erolz3 wrote:Kikapu wrote:The IPC cannot force the GCs to accept compensation ONLY and neither is the ECHR. If then their land is not returned as demanded, then they can once again
a) flood the ECHR courts for the return of their land from Turkey
As long as the reasons why the IPC is unable to offer return are 'justifed' in terms the ECHR accepts, namely that doing so would cause a new disporportionate harm, then there will be no recourse at the ECHR. It will be a case of take compensation (either monetary or alternate property) now or later.
And who is going to be the judge and jury as to who decides what is justified and what is not in not returning the property back. Surely it's not going to be the IPC or the courts in the north. It will be at the door steps of the ECHR. If they should deem that it is justified that the property cannot be returned, then at that point, the GC will decide to accept it or not. He will not be forced to accept compensation, in which case, he will wait for the final solution to get his property back either through the settlement or through the courts in the new BBF government. Even if he is unsuccessful in getting his property back after a settlement, at least he would have seen the value of his property rise to a point where he may accept compensation. Who is going to pay the compensation at that times value to the GC, the north state or the person occupying it.? You may find that neither will be able to afford to pay off the GC, in which case he may get his property back through default.
erolz3 wrote:Kikapu wrote:b) go through the RoC courts to claim compensation from present users of their land in the north,
Yes they can persue users through RoC courts. However any award for loss of use against the user will I believe and rightly so remove the opportuinty for claiming such against Turkey/TRNC. So as far as compensation for loss of use goes you can choose. Current user or Turkey.
Who cares. If he can get restitution from the current user through the RoC courts at premium awards levied against the property of the users property in the south, why not do it. It will be much faster and easier, and he continues to maintain the rights for his property in the north to be acquired at another time. In the meantime, he gets money into his pocket all a while the TC will lose part or all of his land in the south to pay off claims brought on by the GC whose land is used in the north. When all else fails, the GCs will have the Orams judgement to fall back onto.
erolz3 wrote:Kikapu wrote:You will find, that this decision by the ECHR will make the GCs less compassionate about not using the Orams ruling on the TCs as they may once thought to only use it against the foreigners, .....
You are joking right ? The idea that what determins currently if a GC with land in the north seeks to go down the 'Orams' route is compassion for TC ? If you think I believe that for one minute you must think I am a fool or be one.
So far you have not seen a big rush to go after the TCs, other than perhaps going after the corporations run by the TCs/Turks, but not on individual themselves, but this will all change on a dime if they now believe that the IPC will only offer them compensation on their property at much less value than what it will be once a settlement is found. They will care less at that point where the money will come from in the short term and go after the TCs and their properties in the south, all awhile keeping the ownership of their properties in the north to be resolved at another time. The question is, what will the TCs will be left with after a settlement if some, most or all of their properties in the south have been paid as judgement/penalty for using the Gcs properties in the north.? Would they end up losing their properties in the south and eventually lose the GCs properties they have been using in the north as well.?? Maybe.!!
erolz3 wrote:You are free to use the 'Orams' route should you wish to against any user that has EU assets, TC or otherwise. If someone does or not is not down to compassion, its down to how much of any award they might eventualy get will be left for them after they pay the laywers, vs what they give up in terms of compensation via the other route, the IPC.
I think you will find many will only resort to taking the TCs to the "cleaners" as a last resort by the GCs. If there is a chance for a lasting peace, than I can't see it happening, but if not and the constant "last chance for peace" claims by made the north at every opportunity, then at some point, the GC may take the TCs to the "cleaners" through the RoC courts. Just like in the Orams case, the losing part can be made to pay off most of the legal fees by the losing party, in which case, more value would be lost from the TCs properties in the south at much faster rate. The RoC can tailor the law as it wants that would benefit the plaintiff, in which case it will be the GCs. Of course, the Tcs can also take the same route against the GCs using their properties in the south, but they will not be able to sell off any GCs properties in the north to compensate themselves if any judgement are given to them by the courts in the RoC. The best bet would be to go through the ECHR to seek restitution, but the ECHR may now tell the TCs to first go and seek the RoC courts as their first remedy too, which is what the case is anyway now, is it not.?
erolz3 wrote:Personaly I welcome aggressive maximal use of the 'orams' route by GC indivduals and the RoC government itself to seek not just fair redress but vindictive attack on the enconomic sustainablilty of the TC community living in the north. That it has not happend to date is nothing to do with GC compassion and everything to do with the self interest of those concerned that choose to either do this or not.
According to the ECHR, it is not the TCs and the "trnc" that any and all "vindictive attacks" by the GCs will be against their economy in the north, but it will be against the occupying power, Turkey. The ECHR made it very clear, that the "trnc" does not exists and only the occupying power does, therefore, any and all "vindictive attacks" by the GCs to the North's economy that does not exists anyway, will be directed at Turkey and no one else. Turkey as an occupying power bares ALL responsibility for the welfare of the land and it's people it occupies, therefore the TCs and all those living in the north are at the mercy of Turkey's goodwill to provide for them all in the north, no matter whether the GCs will or will not take any "vindictive attacks" on the economy of the north.
