Cyprus-Forum.com

[Piratis]

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 already found a better (even from ECHR) and extremely fast way to deal with this issue. It is called Cyprus Courts. And guess what, it doesn't have to be about Human Rights violations only, it can be about any kind of illegality.

So expect those 10 Billions worth of TC properties that Kifeas talked about to gradually come legally to the hands of GCs, not as an "exchange" for our land in the occupied areas, but as fees and penalties the TCs will have to keep paying after found guilty by the courts of Cyprus.

[erolz3]

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?

There is some sense in which the Orams type rulings in RoC courts are heading for a 'conflict' with ECHR rulings and the IPC.

Future cases in the RoC may meet a defense that the IPC is the proper legal instrument for plantiffs seeking return of their land in the North. If this defense is rejected by the RoC courts as is likely it will then open the way for the defendant in such a case to themselves go to the ECHR. The ECHR will then determine if the RoC rejection of such a defenes in Orams type cases is valid or not. If it finds it is a valid defense then the RoC will be required to accept this in future cases.

All this may well take decades to fully play out.

[erolz3]

We already found a better (even from ECHR) and extremely fast way to deal with this issue.It is called Cyprus Courts.

It took Arif Mustafa over 10 years to get return of his land via the RoC courts and he was fought all the way to the supreme court before they ruled in his favour. Even then the Attorney General was threatening to overturn this ruling but back down in the end because he knew it would ultimately lead to a precdent setting ruling in the ECHR if he did so.

The recent case of a TC Lady who eventualy had her claim settled had to first goto the ECHR as her claim in the RoC courts was rejected based on the requirment to have lived in the RoC for 6 months before being able to start the process of claiming her land back. It was only after years of waiting for the ECHR to hear her case and just before it was to be heard at the ECHR that the RoC finally settled, once again to avoid having a precedent setting case made in the ECHR. Even then part of the settlement was a comittment by the RoC government to amend the 6 month requirment law.

The idea that TC can quickly and easily get valid redress for their land in the South via RoC courts is just not true. Slowly over time as each case sets precedents or forces the removal of unjustified blocks currently in place it does slowly get easier and quicker, but many issues still remain and some are pending cases before the ECHR as we speak.

Currently the majority of TC who could make valid claims are still choosing not to do so for various reasons. This too will no doubt change over time.

[Piratis]

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?

There is some sense in which the Orams type rulings in RoC courts are heading for a 'conflict' with ECHR rulings and the IPC.

Future cases in the RoC may meet a defense that the IPC is the proper legal instrument for plantiffs seeking return of their land in the North. If this defense is rejected by the RoC courts as is likely it will then open the way for the defendant in such a case to themselves go to the ECHR. The ECHR will then determine if the RoC rejection of such a defenes in Orams type cases is valid or not. If it finds it is a valid defense then the RoC will be required to accept this in future cases.

All this may well take decades to fully play out.

Erol, the ECHR is in no position to even make such kind of judgment. Lawyers will not even file such a case, let alone hope to win it.

If GCs sue Turkey for human right violations against them, only then they have to go to ECHR (since Cyprus Courts can not convict Turkey), and only then could ECHR refer the GCs to some other local remedy created by Turkey (if such thing exists).

But when GCs sue other individuals for crimes committed in Cyprus then the Cyprus Courts can provide justice just fine, and therefore the GCs will not even need to utilize the ECHR.

What you didn't realize yet is that the whole scene changed. We are not going to waste years and years seeking justice in the ECHR by suing Turkey (we already proved what we wanted with the ECHR), but instead we will now sue the individual TCs and foreigners, in the Cyprus Courts, in procedures that will move extremely fast.

The first move has already been made with the foreigners, and now that there is precedence subsequent cases will move much faster.

The second stage will be to go after the TCs, and if they don't pay the rents and penalties demanded by the courts, then their properties in the free areas of Cyprus will be used for this purpose.

[Piratis]

We already found a better (even from ECHR) and extremely fast way to deal with this issue.It is called Cyprus Courts.

It took Arif Mustafa over 10 years to get return of his land via the RoC courts and he was fought all the way to the supreme court before they ruled in his favour. Even then the Attorney General was threatening to overturn this ruling but back down in the end because he knew it would ultimately lead to a precdent setting ruling in the ECHR if he did so.

The recent case of a TC Lady who eventualy had her claim settled had to first goto the ECHR as her claim in the RoC courts was rejected based on the requirment to have lived in the RoC for 6 months before being able to start the process of claiming her land back. It was only after years of waiting for the ECHR to hear her case and just before it was to be heard at the ECHR that the RoC finally settled, once again to avoid having a precedent setting case made in the ECHR. Even then part of the settlement was a comittment by the RoC government to amend the 6 month requirment law.

The idea that TC can quickly and easily get valid redress for their land in the South via RoC courts is just not true. Slowly over time as each case sets precedents or forces the removal of unjustified blocks currently in place it does slowly get easier and quicker, but many issues still remain and some are pending cases before the ECHR as we speak.

Currently the majority of TC who could make valid claims are still choosing not to do so for various reasons. This too will no doubt change over time.

The "various reasons" is that most of them were given much more land in the occupied areas than what they left behind. They know that if they sue to get their own land back, they will imminently be sued themselves for far greater amounts. (those that were not given any "exchange" land , should come and take their own land back. They have my full support for this). The second reason is that Turkey doesn't want the TCs to do so, because that would be the TCs admitting that there is no such thing as an "exchange" property.

What is important here is that in cases between individuals the ECHR is not even needed. It is needed if GCs want to sue Turkey, and it is needed if some TC wants to sue the RoC, but when it comes to cases between individuals the Cyprus courts can deal with it. And these is the kind of cases we will see more and more in the future.

[Malapapa]

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?

There is some sense in which the Orams type rulings in RoC courts are heading for a 'conflict' with ECHR rulings and the IPC.

The Orams case was about trespass and against individuals, not the denial of human rights by Turkey.

Future cases in the RoC may meet a defense that the IPC is the proper legal instrument for plantiffs seeking return of their land in the North.

Not unless the RoC, which is recognised as having jurisdiction over the whole island, approves the IPC, as a proper local legal instrument, which of course it won't.

[bill cobbett]

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?

There is some sense in which the Orams type rulings in RoC courts are heading for a 'conflict' with ECHR rulings and the IPC.

Future cases in the RoC may meet a defense that the IPC is the proper legal instrument for plantiffs seeking return of their land in the North. If this defense is rejected by the RoC courts as is likely it will then open the way for the defendant in such a case to themselves go to the ECHR. The ECHR will then determine if the RoC rejection of such a defenes in Orams type cases is valid or not. If it finds it is a valid defense then the RoC will be required to accept this in future cases.

All this may well take decades to fully play out.

Don't think we should see the ECHR and Orams routes as being in "conflict". To my mind there are now two routes open to aggrieved plaintifs, routes which complement each other.

The ECHR proceedings are against the Occupying Power, Turkey; whereas Orams type actions are against EU individuals (and perhaps in time EU businesses), ones who have been involved in illegal activity in CY and who have vulnerable assets in other EU countries and which can come under the "free movement of judgments", of the CY Courts, in other member states. Which of the two routes is chosen, either against Turkey or named individuals, will depend on the circumstances of the case.

For sure the Orams route is gonna be much quicker than the ten years (on average) that it takes for the ECHR to come to a decision.

[Piratis]

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?

There is some sense in which the Orams type rulings in RoC courts are heading for a 'conflict' with ECHR rulings and the IPC.

Future cases in the RoC may meet a defense that the IPC is the proper legal instrument for plantiffs seeking return of their land in the North. If this defense is rejected by the RoC courts as is likely it will then open the way for the defendant in such a case to themselves go to the ECHR. The ECHR will then determine if the RoC rejection of such a defenes in Orams type cases is valid or not. If it finds it is a valid defense then the RoC will be required to accept this in future cases.

All this may well take decades to fully play out.

Don't think we should see the ECHR and Orams routes as being in "conflict". To my mind there are now two routes open to aggrieved plaintifs, routes which complement each other.

The ECHR proceedings are against the Occupying Power, Turkey; whereas Orams type actions are against EU individuals (and perhaps in time EU businesses), ones who have been involved in illegal activity in CY and who have vulnerable assets in other EU countries and which can come under the "free movement of judgments", of the CY Courts, in other member states. Which of the two routes is chosen, either against Turkey or named individuals, will depend on the circumstances of the case.

For sure the Orams route is gonna be much quicker than the ten years (on average) that it takes for the ECHR to come to a decision.

Bill, the Orams case is a precedent not just for foreigners but for TCs as well. The TCs apart from possible assets in other EU countries may also have assets in the free areas of Cyprus. In fact it is much easier going after a TC than going after a foreigner (although the ECJ ruling made the prosecution of EU citizens quite easy as well)

The government doesn't want cases against TCs just yet because they are trying to show as much goodwill to TCs as possible, but I think that if there is no solution soon this goodwill will run out sooner or later.

Another thing that can force the government to go after TCs is if a lot of TCs in the occupied areas who received and exploited GC properties start coming to the free areas demanding their own properties back. If such cases are few then the RoC might not respond, due to the goodwill reasons I talked about above. But if such cases become more, then you should be sure that RoC will not allow such "double dipping" and such a TC coming to demand his own property back will be sued himself the next day for far greater amounts.

[erolz3]

What places the Orams ruling in a degree of conflict with ECHR and IPC is that the RoC judgment ordered the Orams to return the property. It seems to me that a defendant in such a case could argue that not only is it not within their power to carry out such an order of the court, that such an order against them to do the impossible is an infringment of their rights given that there is in place a legal valid local remedy by which the plantif can get said return. Then again I am no lawyer and all this is speculation.

If the objective is to inflict as much damage as possible then picking and choosing between these different routes for redress is indeed the optium strategy though I am sill of the opinion that ultimately, one way or another these two seperate routes will collide.

If however the objective is actual return of property then the ECHR / IPC currently remains the only potential route of achieving that.

[Piratis]

What places the Orams ruling in a degree of conflict with ECHR and IPC is that the RoC judgment ordered the Orams to return the property. It seems to me that a defendant in such a case could argue that not only is it not within their power to carry out such an order of the court, that such an order against them to do the impossible is an infringment of their rights given that there is in place a legal valid local remedy by which the plantif can get said return. Then again I am no lawyer and all this is speculation.

If the objective is to inflict as much damage as possible then picking and choosing between these different routes for redress is indeed the optium strategy though I am sill of the opinion that ultimately, one way or another these two seperate routes will collide.

If however the objective is actual return of property then the ECHR / IPC currently remains the only potential route of achieving that.

The only way for the properties to be returned is the kind of correct solution that will allow this to happen.

The "IPC" was created by Turkey in an effort to buy time, and we both know this.

Until a good solution is found the Cyprus courts will offer to our refugees what will in effect be a good "rent" for their properties in the occupied areas.