Cyprus-Forum.com

[erolz3]

Not that they can refuse to have anything to do with the IPC and go straight for the Courts/ECHR. If they refuse to deal with IPC they can wait for the 'solution'. Or have I got it all wrong?

No you have got it right.

If they want restitution and only resitituion and IPC deems such is not possible they can apeal that decision in the TRNC hight corut. If that upholds the IPC decision they can go to the ECHR, but would have to do so in the knowledge that the ECHR ahs already said explicilty that in is ivew resitution does NOT have to offered in every case where it is desired for the rulings of the IPC to be deemed by it fair legal and just.

[B25]

Pafitis:

"...they demand full restitution on top of the pecuniary and non pecuniary loses..."

File, this is not so, the decision has stated that they do not have to give you restitution, if they don't want, but to just compensate you. It is blackmail to force you to give up your property on their say so.

Who the hell is turkey and the ECHR to decide what I do with my own property? The ECJ has already found that the legal owners will decide what to do not some corrupt ECHR and criminal invader.

The best we can hope for is that the GCs DO NOT go to the IPC. We will not play by Turkeys rules, they did it to us when the opened the crossing points and we failed to act then, dare I say our spineless politicians are about to do it again. May they all go to hell, the lot of them Inshalluh.

[erolz3]

The ECHR is a sham, it is a disgrace and a kick in the teeth for the avarage human. What rights have they secured by giving legitimacy to Turkey the invader. Fuck Turkey and the ECHR. They are cowards and have made a grave error of judgement.

How fickle. One day the great bastion of human rights and the next a sham.

To any member who has any connections in RoC government I demand that you get them to work and quash this shit of a decision.

Good luck with getting the RoC to 'quash' a ECHR ruling

Oh and when you make contact with representatives of your government you can ask them from me when they are going to offer TC the same 'disgusting sham solution' as the IPC re TC property in the South.

[wallace]

Pafitis:

"...they demand full restitution on top of the pecuniary and non pecuniary loses..."

File, this is not so, the decision has stated that they do not have to give you restitution, if they don't want, but to just compensate you. It is blackmail to force you to give up your property on their say so.

Who the hell is turkey and the ECHR to decide what I do with my own property? The ECJ has already found that the legal owners will decide what to do not some corrupt ECHR and criminal invader.

The best we can hope for is that the GCs DO NOT go to the IPC. We will not play by Turkeys rules, they did it to us when the opened the crossing points and we failed to act then, dare I say our spineless politicians are about to do it again. May they all go to hell, the lot of them Inshalluh.

B25,

You are not obliged to accept what they offer and can move on to the ECHR after that. It's stalling tactics.

[erolz3]

You are not obliged to accept what they offer and can move on to the ECHR after that. It's stalling tactics.

Indeed any offer made by the IPC can be accepted or rejected. You can also apply to the ECHR if yuou feel that the IPC's decision to not offer resitution is invalid, however you would have to make the choice to do this in the full knowledge that the ECHR has already said restitution does not have to offered in every case for it to be a legal and just redress, risk all the cost involved and risk getting a decision from the ECHR that is the same as that given by the IPC which is final and absolute.

[Paphitis]

Yes, Paphitis, that's how I read it but it does seem to say that they have to exhaust the IPC route first (unless they prefer to wait for a solution to the Cyprus problem), before they can continue on down the other routes.

Not that they can refuse to have anything to do with the IPC and go straight for the Courts/ECHR. If they refuse to deal with IPC they can wait for the 'solution'. Or have I got it all wrong?

Yes, that's quite correct.

It's amazing how in the other thread they have been discussing this issue ad nauseum, and yet the whole thing can be explained in a couple of lines.

[Paphitis]

Pafitis:

"...they demand full restitution on top of the pecuniary and non pecuniary loses..."

File, this is not so, the decision has stated that they do not have to give you restitution, if they don't want, but to just compensate you. It is blackmail to force you to give up your property on their say so.

Who the hell is turkey and the ECHR to decide what I do with my own property? The ECJ has already found that the legal owners will decide what to do not some corrupt ECHR and criminal invader.

The best we can hope for is that the GCs DO NOT go to the IPC. We will not play by Turkeys rules, they did it to us when the opened the crossing points and we failed to act then, dare I say our spineless politicians are about to do it again. May they all go to hell, the lot of them Inshalluh.

That's not quite true. We had received a short email from our Lawyers, and whilst they are still evaluating the whole thing and have not as yet come up with any concrete advice, they seem to think that we will have the opportunity to proceed to the ECHR if we are not satisfied with the "IPC" and the other higher court of Turkey.

We will wait for our advice from professional legal experts all the same.

[Jerry]

This ECHR decision is the biggest disaster to befall the ROC since 1974.

But only yesterday some of the forum GC stalwarts were saying it was GOOD NEWS?

As for the waiting game. Well, the answer to that is for both sides to come to an acceptable solution isn't it?

If either one (or both) of them will not accept that there will have to be some 'compromise' and that things can never go back in time to be exactly as they were pre 1974 (neither in the North, nor the South), that solution will always elude them.

And it does seem as if it is being said that if the GCs do not want to use the IPC they can instead wait for this elusive 'solution'.

Something's gotta give. Sometime, surely?

I don't care what GC fascists have to say, rather like the neo pompous TC s the they use analspeak. If you want a fair compromise agree to partition based on land ownership and population not on military might.

[wallace]

You are not obliged to accept what they offer and can move on to the ECHR after that. It's stalling tactics.

Indeed any offer made by the IPC can be accepted or rejected. You can also apply to the ECHR if yuou feel that the IPC's decision to not offer resitution is invalid, however you would have to make the choice to do this in the full knowledge that the ECHR has already said restitution does not have to offered in every case for it to be a legal and just redress, risk all the cost involved and risk getting a decision from the ECHR that is the same as that given by the IPC which is final and absolute.

That's not the issue. The issue is that with this decision the IPC will offer rediculous low amounts of compensation, way below what the properties are worth (take it or leave it). I'd say, a small amount of these cases are needed to convince the ECHR how they fucked up and who they are really dealing with. If this IPC is going to offer peanuts it will backfire on them sooner then later.

[erolz3]

That's not the issue. The issue is that with this decision the IPC will offer rediculous low amounts of compensation, way below what the properties are worth (take it or leave it). I'd say, a small amount of these cases are needed to convince the ECHR how they fucked up and who they are really dealing with. If this IPC is going to offer peanuts it will backfire on them sooner then later.

The ECHR made its decision re the validity of the IPC based on its record to date. It also did so based on the terms of the IPC. Monetary compensation is offered at the market rate for such property. This is the basis that the ECHR says if fair and just for such compensation. If the IPC were to start offering less than this then yes cases would be refered to the ECHR and it would rule that the compensation offer is too low, rules that more is offered to that person and that the IPC change its practices to avoid this happening again. Personaly I do not think the IPC would be stupid enough to offer less than what is required for fair and just redress according to the ECHR. If it did it know that it will no get away with such for long.