Cyprus-Forum.com

[Malapapa]

Malapapa are they serious? only 2 have legal backgrounds. What does the Civil Engineer do? give a report on foundations and sewerage services. Romans Mapolar is a Turkish Cypriot who lived in Australia. This is a trap. They are not even judges! They're Members so they cannot make embarrassing formal judgements against Turkey. Tribunals, Commissions and Quasi judicial forums are used to circumvent legal issues and to railroad parties into horse trades. Unless Restitution is granted in significant numbers then the IPC is a simply a trap.

Of course it's a trap...

[erolz3]

Malapapa are they serious? only 2 have legal backgrounds. What does the Civil Engineer do? give a report on foundations and sewerage services. Romans Mapolar is a Turkish Cypriot who lived in Australia. This is a trap. They are not even judges! They're Members so they cannot make embarrassing formal judgements against Turkey. Tribunals, Commissions and Quasi judicial forums are used to circumvent legal issues and to railroad parties into horse trades. Unless Restitution is granted in significant numbers then the IPC is a simply a trap.

Of course it's a trap...

lol

If it is a trap then its one mandated by the ECHR, validated by the ECHR and overseen by the ECHR.

It sounds like you would prefer a costly complicated judical process through courts that produced binding rulings rather than the IPC ? Amazing.

[Malapapa]

It looks like TRNC is two steps ahead of roc.

Really? So how do you explain this from the ECHR statement:

“TRNC” ... was declared legally invalid by the United Nations, and the Council of Europe decided that the government of the Republic of Cyprus would continue to be regarded as the sole legitimate government of the country.

[Malapapa]

Malapapa are they serious? only 2 have legal backgrounds. What does the Civil Engineer do? give a report on foundations and sewerage services. Romans Mapolar is a Turkish Cypriot who lived in Australia. This is a trap. They are not even judges! They're Members so they cannot make embarrassing formal judgements against Turkey. Tribunals, Commissions and Quasi judicial forums are used to circumvent legal issues and to railroad parties into horse trades. Unless Restitution is granted in significant numbers then the IPC is a simply a trap.

Of course it's a trap...

lol

If it is a trap then its one mandated by the ECHR, validated by the ECHR and overseen by the ECHR.

And? Do you believe the IPC is acting in the interests of Cyprus, and all Cypriots, or representing Turkey and its interests when it comes to its conclusions?

It sounds like you would prefer a costly complicated judical process through courts that produced binding rulings rather than the IPC ? Amazing.

It sounds like you would prefer decisions pertaining to property in Cyprus to be made by those acting in the interests of the foreign occupier, rather than by those acting in the interests of the island's people as a whole.

[erolz3]

It looks like TRNC is two steps ahead of roc.

Really? So how do you explain this from the ECHR statement:

“TRNC” ... was declared legally invalid by the United Nations, and the Council of Europe decided that the government of the Republic of Cyprus would continue to be regarded as the sole legitimate government of the country.

We have lived with the injustice of an all GC run RoC being recognised by the rest of the world as legitimate since 1964 and have lived with the TRNC being non recognised since 1984. Having these realites repeated in 2010 byt the ECHR means nothing new to us or you.

Having the ECHR explicilty say that resitution in every case where that is what the pre 74 owner wants is NOT the only possible legal and just redress for thier loss IS new.

[erolz3]

And? Do you believe if the IPC is acting in the interests of Cyprus, and all Cypriots, rather representing Turkey and its interests when it comes to its conclusions?

The IPC purpose and funstion is to offer fair legal and just redress to those GC that lost land as a result of the events of 74. THis is what it is doing and as such this function is to the benefit of those cypriots who can now get redress and to cyprus as a whole.

If only the RoC would offer reciprical redress via a similar mechanism to those TC for whom it has been and continues to deny fair legal and just redress to for their loss of property as a result of the events of 74. If the RoC were to do this I would not care who ran the mechanism as long as it was fari leagal and just and a body like the ECHR enusred it was. You couldf appoint Greek generals or martians to adminster it for all I would care.

It sounds like you would prefer decisions pertaining to property in Cyprus to be made by those acting in the interests of the foreign occupier, rather than by those acting in the interests of the island's people as a whole.

I do not care who adminsters the mechasim by which cypriots can seek and gain fair legal and just redress for their loss of property after 74, just that such a mechaism exists and is fair and just and legal according to an independant body like the ECHR. I do care that currently TC are denied such by the RoC and it will take more time before it is forced to rectify this.

[Piratis]

You claimed that the "IPC" and the ECHR will have the same opinion of what can be returned and what can not. This is certainly a baseless claim. The ECHR has convicted Turkey 1000s of times, and most of those cases involved Turkish citizens who did not receive justice in Turkish courts.

The ECHR has validated the IPC in terms of its terms of operation and its practice to date. The ECHR will of course maintain a role to look at accusations that it is no longer abiding by these terms but as things stand currently the ECHR considers the IPC view as compatible with its own.

The ECHR has explicitly stated that return of property in every case where such is desired is NOT the basis on which the IPC needs to work.

The reason most people will not use that "IPC" is that "if possible" point regarding the return of properties. We have a very different view of what is possible and what is not when it comes to the return of properties, and we will not let you make this decision unilaterally, although this is clearly your aim.

It is NOT the TC that have made or will make these decision unilateraly but the ECHR. You may have a very different view to that of the ECHR but you just can not 'defeat' the ECHR on such matters.

Don't say rubbish Erol. The ECHR didn't say whose property can be returned and whose can not. The ECHR simply recognized the "IPC" as another Turkish court, and in no case the ECHR said that it will agree with whatever decisions this court takes.

The Apostolides case was a test case as the Titina Loizidou case was for the ECHR. Now there is a precedence a lot more will follow, especially now that perusing the ECHR route became more difficult. (the government will help to move things in this direction also)

Indeed time will tell which 'route' becomes the most popular for GC. The idea that the ECHR has become more difficult is just not the case. The IPC is now the quickest and cheapest and also non binding mechanism for GC to seek redress for thei loss of property. Its decisions are those that the ECHR would itself make and it you believe otherwise you have the right to appeal ot the ECHR on that basis.

No, its decisions are not "those that the ECHR would itself make". The "IPC" is just another Turkish court, like those courts whose decisions have been overruled 1000s of times by the ECHR. This is why we will have to apply to the ECHR anyways. Therefore receiving justice trough the ECHR will take much longer since we will first have to waste our time with this "IPC", which is why the ECHR route became more difficult, and which is why litigation for trespass thought the courts of Cyprus is now the best route. This route can be much faster, it will have no cost for our refugee, and offer what will in effect be compensation for loss of use without our refugee having to give up his property.

[erolz3]

Don't say rubbish Erol. The ECHR didn't say whose property can be returned and whose can not. The ECHR simply recognized the "IPC" as another Turkish court, and in no case the ECHR said that it will agree with whatever decisions this court takes.

The ECHR has accepted that the terms under which the IPC operates are a valid and just. It has said that offering compensation rather than return of property, even when the owner wants only return, is a valid and just means of redress when return would result in the creating of a new disproportionate hardship to a third party. These are the terms that IPC operates under and have been validated as fair and just redress by the ECHR. As long as the IPC continues to settle cases after this ECHR determination is the same valid and just manner it has before it there will be no recourse ot the ECHR that can sucseed.

No, its decisions are not "those that the ECHR would itself make".

If the settlements made by the IPC before this ECHR determination were not in line with what the ECHR would have awarded itself, the ECHR would not have ruled it to be an effective local remedy. They were and it ruled it is. If this situation changes after the ECHR rulings then the ECHR will become involved again until the situation is rectified. If the IPC continues to settle cases on a basis that is in line with what the ECHR would istself rule then there can be no effective further recourse to the ECHR

The "IPC" is just another Turkish court, like those courts whose decisions have been overruled 1000s of times by the ECHR. This is why we will have to apply to the ECHR anyways.

The IPC is not a court. Yes Turkey has many rulings against it from the ECHR. Then again Cyprus has rulings against it and if you take the number of rulings against the state as a % relative to population size then the amount against the RoC is not that different to those against Turkey - but all of this is a red herring anyway.

Either the IPC continues to behave as the ECHR would, in which case there is no need or point in recourse to the ECHR, or it does not and the ECHR forces to do so as a result of a sucsessful challenge.

[Malapapa]

And? Do you believe if the IPC is acting in the interests of Cyprus, and all Cypriots, rather representing Turkey and its interests when it comes to its conclusions?

The IPC purpose and funstion is to offer fair legal and just redress to those GC that lost land as a result of the events of 74. THis is what it is doing and as such this function is to the benefit of those cypriots who can now get redress and to cyprus as a whole.

Are you their representative? I know what its purpose and function is supposed to be but that's not what I asked. I'll ask again. Do you believe judgements will be made in the interests of Cyprus and its citizens (including, ultimately, TCs who also have property claims in the south) or Turkey and its interests; esp. where human rights interests of say settlers can be shown to conflict with those of legitimate Cypriot citizens? Or where Turkey deems there is a security issue, pertaining to its army parked in the north?

If only the RoC would offer reciprical redress via a similar mechanism to those TC for whom it has been and continues to deny fair legal and just redress to for their loss of property as a result of the events of 74. If the RoC were to do this I would not care who ran the mechanism as long as it was fari leagal and just and a body like the ECHR enusred it was. You couldf appoint Greek generals or martians to adminster it for all I would care.

That's what I've been advocating; an island wide IPC overseen by Cypriots for Cypriots, funded in the main by Turkey, the two other so-called guarantors and other international bodies interested in a resolution to the property issue in Cyprus.

[Sotos]

The only authority which can make any land transaction official in Cyprus is the Land Registry of the Republic of Cyprus. If Republic of Cyprus does not recognize those transactions then they are null and void.