Cyprus-Forum.com

[YFred]

There is no such thing as "dual ownership". The owner is the one who has the legal title deed and that is only one. And he will sue your asses for trespassing on his land

Life must be wonderful when you live in total ignorance.

[Vincehugo]

There is no such thing as "dual ownership". The owner is the one who has the legal title deed and that is only one. And he will sue your asses for trespassing on his land

I used the expression in quotes because I realise that it is not an accepted phrase. However there is most definitely an issue with more than one individual having a claim on property. You have one view on this and the TRNC has another . . which is why the IPC was set up and subsequently ratified by the ECHR.

You can carry on in denial of the realities or you can discuss it with the IPC. You can, as you so nicely say, also sue the ass off the current user, and the RoC Courts would (probably, even after the ECHR ruling) support you in this. I'm not as sure that the ECJ and non-RoC courts would. But even if they did, what you would end up with is a payment for loss of use (for however long the current user had been trespassing - not necessarily 35 years).

The IPC can give you loss of use for the full 35 years plus either restitution, exchange or compensation (for surrender of the property).

But hey, it's your call.

[Sotos]

There is no such thing as "dual ownership". The owner is the one who has the legal title deed and that is only one. And he will sue your asses for trespassing on his land

I used the expression in quotes because I realise that it is not an accepted phrase. However there is most definitely an issue with more than one individual having a claim on property. You have one view on this and the TRNC has another . . which is why the IPC was set up and subsequently ratified by the ECHR.

You can carry on in denial of the realities or you can discuss it with the IPC. You can, as you so nicely say, also sue the ass off the current user, and the RoC Courts would (probably, even after the ECHR ruling) support you in this. I'm not as sure that the ECJ and non-RoC courts would. But even if they did, what you would end up with is a payment for loss of use (for however long the current user had been trespassing - not necessarily 35 years).

The IPC can give you loss of use for the full 35 years plus either restitution, exchange or compensation (for surrender of the property).

But hey, it's your call.

It is always our call because it is our properties which are illegally occupied and our human rights which are violated by the foreign invader.

[Sotos]

There is no such thing as "dual ownership". The owner is the one who has the legal title deed and that is only one. And he will sue your asses for trespassing on his land

Life must be wonderful when you live in total ignorance.

That is why you choose to be ignorant and you became a school drop out and a loser?

[Oracle]

Turkey can "buy" as many GC houses as it likes, but it will never buy sovereignty and the ECHR has spelt it out perfectly! It is an occupying force and will remain an occupying force for as long as the EU and RoC say so!.

All of Cyprus belongs to the RoC, and always will.

Try getting the Greek Orthodox Church (major landowner ) to go through the "IPC" ...

[YFred]

There is no such thing as "dual ownership". The owner is the one who has the legal title deed and that is only one. And he will sue your asses for trespassing on his land

Life must be wonderful when you live in total ignorance.

That is why you choose to be ignorant and you became a school drop out and a loser?

Sotos, don't be stupid. I graduated from Trahones University and my major was how to avoid being shot by eoka.
The fact that I live is proof that I graduated. Although I could be a figment of my imagination and I made myself up just to annoy the bash patriot Sheepriots on this forum. You being the stooge to the chief.

[Vincehugo]

There is no such thing as "dual ownership". The owner is the one who has the legal title deed and that is only one. And he will sue your asses for trespassing on his land

I used the expression in quotes because I realise that it is not an accepted phrase. However there is most definitely an issue with more than one individual having a claim on property. You have one view on this and the TRNC has another . . which is why the IPC was set up and subsequently ratified by the ECHR.

You can carry on in denial of the realities or you can discuss it with the IPC. You can, as you so nicely say, also sue the ass off the current user, and the RoC Courts would (probably, even after the ECHR ruling) support you in this. I'm not as sure that the ECJ and non-RoC courts would. But even if they did, what you would end up with is a payment for loss of use (for however long the current user had been trespassing - not necessarily 35 years).

The IPC can give you loss of use for the full 35 years plus either restitution, exchange or compensation (for surrender of the property).

But hey, it's your call.

It is always our call because it is our properties which are illegally occupied and our human rights which are violated by the foreign invader.

And yet the European Court of Human Rights deems that the IPC is a fair way to address your Human Rights.

So yes, it's your call. Or at least it's up to you to decide whether you want to go to the IPC. It's up to the IPC to decide what they can offer you.

[Solveit]

From the ECHR decision READ VERY CAREFULLY AND THE MEANING IS THERE

110. Insofar as criticism is made of an allegedly overly-restrictive approach to restitution of possession of property to their Greek-Cypriot owners, the Court recalls that, in Loizidou, it had rejected the validity of Article 159 of the “TRNC” Constitution in the context of the Turkish Government reliance on that provision as showing that the property had been expropriated in an instantaneous act prior to the temporal competence of the Court (cited above, § 44). As the “TRNC” regime was not regarded as being capable of depriving the property owners of title, only of possession, there was accordingly a continuing situation of breach due to the ongoing barring of access to and enjoyment of their property by Greek-Cypriot owners which was within the Court's temporal jurisdiction. Thus, in all the cases that followed, it may be noted that Greek-Cypriot owners claimed only pecuniary damages for loss of use of their properties, not compensation for the loss of the properties themselves of which they continued to be regarded as the legal owners.

111. This has led to the situation that individuals claiming to own property in the north may, in theory, come to the Court periodically and indefinitely to claim loss of rents until a political solution to the Cyprus problem is reached. At the present point, many decades after the loss of possession by the then owners, property has in many cases changed hands, by gift, succession or otherwise; those claiming title may have never seen, or ever used the property in question. The issue arises to what extent the notion of legal title, and the expectation of enjoying the full benefits of that title, is realistic in practice. The losses thus claimed become increasingly speculative and hypothetical. There has, it may be recalled, always been a strong legal and factual link between ownership and possession (see, for example, J.A. Pye (Oxford) Ltd and J.A. Pye (Oxford) Land Ltd v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 44302/02, ECHR 2007-X concerning extinction of title in adverse possession cases) and it must be recognised that with the passage of time the holding of a title may be emptied of any practical consequences.

112. This is not to say that the applicants in these cases have lost their ownership in any formal sense; the Court would eschew any notion that military occupation should be regarded as a form of adverse possession by which title can be legally transferred to the invading power. Yet it would be unrealistic to expect that as a result of these cases the Court should, or could, directly order the Turkish Government to ensure that these applicants obtain access to, and full possession of, their properties, irrespective of who is now living there or whether the property is allegedly in a militarily sensitive zone or used for vital public purposes.

113. The Court can only conclude that the attenuation over time of the link between the holding of title and the possession and use of the property in question must have consequences on the nature of the redress that can be regarded as fulfilling the requirements of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.

114. The Court's case-law indicates that if the nature of the breach allows restitutio in integrum, it is for the respondent State to implement it. However, if it is not possible to restore the position, the Court, as a matter of constant practice, has imposed the alternative requirement on the Contracting State to pay compensation for the value of the property. [/size]This is because the Contracting Parties to a case are in principle free to choose the means whereby they will comply with a judgment in which the Court has found a breach. [size=18]This discretion as to the manner of execution of a judgment reflects the freedom of choice attaching to the primary obligation of the Contracting States under Article 1 of the Convention to secure the rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Convention[/size] (see amongst many authorities, Papamichalopoulos and Others v. Greece (Article 50), 31 October 1995, § 34, Series A no. 330-B). The Court notes that it has consistently applied the above approach even to cases of manifestly unlawful and flagrant expropriations of property (see, for example, Papamichalopoulos, cited above, Iatridis v. Greece (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 31107/96, ECHR 2000-X); it does not perceive that any difference of principle arises where the illegality is on an international level. While it goes without saying that Turkey is regarded by the international community as being in illegal occupation of the northern part of Cyprus, this does not mean that when dealing with individual applications concerning interference with property, the Court must apply the Convention any differently.


This is basically saying that descendenrts of refugees dispossessed in 1974 are not REFUGEES in the true sense, It also in effect states that when such a long period of time has elapsed, with properties changing hands due to inheritence etc, that POSSESSION IS 9/10THS OF THE LAW

[Solveit]

115. The applicants argued that this would allow Turkey to benefit from her illegality. The Court would answer that, from a Convention perspective, property is a material commodity which can be valued and compensated for in monetary terms. If compensation is paid in accordance with the Court's case-law, there is in general no unfair balance between the parties. Similarly, it considers that an exchange of property may be regarded as an acceptable form of redress. It is correct, as the applicants and intervening Government asserted, that the Convention should be interpreted as far as possible in harmony with other principles of international law of which it forms part (Al-Adsani v. the United Kingdom, [GC], no. 35763/97, § 60, ECHR 2001-XI); however, the Court must also have regard to its special character as a human rights treaty (amongst many authorities, Banković and Others v. Belgium and 16 Other Contracting States (dec.), [GC], no. 52207/99, § 57, ECHR 2001-XII). The Convention system deals, overwhelmingly, with individual applications. The present applications are cases about interferences with individual property rights, and the availability of redress therefor – they cannot be used as a vehicle for the vindication of sovereign rights or findings of breaches of international law between Contracting States.

Does this explain it better for you Sotos et al?

[YFred]

What's that again?
Possession is what? 9/10th of the law you say?
What ever next, who came up with that one?