Cyprus-Forum.com

[erolz3]

The rights of no human will be refused. Such transactions can not be approved by the Land Registry so if Turkey gives money to our refugee those money will count only as compensation for the loss of use of the property of our refugee and the refugee will still keep his property. So whose human rights are violated? Nobodies. So how can the ECHR deal with something that does not involve Human Rights violation?

A GC goes to the IPC. He agrees a sum in cash for denial of use of his property and he agrees and exchange of property for the property itself, with him forgoing his property in the North and takin instead some in the South.

The RoC land registry refuses to recognise his ownership of this property in the south, insisting instead it is sitll owned by the person on the deeds in 74, even though that person gave their permission for it to be used in exchange and the GC is happy to forgoe their North property in favour of the south one.

In a case like this the RoC would be denying the rights of the 74 owner to do as he wised with his own property and the GC to do as he wised with his.

It really is very simple. Yes you can deny these people theiur rights by refusing to 'recognise' these voluntary trnasaction by the people who own the property, but if you do so it will only end up in one place - the ECHR and you will loose and have to pay them compensation for denying them their rights.

[Sotos]

Erol you don't know what the hell you are talking about. There are rules and laws of what you can sell, to whom you can sell, how much you can sell and what procedure you have to follow in order to make the sale. This is the case in all real countries like Cyprus. Maybe you don't know this because you live in some pseudo state. So I don't blame you.

[Get Real!]

The RoC can not place unfair requirments on TC that seek to gain their own land, even though these requirments are within RoC law.

You're getting funnier by the post...

You are quite happy when Turkey places restrictions for the last 35 years on Greek Cypriot refugees accessing their property, but not so the other way round?

You know this latest ECHR decision may well end up teaching “Turkish Cypriots“ the greatest lesson they’ve ever had!

It's most definitely you who is getting funnier. Wake up and smell the (Turkish) coffee.

The only coffee I can smell is that of the glorious RoC!

How accessible have TC properties in the South been for the last 35 years?

They've been living here throughout this period so you tell me!

And what is this great lesson the TC's will be taught?

That's for you to contemplate because we like a bit of mystery on this forum...

[Kikapu]

One thing the RoC can do if they wish to do so, is to buy the GCs land in the north directly from the GCs who may want to sell it to Turkey with the IPC. If the IPC is offering today's depressed land prices in the north to the GCs, then the RoC can offer them 10% premium of the IPC's offer and buy the land themselves. The only reason the GCs would go to the IPC is either to get their land back or to get money from Turkey for not being able to use their land. As for selling it, why not sell it to the RoC or to any other GC in the RoC. I would think a move like this would put the IPC out of business in a hurry.

The other thing the GCs may start doing, is to lodge a complaint with the ECHR, that if the IPC is only offering them compensation because their property cannot be returned, then why won't they be able to buy another property in the north, just because the "trnc" won't allow it, but wait a minute, didn't the ECHR just stated that the "trnc" does not exists and that the whole territory is in fact part of the RoC, in which case, a GCs Human Rights are violated by being denied to buy property in the north upon selling their own. Something like this will make the ECHR look at it's own policy regarding the operation of the IPC I would imagine.

Also, since the "trnc" does not exists according to the ECHR and that the whole island is the RoC, surely, all the land that Turkey buys from the GCs, untill such purchases are recorded at the Land Registry Office (LRO) in the RoC, then no such transaction has taken place as far as they are concern, despite the GC getting compensation for his land, since as far as the LRO is concern, no sale has taken place. It may turn out in the end, that the GCs know this and are happy to "sell" their land in the north and take the money and run knowing full well that they still own the land that they have just sold off since Turkey is never going to register such purchases with the RoC's LRO.!! I can't see the RoC going after these GCs who "sold" off their land to Turkey, since no such sale is recorded at the LRO, therefore, as far as they are concerned, the GC still owns his land in the north that he had just "sold" off.!

It's another case of the Jewish Hooker saying to herself, "You have it, you sell it, you still have it. Oh, what a business.".!

[Get Real!]

A GC goes to the IPC. He agrees a sum in cash for denial of use of his property and he agrees and exchange of property for the property itself, with him forgoing his property in the North and takin instead some in the South.

And why should this GC go to the Turkish “IPC” to facilitate Turkey’s partition?

[erolz3]

Erol you don't know what the hell you are talking about. There are rules and laws of what you can sell, to whom you can sell, how much you can sell and what procedure you have to follow in order to make the sale. This is the case in all real countries like Cyprus. Maybe you don't know this because you live in some pseudo state. So I don't blame you.

Yes there are rules and regulations for registering a sale. However these can not be used to stop people from doing what they wish with their property for some political agenda. To use them in that way would be to use them to deny indivduals rights to do with their property as they wish.

As for your jibes about not knowing about rules and regulations for registering and buying and selling property, I was born in the UK and lived there for 35+ years. I know very well how a real country handles property sales and I know how the RoC handles them, with the 100,000s of properties sold without deeds being issued yet to people 10s of years after the sale. I know of the people in the legitimate RoC who bought property only to find it mortgaged by the developer and builder. I would not get on your high horse about how 'real countires' handle property sales because the RoC mess is nothing to be shouting about and thats before yopu even look at disputed property as a result of 74.

[Get Real!]

Are these “Turkish Cypriots” now suggesting we embark of carpetbagging???

[erolz3]

A GC goes to the IPC. He agrees a sum in cash for denial of use of his property and he agrees and exchange of property for the property itself, with him forgoing his property in the North and takin instead some in the South.

And why should this GC go to the Turkish “IPC” to facilitate Turkey’s partition?

It has already happend. This is a real example. The plain and simple truth is if the RoC were to stop this perosn enjoying their use of the property in the south that the IPC awarded them (and that includes selling it) then they will simply end up in front of the ECHR and loose.

[Sotos]

The rights of no human will be refused. Such transactions can not be approved by the Land Registry so if Turkey gives money to our refugee those money will count only as compensation for the loss of use of the property of our refugee and the refugee will still keep his property. So whose human rights are violated? Nobodies. So how can the ECHR deal with something that does not involve Human Rights violation?

A GC goes to the IPC. He agrees a sum in cash for denial of use of his property and he agrees and exchange of property for the property itself, with him forgoing his property in the North and takin instead some in the South.

The RoC land registry refuses to recognise his ownership of this property in the south, insisting instead it is sitll owned by the person on the deeds in 74, even though that person gave their permission for it to be used in exchange and the GC is happy to forgoe their North property in favour of the south one.

In a case like this the RoC would be denying the rights of the 74 owner to do as he wised with his own property and the GC to do as he wised with his.

It really is very simple. Yes you can deny these people theiur rights by refusing to 'recognise' these voluntary trnasaction by the people who own the property, but if you do so it will only end up in one place - the ECHR and you will loose and have to pay them compensation for denying them their rights.

The IPC doesn't own any properties so it can not give what it does not own!! If the people who own properties want to exchange them between them then they can go to the land registry and follow the legal procedures pay their taxes etc. Also such transaction should be made voluntarily by both parties. If one party illegally occupies the property of another and it does not allow him to freely use it then such transaction will be considered as being the result of illegal actions and therefore not approved. Probably the TC will be put in jail at that point and charged with trespassing.

[Get Real!]

A GC goes to the IPC. He agrees a sum in cash for denial of use of his property and he agrees and exchange of property for the property itself, with him forgoing his property in the North and takin instead some in the South.

And why should this GC go to the Turkish “IPC” to facilitate Turkey’s partition?

It has already happend. This is a real example. The plain and simple truth is if the RoC were to stop this perosn enjoying their use of the property in the south that the IPC awarded them (and that includes selling it) then they will simply end up in front of the ECHR and loose.

Use of their property in the occupied territory, under the military force that ethnically cleansed them?

Excuse me a second...