Cyprus-Forum.com

[CopperLine]

It is rather odd that when the ECHR rules 'against' one's side then the cry immediately goes up from that 'side' of "political motivation".

The ECHR and ECJ and so on, like any legislation and any court system is necessarily political, after all their creation is a consequence of political processes and their purpose is to adjudicate between the interests of the polis. The thing is, though, courts issue legal decisions in legal language and they do not typically admit arguments which are quintessentially political in nature eg, Cherie Booth's arguments at the English Court of Appeal about the sensitivity of the A v. O case in the light of negotiations.

People like Kifeas have misunderstood this ECHR decision. He might not have confidence in the IPC but the ECHR does,and this case was essentially about evaluating the effectiveness of a local remedy which the Court itself had insisted be introduced. The Court effectively confirmed that the IPC is indeed effective and the right place to consider property claims in the north. It was careful to re-state that nothing in its considerations and decisions implied recognition of the TRNC but instead re-iterated the universally held position in international law that Turkey is the occupying power and as such is the effective administrator of civil life in northern Cyprus, including over matters of property. It is therefore an ECHR obligation upon Turkey to ensure that a local effective remedy is in place for these kinds of issues. Turkey as obliged by an earlier ECHR ruling to introduce the IPC and this latest ruling was over the IPCs effectiveness.

[Kifeas]

It is rather odd that when the ECHR rules 'against' one's side then the cry immediately goes up from that 'side' of "political motivation".

The ECHR and ECJ and so on, like any legislation and any court system is necessarily political, after all their creation is a consequence of political processes and their purpose is to adjudicate between the interests of the polis. The thing is, though, courts issue legal decisions in legal language and they do not typically admit arguments which are quintessentially political in nature eg, Cherie Booth's arguments at the English Court of Appeal about the sensitivity of the A v. O case in the light of negotiations.

People like Kifeas have misunderstood this ECHR decision. He might not have confidence in the IPC but the ECHR does,and this case was essentially about evaluating the effectiveness of a local remedy which the Court itself had insisted be introduced. The Court effectively confirmed that the IPC is indeed effective and the right place to consider property claims in the north. It was careful to re-state that nothing in its considerations and decisions implied recognition of the TRNC but instead re-iterated the universally held position in international law that Turkey is the occupying power and as such is the effective administrator of civil life in northern Cyprus, including over matters of property. It is therefore an ECHR obligation upon Turkey to ensure that a local effective remedy is in place for these kinds of issues. Turkey as obliged by an earlier ECHR ruling to introduce the IPC and this latest ruling was over the IPCs effectiveness.

Copper, I have misunderstood absolutely nothing. I have read the decision, paragraph by paragraph, and I doubt you did the same. It is a mockery to justice, human rights and the CoE. It wouldn't have been as nicely cut and tailored to serve the Turkish and TC political thesis and agenda on Cyprus, even if was written by the hand of a Turkish diplomat. It went way far beyond, of simply accepting the IPC commission as a first ("internal" remedy) resort. If it had stopped to simply ruling only on this aspect, I personally would not have had much of a problem. In its conclusions, it virtually has given a blank check to the Turkish side, to do as it please with the issue of GC properties, without the need to have much to answer for afterwards.

[CopperLine]

It is rather odd that when the ECHR rules 'against' one's side then the cry immediately goes up from that 'side' of "political motivation".

The ECHR and ECJ and so on, like any legislation and any court system is necessarily political, after all their creation is a consequence of political processes and their purpose is to adjudicate between the interests of the polis. The thing is, though, courts issue legal decisions in legal language and they do not typically admit arguments which are quintessentially political in nature eg, Cherie Booth's arguments at the English Court of Appeal about the sensitivity of the A v. O case in the light of negotiations.

People like Kifeas have misunderstood this ECHR decision. He might not have confidence in the IPC but the ECHR does,and this case was essentially about evaluating the effectiveness of a local remedy which the Court itself had insisted be introduced. The Court effectively confirmed that the IPC is indeed effective and the right place to consider property claims in the north. It was careful to re-state that nothing in its considerations and decisions implied recognition of the TRNC but instead re-iterated the universally held position in international law that Turkey is the occupying power and as such is the effective administrator of civil life in northern Cyprus, including over matters of property. It is therefore an ECHR obligation upon Turkey to ensure that a local effective remedy is in place for these kinds of issues. Turkey as obliged by an earlier ECHR ruling to introduce the IPC and this latest ruling was over the IPCs effectiveness.

Copper, I have misunderstood absolutely nothing. I have read the decision, paragraph by paragraph, and I doubt you did the same. It is a mockery to justice, human rights and the CoE. It wouldn't have been as nicely cut and tailored to serve the Turkish and TC political thesis and agenda on Cyprus, even if was written by the hand of a Turkish diplomat.

Kifeas

In an earlier case GC plaintiffs lodged a case with the ECHR complaining that their human rights were being abused as a result of them being deprived of enjoyment of their property (in the north). The ECHR accepted the case for consideration (was the ECHR mocking justice then ? was it serving T or TC interests at that point ?) The ECHR basically said we agree with your complaint (was the ECHR mocking justice then ? was it serving T or TC interests at that point ?). At that earlier judgment the ECHR said words to the effect of, "look Turkey, look effective administrators of northern Cyprus, look GC property claimants, resolving thousands of property claims should not need the long and complicated mechanism of the ECHR when it should be done locally. Therefore you Turkey-in-northern-Cyprus must create an effective local remedy in fulfilment of your ECHR commitments and to comply with this court's decision." (was the ECHR mocking justice then ? was it serving T or TC interests at that point ?) Rarely enough, Turkey actually complied with this ECHR judgment and had created the IPC as required by the ECHR. (was the ECHR mocking justice then ? was it serving T or TC interests at that point ?)

Jump forward to the present day. These plaintiffs who also had their cases accepted by the ECHR (was the ECHR mocking justice then ? was it serving T or TC interests at that point ?) were issued with the current decision of the ECHR - decision which was entirely consistent with what ECHR had done before in support of GC claimants (and only now do you say that the ECHR is mocking justice and serving T and TC interests). You'll excuse me for thinking that you mistake your own partial interests for justice.

[Malapapa]

I can't say I have confidence that the IPC will be in a position to settle all property claims satisfactorily; especially as compensation costs will rise to many billions should - as now seems likely - displaced property owners, hit by the global recession, descend on it en masse.

This seems to me akin to a Ponzi scheme. The IPC has offered reasonable returns to early applicants to hoodwink the ECHR and encourage others to jump on the compensation bandwagon.

But the fraudulent system is destined to collapse under its own weight. It may well be worth a few thousand refugees investing the 100 TL each needed to bring this charade crashing down.

[CopperLine]

I can't say I have confidence that the IPC will be in a position to settle all property claims satisfactorily; especially as compensation costs will rise to many billions should - as now seems likely - displaced property owners, hit by the global recession, descend on it en masse.

This seems to me akin to a Ponzi scheme. The IPC has offered reasonable returns to early applicants to hoodwink the ECHR and encourage others to jump on the compensation bandwagon.

But the fraudulent system is destined to collapse under its own weight. It may well be worth a few thousand refugees investing the 100 TL each needed to bring this charade crashing down.

Malapapa, if the IPC remedy was found to be wanting in its effectiveness as a local remedy (for example, the level of compensation was judged to be unfair or the application process was too slow, or the IPS 'ran out of money', etc) then the ECHR could decide that there was no longer an effective local remedy. Essentially the ECHR is saying in this decision : use the IPC, not us. (It does not say that claimants cannot use the ECHR at all- that would be a breach of their human rights - but it is saying that unless one has got a claim against the IPC's effectiveness then it is with the IPC that you should seek remedy).

Whilst personally I don't have much confidence in the IPC (although the ECHR does) this is not because it is like a Ponzi scheme. (I can't see the parallel at all ) The principal weakness of the IPC is that it is insufferably slow, under-resourced and lacking serious political support for it to operate properly.

[Viewpoint]

Will this now mean there will be a flood of applications coming form the GC refugees? or will they be declared traitors and persecuted by their own?

[Malapapa]

Whilst personally I don't have much confidence in the IPC (although the ECHR does) this is not because it is like a Ponzi scheme. (I can't see the parallel at all ) The principal weakness of the IPC is that it is insufferably slow, under-resourced and lacking serious political support for it to operate properly.

Admittedly, it's by no means an exact analogy. Turkey's regime has only been able to compensate early applicants with booty generated from exploiting the lands of other such refugees. So early applicants (like early investors) get returns, encouraging many more to jump on the bandwagon. But the stolen booty will run out well before all the many thousands of refugees can be properly compensated.

[CopperLine]

Whilst personally I don't have much confidence in the IPC (although the ECHR does) this is not because it is like a Ponzi scheme. (I can't see the parallel at all ) The principal weakness of the IPC is that it is insufferably slow, under-resourced and lacking serious political support for it to operate properly.

Admittedly, it's by no means an exact analogy. Turkey's regime has only been able to compensate early applicants with booty generated from exploiting the lands of other such refugees. So early applicants (like early investors) get returns, encouraging many more to jump on the bandwagon. But the stolen booty will run out well before all the many thousands of refugees can be properly compensated.

Of course if you assume a direct path from stolen goods to compensation then when the stolen goods run out then so does the compensation. I can't think of any legal system where this mechanism has been used. (In any case most people argue that northern Cyprus is already dependent on Turkey and not a net contributor to Turkey's occupation costs, therefore the loot was already spent years before the IPC came into being). Essentially IPC compensation will come out of the public purse, i.e, ultimately from general taxation and therefore mainly from Turkey. If the IPC works properly then it will be mean a steady and heavy cost to the Turkish treasury (perhaps Kifeas will appreciate that the ECHR and the IPC is certainly not working in T or TCs financial interest)

[Piratis]

Will this now mean there will be a flood of applications coming form the GC refugees?

No. It means there will be a flood of cases in the courts of Cyprus for trespass.

The ruling of Apostolides VS Orams made it much easier to prosecute individual trespassers (Foreigners or TCs) while this ruling makes it more time consuming to convict Turkey for human rights violations.

So you can easily guess which route the GC refugees will choose.

[Malapapa]

Of course if you assume a direct path from stolen goods to compensation then when the stolen goods run out then so does the compensation. I can't think of any legal system where this mechanism has been used.

But as we all know, and as the ECHR has confirmed, Turkey's regime in the north is anything but legal.

(In any case most people argue that northern Cyprus is already dependent on Turkey and not a net contributor to Turkey's occupation costs, therefore the loot was already spent years before the IPC came into being). Essentially IPC compensation will come out of the public purse, i.e, ultimately from general taxation and therefore mainly from Turkey. If the IPC works properly then it will be mean a steady and heavy cost to the Turkish treasury (perhaps Kifeas will appreciate that the ECHR and the IPC is certainly not working in T or TCs financial interest)

I extrapolated a figure of around 27 billion euros in total.

Some 47 million euros have been forked out so far. I wonder how much money, in total, the AGA buyers and all their friends have been swindled out of in the last few years?