compensation for its use etc.
Orams also had their title deed for the land from TRNC Government.
The British Court decided as per the Dome Hotel case that there was no case to answer and rejected Apostolides’ demand.
Apostolides had the right to apply to the Land Compensation Tribunal for full compensation or even take the matter to the European Human Rights Court as other Greek Cypriots had done, but that was not the aim.
This time the Greek Cypriot Administration had managed to become an EU member, under false pretences that it was the legitimate Government of the whole island, in spite of its criminal record from 1963 to 1974, its attempted genocide and public declaration that the constitution of the land was dead and buried.
Full use would now be made of this membership in order to achieve, via the EU organs, what they had failed to achieve through murder, terrorism and mass graves.
So, an appeal was filed to the Court of Appeal and in the course of the hearing of the case, a resort was made to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) by putting to it questions regarding the jurisdiction of the Cypriot Courts-whether their decisions on land situated in the TRNC could be executed in EU countries in spite of the fact that neither the so-called Government of Cyprus, nor EU’s aquis applied in the so-called “occupied area”.
The report on this matter, which became the accepted view of the Court of Appeal, was prepared by the Greek ECJ President who had been the guests of the Greek Cypriot part several times, even during the time he was preparing his report, and was decorated by the so-called President of Cyprus Mr. Hristofias for his services to the country.
In a normal court case, such a president would certainly excuse himself from writing a report on the ground that “justice would not be seen to have been done”. But not in this Greek national case! And the British Court of Appeal would hear nothing of bias by the President in this case.
So, while reading the judgment I felt as if I was listening to one of the Greek Cypriot leaders during the decades-old talks I had with them. The Court of Appeal, unknowingly had based all his reasoning on a Greek report and not on an independent experts’/advisers’ report.
That is why 1963-74 period is slipped over and “the show” starts with “the invasion by Turkey in 1974”. Nothing is mentioned of the Exchange of Population Agreement of 1975; and the fact that “the Courts of Cyprus” are not the Courts of Law of Cyprus as provided under the 1960 Constitution.
The Court of Appeal is not aware that a Greek Cypriot elected Government cannot in law and in fact be the government of Turkish Cypriots, who have the right to elect their own representatives; that treating a Greek Cypriot elected administration as the Government of all is an untenable, unjust treatment and imposing such a Government and its unconstitutional courts on Turkish Cypriots an unacceptable, willful injustice amounting to mental and physical torture.
Inevitably Apostolides won his case. And immediately the President and Prime Minister of TRNC declared that they would not allow the building in question to be demolished and that they would take over the property in question under the Law of Compulsory Acquisition, thus entitling Apostolides only to compensation for his plot of land as in the realities of Cyprus return of uninhabited lands can be implemented.
If the Court’s order to demolish the property in question is put into effect the North will be full of ruins and people left homeless in their thousands.
The Judgments of the Courts should not be made tools in the hands of politicians.
Thus, the attempt by the Greek Cypriot side to bring TRNC under its laws through the use of EU membership has not achieved its political purpose and will certainly make Turkish Cypriot side lose more confidence in the EU and in British Justice. Because, this result could have been prevented by the British Government had it reported to the Court that an adverse court decision would be against British public interest, since Britain was backing the ongoing talks and an adverse decision would most probably destroy all chances of a settlement.
The British Government failed to say so. It was reported in one of the Turkish Cypriot dailies that President Talat had assured some British Authority, prior to the Court’s decision, that even if the judgment went against Oramses (thus against everything that TRNC means) he would not quit the negotiations.
If this is true then Mr. Talat should really asses his situation vis-à-vis his oath of office and his duties to his people and decide whether he really wishes to stand for re-election? I hope the dailies’ report is not correct.
Foreign residents of TRNC have, no doubt, great anxiety over the Orams judgement. They should wait and see what happens to the execution of this untenable judgment.
It is clear that the Cyprus problem cannot be settled without resolving the thorny problem of properties. The Greek Cypriot side must decide whether they will try to settle this problem through the courts-and wait for years before getting any satisfaction, well knowing that getting back to their properties by evicting the present occupants is out of question, or whether they will agree, as provided in the Boutros Boutros-Ghali “Set of Ideas”, to settle the problem globally by exchange, compensation and limited return of unoccupied pieces of land now.
In assessing compensation, the Loizoudu criteria (Loizoudu & Turkey) may be used as a precedent, in which case the Greek Cypriot side should pay up compensation for the use of the Turkish Cypriot properties in 103 villages, left in the south since 1963. Not forgetting compensation due to the families of civilians put into mass graves, and the missing persons whose remains are now being recovered from dry wells. Greece is surely accountable for all that was done to Cyprus and Turkish Cypriots since 1963 and certainly for forcing Turkey to intervene by staging a coup against coupist Makarios.
All these issues should then be brought up at the talks or at the Courts, so that Greek Cypriot tactics for getting hold of Cyprus as “the legitimate Government” are brought to an end and the problem is settled on the basis of two sovereign people who have separate rights of self-determination - in other words a partnership between two sovereign states, as reality dictates.
The Orams case is proof enough that there is no way of settling this problem through the courts. The TRNC and all that it stands for (including its title deeds) are realities which foreign judgments cannot nullify.
The attempt to punish people who have brought properties in good faith should be foreign to the rule that where there is a hurt, there is a remedy”.
In Orams case, the hurt of Mr. Apostolides can be remedied by compensation; destroying a house, and punishing a bona fide purchaser is not the way to a fair solution nor is it equity.
Imposing illegal Greek Cypriot Court’s decision on TRNC is tantamount to cruelty and not justice.
