Cyprus-Forum.com

[Get Real!]

Does that also mean the TCs that lost their properties in the 1960s can now claim them and compensation without having to wait for a solution, I believe there was a case going to ECHR which covered a few villages which were raised to the ground during the 1960s?

I dont know how far you want to go back but this is just a quick reminder that the British administration had set the record straight when in 1946 they passed the "Immovable Property Law” which returned the great majority of "Vakif" Ottoman-stolen land back to the Greek Cypriots over successive counter-confiscations (over the years).

5.7 The Immovable Property (Tenure, Registration and Valuation) Law

http://www.neocleous.biz/en/download/busop_property.htm

[Viewpoint]

Does that also mean the TCs that lost their properties in the 1960s can now claim them and compensation without having to wait for a solution, I believe there was a case going to ECHR which covered a few villages which were raised to the ground during the 1960s?

I dont know how far you want to go back but this is just a quick reminder that the British administration had set the record straight when in 1946 they passed the "Immovable Property Law” which returned the great majority of "Vakif" Ottoman-stolen land back to the Greek Cypriots over successive counter-confiscations (over the years).

5.7 The Immovable Property (Tenure, Registration and Valuation) Law

http://www.neocleous.biz/en/download/busop_property.htm

This happened suring the 1960s and was taken to the dark sides courts but dismissed until a solution was found, the legal team have now moved to the ECHR, this case covers whole villages burned down by GC terrorists, I think the dark side south is going to have to pay a few pennies more for this case, if 1.5 houses was 500.000 you can work out what whole villages are worth, not gonna be cheap.

[Piratis]

As I have been saying all along, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Really Copper, really? What is sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander? really? Well, let me explain to you what kind of sauce it is then! I, a refugee with huge property in the north, knowing that the value of GC properties being usurped in the occupied north is 6-7 times more than the corresponding one belonging to TCs in the south, have absolutely no problem and no concern if all TC properties in the south are being taken back by their owners! Do you know why? Because: (a) TC properties in the south, besides being considerably less than the GC ones in the north and thus only sufficient for a small proportion of us (GC refugees,) cannot also be used and exploited in any meaningfully productive way, since those few of us that use them, are also considerably limited as to the kind of use we can possibly make out of them, and (b) the more the TC properties in the south are restituted to their TC owners, the better the chances we have to also attain restitution for all of our occupied properties in the north, since the TC leadership's claim that within the concept of bi-zonality there should also be an exchange of properties, gets thrown out of the window by default if there will be no TC properties in the south to be exchanged with GC ones in the north.

If you think that GCs are in any particular difficulty restituting TC properties in the south, to their owners, you are terribly mistaken! We rather allow all TC properties to be taken, because this strengthness our case regarding our properties in the north, and we will certainly not sacrifice an estimated 60-70 billions of euros worth of GC properties in the north, for the sake of holding onto only 10 billions worth of TC properties in the south. Come and take them to the last one, if you so wish, provided you have not exploited, usurped and sold any GC properties in the north, in which case you may also pass through the courts first.

Well said Kifeas.

We can't wait for the day that the TCs will en mass vote with their feet and show that they themselves do not recognize any "exchange" of properties and the illegalities of the occupation force, and that they instead recognize that the Republic of Cyprus is the one and only authority on this island with the power to determine what belongs to whom.

Personally however I don't think many TCs will do this. The only ones who will are those living abroad, like Sofi. Most of those who live in occupied Cyprus wouldn't dare, because they received large amounts of GC properties in 1974 as an "exchange" for their own, way more than the properties they left behind. The day they sue for their own properties in the free areas will be the day they are sued themselves for far greater amounts for the properties they have been illegally occupying since 1974. This is something very easy for the RoC to do, if and when they decide it is needed.

[Viewpoint]

As I have been saying all along, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Really Copper, really? What is sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander? really? Well, let me explain to you what kind of sauce it is then! I, a refugee with huge property in the north, knowing that the value of GC properties being usurped in the occupied north is 6-7 times more than the corresponding one belonging to TCs in the south, have absolutely no problem and no concern if all TC properties in the south are being taken back by their owners! Do you know why? Because: (a) TC properties in the south, besides being considerably less than the GC ones in the north and thus only sufficient for a small proportion of us (GC refugees,) cannot also be used and exploited in any meaningfully productive way, since those few of us that use them, are also considerably limited as to the kind of use we can possibly make out of them, and (b) the more the TC properties in the south are restituted to their TC owners, the better the chances we have to also attain restitution for all of our occupied properties in the north, since the TC leadership's claim that within the concept of bi-zonality there should also be an exchange of properties, gets thrown out of the window by default if there will be no TC properties in the south to be exchanged with GC ones in the north.

If you think that GCs are in any particular difficulty restituting TC properties in the south, to their owners, you are terribly mistaken! We rather allow all TC properties to be taken, because this strengthness our case regarding our properties in the north, and we will certainly not sacrifice an estimated 60-70 billions of euros worth of GC properties in the north, for the sake of holding onto only 10 billions worth of TC properties in the south. Come and take them to the last one, if you so wish, provided you have not exploited, usurped and sold any GC properties in the north, in which case you may also pass through the courts first.

Well said Kifeas.

We can't wait for the day that the TCs will en mass vote with their feet and show that they themselves do not recognize any "exchange" of properties and the illegalities of the occupation force, and that they instead recognize that the Republic of Cyprus is the one and only authority on this island with the power to determine what belongs to whom.

Personally however I don't think many TCs will do this. The only ones who will are those living abroad, like Sofi. Most of those who live in occupied Cyprus wouldn't dare, because they received large amounts of GC properties in 1974 as an "exchange" for their own, way more than the properties they left behind. The day they sue for their own properties in the free areas will be the day they are sued themselves for far greater amounts for the properties they have been illegally occupying since 1974. This is something very easy for the RoC to do, if and when they decide it is needed.

There are many TCs eg my family who have not recieved any land in the north they will now start claiming whats been with held from them by the dark side, there are also TC cases at the ECHR which will need to be settled.

[Malapapa]

There are many TCs eg my family who have not recieved any land in the north they will now start claiming whats been with held from them by the dark side, there are also TC cases at the ECHR which will need to be settled.

Good luck to your family - and to all displaced people seeking to secure justice and their human rights.

[bill cobbett]

Does that also mean the TCs that lost their properties in the 1960s can now claim them and compensation without having to wait for a solution, I believe there was a case going to ECHR which covered a few villages which were raised to the ground during the 1960s?

I dont know how far you want to go back but this is just a quick reminder that the British administration had set the record straight when in 1946 they passed the "Immovable Property Law” which returned the great majority of "Vakif" Ottoman-stolen land back to the Greek Cypriots over successive counter-confiscations (over the years).

5.7 The Immovable Property (Tenure, Registration and Valuation) Law

http://www.neocleous.biz/en/download/busop_property.htm

Here's a two sentence summary of the 1946 Act ...

5.7 The Immovable Property (Tenure, Registration and Valuation) Law

This law was enacted in 1946, replacing the Ottoman Land Law prevailing until then. It is considered to be A to Z of immovable property in Cyprus, dealing with all matters concerning the tenure, registration, disposition and valuation of immovable property, within the framework of the Land Registry system of Cyprus, which comprises all the works and means by which immovable property is technically defined and drawn, legally recognised, secured and financially valued.

That 1946 Act provides the starting position for land ownership in CY. A very, very significant date, not to be underestimated or ignored.

[erolz3]

As yet, I haven’t come across a chamber judgment for this case but you can be sure that it will either make or break the dodgy "IPC"!

The reality is, is that the IPC is the ECHR solution as to how Turkey can meet its obligations a member of the CoE. If the IPC is found to not offer a form of valid local redress by the ECHR, then the ECHR will demand that Turkey change it until it is.

We have already had one 'iteration' of this process. The original formation of the IPC did not allow for any return of land, only agreed exchange or compensation. The ECHR deemed that because of this it did not meet their requirements to be considered a valid local remedy and so the laws governing the IPC were changed so that return could be a possible means of redress. This 'new' version of the IPC has yet to 'judged' by the ECHR as either a vaild local remedy or not but if when it is judge by the ECHR if it is found to not be then the requirment of the ECHR will be its modification so that it is. It may well require several more 'iterations' of this process but ultimately the IPC will be the internationaly recognised means of local redress for GC that have lost land in the North as a result of the events of 74. A version of the IPC that the ECHR can and does agree is a valid local remedy is the ONLY way forward for cases such as these brought before the ECHR and in the absence of a general politcal settlement. The ECHR knows this, Turkey knows this and ultimately the RoC knows this.

[Piratis]

As I have been saying all along, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Really Copper, really? What is sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander? really? Well, let me explain to you what kind of sauce it is then! I, a refugee with huge property in the north, knowing that the value of GC properties being usurped in the occupied north is 6-7 times more than the corresponding one belonging to TCs in the south, have absolutely no problem and no concern if all TC properties in the south are being taken back by their owners! Do you know why? Because: (a) TC properties in the south, besides being considerably less than the GC ones in the north and thus only sufficient for a small proportion of us (GC refugees,) cannot also be used and exploited in any meaningfully productive way, since those few of us that use them, are also considerably limited as to the kind of use we can possibly make out of them, and (b) the more the TC properties in the south are restituted to their TC owners, the better the chances we have to also attain restitution for all of our occupied properties in the north, since the TC leadership's claim that within the concept of bi-zonality there should also be an exchange of properties, gets thrown out of the window by default if there will be no TC properties in the south to be exchanged with GC ones in the north.

If you think that GCs are in any particular difficulty restituting TC properties in the south, to their owners, you are terribly mistaken! We rather allow all TC properties to be taken, because this strengthness our case regarding our properties in the north, and we will certainly not sacrifice an estimated 60-70 billions of euros worth of GC properties in the north, for the sake of holding onto only 10 billions worth of TC properties in the south. Come and take them to the last one, if you so wish, provided you have not exploited, usurped and sold any GC properties in the north, in which case you may also pass through the courts first.

Well said Kifeas.

We can't wait for the day that the TCs will en mass vote with their feet and show that they themselves do not recognize any "exchange" of properties and the illegalities of the occupation force, and that they instead recognize that the Republic of Cyprus is the one and only authority on this island with the power to determine what belongs to whom.

Personally however I don't think many TCs will do this. The only ones who will are those living abroad, like Sofi. Most of those who live in occupied Cyprus wouldn't dare, because they received large amounts of GC properties in 1974 as an "exchange" for their own, way more than the properties they left behind. The day they sue for their own properties in the free areas will be the day they are sued themselves for far greater amounts for the properties they have been illegally occupying since 1974. This is something very easy for the RoC to do, if and when they decide it is needed.

There are many TCs eg my family who have not recieved any land in the north they will now start claiming whats been with held from them by the dark side, there are also TC cases at the ECHR which will need to be settled.

Viewpoint, if anything is withheld from TCs, it is to house refugees whom you kicked out of their own homes in 1974 when you put into action the partition plan you created in the 50s.

It is good that finally, after lying for decades, you now admit that there is no such thing as an "exchange" of properties, and that everybody should be given his own land back. This is what we have been saying all along.

So yes Viewpoint, everybody should be given his own land back, and everybody should be allowed to return to his own home. You have no right whatsoever to create some "Turkish State" in Cyprus by means of ethnic cleansing and land grab. Both those actions are criminal and illegal, and it is good that finally you are starting to realize this fact.

[bill cobbett]

There are many TCs eg my family who have not recieved any land in the north they will now start claiming whats been with held from them by the dark side, there are also TC cases at the ECHR which will need to be settled.

Good luck to your family - and to all displaced people seeking to secure justice and their human rights.

Absolutely, good luck to you and your family VP. The law works equally for all, but do bear in mind, taking this outside the personal, (and as has been said or implied in posts above) that there are several times the number of refugees from the Occupied North who the law will treat just as equally.

You know who would "win" if we see this as a numbers game.

[Malapapa]

As yet, I haven’t come across a chamber judgment for this case but you can be sure that it will either make or break the dodgy "IPC"!

The reality is, is that the IPC is the ECHR solution as to how Turkey can meet its obligations a member of the CoE. If the IPC is found to not offer a form of valid local redress by the ECHR, then the ECHR will demand that Turkey change it until it is.

We have already had one 'iteration' of this process. The original formation of the IPC did not allow for any return of land, only agreed exchange or compensation. The ECHR deemed that because of this it did not meet their requirements to be considered a valid local remedy and so the laws governing the IPC were changed so that return could be a possible means of redress. This 'new' version of the IPC has yet to 'judged' by the ECHR as either a vaild local remedy or not but if when it is judge by the ECHR if it is found to not be then the requirment of the ECHR will be its modification so that it is. It may well require several more 'iterations' of this process but ultimately the IPC will be the internationaly recognised means of local redress for GC that have lost land in the North as a result of the events of 74. A version of the IPC that the ECHR can and does agree is a valid local remedy is the ONLY way forward for cases such as these brought before the ECHR and in the absence of a general politcal settlement. The ECHR knows this, Turkey knows this and ultimately the RoC knows this.

But what if the RoC, recognised as the legitimate authority throughout the island - as recently affirmed by the ECJ and the English High Court - refuses to recognise the validity of the IPC as a valid local remedy? What then?