Cyprus-Forum.com

[repulsewarrior]

In other words it is not a breach of ECHR provisions to reject claims based on supposed inheritance. Now that is significant.

Which to me, kind of highlights that ECHR is only one avenue that GCs may wish to proceed. In any case, what stops somone asking for compensation for the years of not being able to enjoy their property, from the IPC, but not requesting restitution and keeping their legal title deed. Is there a case for that?

...interesting, wait for a political settlement and the land is yours because you never gave it up (ie, apostalides, EU law). and if you have a purpose, this ruling abides by the facts, which are several choices (RoC, Turkey). therefore, it depends a lot about the lawyer you choose, with the IPC as a credible alternative even more choices.

on the political level, as dismal as it seems to the "greeks" at the moment, i think it is good news because on a larger scale Turkey will account for the compensation to EU norms. In her efforts to integrate, and in paying compensation, we may recognise in it a willingness to improve. obviously, nay sayers do not face west, but it may be possible for erdogan who may be sincere, and able ironically because the army is in disarray. elections in a month and another in less than two years; this government is keeping a short timetable.

beyond percentages of land owned, and rotating Presidencies, is see no reason why each citizen in Cyprus cannot vote for a Turkish Representative and their Greek Cypriot Representative from two seperate slates, in a house where majority rules and where the Parties who lead win by offering candidates for every seat.

... the rest, as always: please read my manifesto.

[Paphitis]

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.

Piratis,
To prosecute anybody for tresspass you need to have the personal details of the individuals,then prepare and serve summons on them to appear in court,having first proved to the court that the right papers were served on the right people,and in the required time period...This is not going to be easy given the realities of the trnc...

For me,this latest decision like the one before is yet another reminder that we need to solve our little problem comprehensively and politically via negotiations,and not through courts or commissions in Cyprus or abroad...Lets keep our eyes firmly on the ball...We need to find a fair and peaceful solution which will last for a long time,till our people learn to trust and respect each other enough to live together as one people,one nation...

You’d be hard pressed to find any GCs these days who believe that TCs have good intentions for Cyprus other than the Turkification of it!

The solution is a military one and no matter how much my compatriots may dread it, in time the will all realize that it’s the only option that will yield the desirable results for the indigenous Cypriots.

At the outbreak of war, most if not all illegal Turkish settlers will flee like roaches running from pesticide, thus solving the illegal settler issue. A considerable number of “Turkish Cypriots” will also have to abandon Cyprus as there is no way the already bankrupt “TRNC” can ever recover itself after the first week or two of infrastructure damage as they have zero reserves unlike the RoC. The “TRNC” entity will not survive a war forever putting an end to TC aspirations of a separate state… not that many will stick around to ever ask for one again!

After a war with Cyprus, Turkey’s chances of ever joining the EU will be gone forever and Europe will no longer be able to look at Turkey in the same light again for decades to come.

The RoC can give and take punishment for 2-3 months and that’s plenty of time to alter the current foul Cyprus demographics and geopolitics.

The UN SC will have no option this time but to issue binding resolutions and/or treaties settling the CyProb once and for all thus saving the Cypriot nation from Turkish strangulation.

The Turkification of Cyprus (the REAL Cyprus problem) will be completely thwarted within a month or two or for the duration of the war, and the price for all that would be infrastructure damage and thousands of casualties… all of which can be replenished within 10-15 years, which is a very small price to pay considering what avoidance of war will bring to Cyprus!

From far away Australia, I can say that the above doom and gloom (Turkification) is a very real risk for Cyprus, meaning that there is only one salvation, as much as I hate to say it!

[Bananiot]

You forgot a vital detail GR. We should turn war off, once we reach 20000 casualties, as you said a year or so ago. Perhaps we can now afford some more deaths? While we are at it, could we liberate Cyprus from the British Bases as well, two in one, so to speak?

[Tim Drayton]

Rauf Denktash has warned against celebrating this ECHR decision, saying that it has opened the door for property to be returned to Greek Cypriots.

[Paphitis]

You forgot a vital detail GR. We should turn war off, once we reach 20000 casualties, as you said a year or so ago. Perhaps we can now afford some more deaths? While we are at it, could we liberate Cyprus from the British Bases as well, two in one, so to speak?

The British Bases might leave in time, and even if that is not the case, the British bases don't pose a risk to Cyprus like Turkey's rapid colonisation does.

[Bananiot]

Oh my God, I was only taking the micky, GR has gone down the drain, completely lost it.

[erolz3]

I am generaly staying away but just a few comments.

The idea that Orams type cases for tresspass and seeking redress via the IPC are totaly unconnected is wrong it seems to me. Firstly the RoC court ruled that the Orams must return the property. Any future ruling by RoC that says this would I believe be challengable via the ECHR, as it is a court order to do something that the accused has no power to do, yet the plantiff already has a valid and leagl means (according to ECHR) of remedy in this regard. Also is the plantiff in the Orams case were to now goto the IPC, the IPC can and will take in consideration that they have already been once compensated for loss of use and will therefore reduce any offer it makes for loss of use accordingly. Otherwise we have a variant of the 'double dipping' issue. You can not have compensation for loss of use from the indivdual using the property AND have it again from the state responsible for that loss of use.

On the issue of values involved and how massive the sums are. Do not forget that there is also substanital value in TC property in the south. These values may not match those of GC in the North but they will represent a significant % of it almost certainly a long way over 50% given that like for like property in the South is more valuable at todays prices than the north. The same is true for 'loss of use' compensation. The lie that TC have always been able to reclaim their property in the south has been shown as such by the recent RoC settlement where they paid substantial loss of use redress to a TC because they had effectively denied her the right to reclaim her property. Finally with every claim settled by the IPC via compensation or exchange , some piece of property in the north whos deeds were 'disputed' becaomes 'undisputed' and that thus that property itself increases in value. What matters therefor when looking at if the amounts the ICP is awarding are sustainable if significant numbers of claimints use it is not the 'total' figure , but the net figure of that toal - value of TC property in the sout and increased value of property in the north that results from each settlement. Probably a very larrge sum but no where near as 'impossible' as just looking at the total figure.

[Paphitis]

Oh my God, I was only taking the micky, GR has gone down the drain, completely lost it.

You can take it up with GR! himself.

I don't need to say anything more than my piece, which I'm sure is most unpopular with most of you. But as I said earlier, I can see his logic regarding the methodical Turkification of Cyprus, from which there is no salvation either in Status Quo or post solution. The only difference being that Turkification will only be restricted to 37% of the island if the Status Quo is to continue, whereas a BBF solution will mean that ALL of Cyprus will be under Turkey'sphere of influence. You will see this when Turkey gains ownership of the RoC's oil and gas fields since the EEZ will become Turkey's and the UK's....

In other words, I am a very strong believer of what GR! has to say, no matter how painful it is for me, and for you!

Now, my apologies for interjecting, as I may not have the right to express such an opinion until I fulfill my obligations to the RoC within the next year....

So I will leave you to fight it out with him.

[B25]

I am generaly staying away but just a few comments.

The idea that Orams type cases for tresspass and seeking redress via the IPC are totaly unconnected is wrong it seems to me. Firstly the RoC court ruled that the Orams must return the property. Any future ruling by RoC that says this would I believe be challengable via the ECHR, as it is a court order to do something that the accused has no power to do, yet the plantiff already has a valid and leagl means (according to ECHR) of remedy in this regard. Also is the plantiff in the Orams case were to now goto the IPC, the IPC can and will take in consideration that they have already been once compensated for loss of use and will therefore reduce any offer it makes for loss of use accordingly. Otherwise we have a variant of the 'double dipping' issue. You can not have compensation for loss of use from the indivdual using the property AND have it again from the state responsible for that loss of use.

On the issue of values involved and how massive the sums are. Do not forget that there is also substanital value in TC property in the south. These values may not match those of GC in the North but they will represent a significant % of it almost certainly a long way over 50% given that like for like property in the South is more valuable at todays prices than the north. The same is true for 'loss of use' compensation. The lie that TC have always been able to reclaim their property in the south has been shown as such by the recent RoC settlement where they paid substantial loss of use redress to a TC because they had effectively denied her the right to reclaim her property. Finally with every claim settled by the IPC via compensation or exchange , some piece of property in the north whos deeds were 'disputed' becaomes 'undisputed' and that thus that property itself increases in value. What matters therefor when looking at if the amounts the ICP is awarding are sustainable if significant numbers of claimints use it is not the 'total' figure , but the net figure of that toal - value of TC property in the sout and increased value of property in the north that results from each settlement. Probably a very larrge sum but no where near as 'impossible' as just looking at the total figure.

I think you will have problems trying to use the south prices for getting more.

What you are doing is like saying, just because you have been successful and prospered and work damn hard to improve your prices we now wnat more. Unlike us lazy MFs who have made the north an army camp of murderers and rapists and full of cheapskates the prices are low.

Yeah right, in your F dreams.

Lets just get this into a bit more perspective shall we, the IPC is an illegal entity in an illegal regime. Then who the hell is Turkey to be involved or running this show?? The TCs must be a bunch of wankers hiding behind the apron strings of mama all the while shouting their mouths off how tough they are and thet their decision counts, dream on.

Then the ECHR has well and truly mucked up here, how can you on the one hand accuse turkey of being the invader, in violation of many conventions and guilty of war crimes and yet find legal reasoning to allow this crrok to reside on such a corrupt commission??

Something stinks here don't you think???

Give us the ECJ ruling and then negate it with an ECHR ruling, sounds like a micky mouse set up really.

[erolz3]

What you are doing is like saying, just because you have been successful and prospered and work damn hard to improve your prices we now wnat more. Unlike us lazy MFs who have made the north an army camp of murderers and rapists and full of cheapskates the prices are low.

Yeah right, in your F dreams.

The fact is that at todays prices like for like land / property in the north is less valubale than its equivalent in the south. You can make all the racist rantings about why that is you like and lay the blame on the lazy TC whilst ignoring the role that GC community played in the creation of this reality, but it remains a plain and simple truth regardless. Markets are not political.

Lets just get this into a bit more perspective shall we, the IPC is an illegal entity in an illegal regime.

Well only in the 'classic' GC viewpoint where legality means anything GC want and agree with is legal and anything else by definition is illegal, the same viewpoint Makarios used to ignore his own constitutional court rulings as part of the process of illegal (but legal because GC wanted it) removing TC communal rights under the 60's agreements with any need for any legal due process other than GC deciding it was unfair.
Outside of this narrow worldview the IPC is a evey sense of the word a legitimate legal entity that represent a valid local means of redress for those GC who lost use of and land as a result of the events of 74. Hopefully soon there will be an equivalent in the RoC for TC deined use of and their land by the RoC post 74.