erolz3 wrote: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.
Erol, I firmly believe you make a mistake in both your above assumptions.
First on the issue of trespassing and the Orams example. There is nothing new in the last ECtHR ruling that changes the facts regarding this issue. The RoC still remains the sole legitimate state with its sovereignty and jurisdiction extending to the entire island. There is nothing in this decision that alters this fact. In fact, quite the contrary, it is reiterated. Since the RoC remains the entity that enjoys the jurisdiction, as it was found by the ECJ in the Orams case, it continues to have the right to make rulings involving properties in the north, as well as other matters, and EU member states continue to have the obligation to adopt and enforce such rulings where this is possible, i.e. where there is material ground to do so, such as citizenship, property and other interests of on EU soil. There is nothing in the ECtHR that changes this already concluded fact. The RoC has laws involving or affecting trespassing, and the ECtHT knows that and accepts this. The ECtHR cannot tell the RoC not to have such laws, or not to try and enforce them in all areas under its sovereignty and jurisdiction, including the north. It is beyond the conventions governing the ECtHR or the CoE to take such a step, as its the law of the country like it is also the law in all other CoE member states.
Now, as for the RoC court ordering Orams to return the property, this is purely schematic. Land is not something you can pick up and hand over to someone, that is why the notion to "return" the property is schematic. What the ruling against the Orams essentially says, is for the Orams to vacate the property, demolish the construction and allow access of Apostolides into it. Now, if there is another person or entity, such as "TRNC" authorities, further prohibiting Apostolides to access his property, or that he will have to go through the IPC, this does not alleviate Orams from the obligation to vacate the property and pay whatever compensation to Apostolides for the prior use of it without his consent. Orams or any other trespasser's obligation against such rulings ends up to where they do everything the court says, within their capacity. The court did not ask Orams to enforce Apostolides' access into his property, but only not to prohibit it.
As for your claims that just because value of land in the north currently is underestimated due to all the know reasons, this allows the TCs or the "TRNC" to claim that an X amount of TC properties in the south, might even be regarded as equal or even up to the 50% of the value of a 4X amount of GC properties in the north, seating along 55% of the island's coastlines, it is absurd. It is something the GCs do not accept to even discuss. What we are talking about is only the potential real estate value, and not the current "market" value. Currently in the north there is essentially no market, or to a large extent it is outside the international legal market, and one may as well say that the "current" value of GC properties is close to zero. I think you should forget making such claims, because they do not register with GCs at all, nor with any other logical person. If the current "market" value of GC properties is so low, just return them back to their owners. Why do you want to exchange and keep them for yourselves, if they have such a very little value? Obviously you want to do so, because you count on the very valid idea that once the issue is resolved, one day, you will all become rich, since 18% of the population will become the possessors of properties that their market value will be equal to 40-50% of the total property market value of the whole island, as they will be seating along 50% of the coastline. Clever, isn't it!
