Cyprus-Forum.com

[Solveit]

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

In effect, and in these circumstances that is exactly what they are saying. READ IT!

[growuptcs]

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

Just because Turkey follows 1/10th of the law, doesn't mean shes entitled to the 9/10ths part of it.

[Solveit]

116. The Court must also remark that some thirty-five years after the applicants, or their predecessors in title, left their property, it would risk being arbitrary and injudicious for it to attempt to impose an obligation on the respondent State (TURKEY) to effect restitution in all cases, or even in all cases save those in which there is material impossibility, a suggested condition put forward by the applicants and intervening Government (THE ROC) which discounts all legal and practical difficulties barring the permanent loss or destruction of the property. It cannot agree that the respondent State should be prohibited from taking into account other considerations, in particular the position of third parties. It cannot be within this Court's task in interpreting and applying the provisions of the Convention to impose an unconditional obligation on a Government to embark on the forcible eviction and rehousing of potentially large numbers of men, women and children even with the aim of vindicating the rights of victims of violations of the Convention.

[Solveit]

117. It is evident from the Court's case-law that while restitution laws implemented to mitigate the consequences of mass infringements of property rights caused, for example, by communist regimes, may have been found to pursue a legitimate aim, the Court has stated that it is still necessary to ensure that the redress applied to those old injuries does not create disproportionate new wrongs. To that end, the legislation should make it possible to take into account the particular circumstances of each case (see, for example, Pincová and Pinc v. the Czech Republic, no. 36548/97, § 58, ECHR 2002-VIII). Thus, there is no precedent in the Court's case-law to support the proposition that a Contracting State must pursue a blanket policy of restoring property to owners without taking into account the current use or occupation of the property in question.

In effect the ROC can no longer demand that current title holders all have the right to demand and choose restitution in ALL cases. So Christofias' view that the section of the talks on property should entail that all current title holders MUST have the right to decide on what happens to the property is now dead in the water.

[Solveit]

118. Thus, the Court maintains its view that it must leave the choice of implementation of redress for breaches of property rights to Contracting States, who are in the best position to assess the practicalities, priorities and conflicting interests on a domestic level even in a situation such as that pertaining in the northern part of Cyprus. No problem therefore arises as regards the impugned discretionary nature of the restitutionary power under the Law 67/2005.

[YFred]

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

In effect, and in these circumstances that is exactly what they are saying. READ IT!

You are talking to the converted. I said this long before this judgement and the bash patriots attacked for even thinking it never mind saying it. Now wheres is Kifeas and Kiks when you need them?
DT what about you percentages mate, can you calculate them one more time, what?

[Oracle]

... title, left their property, ...

Thank you for pinpointing the reason why this will be shot down.

"left their property" ... what a joke!

Never underestimate the way Greeks fight back on "Worse" arguments ... and this is a major faux pas by the (Turk-infested) ECHR.

[YFred]

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

Just because Turkey follows 1/10th of the law, doesn't mean shes entitled to the 9/10ths part of it.

When will you grow up and be like a TC. Ai?

[Solveit]

Oh I can't be bothered wasting any more time trying to get you thickhead GC to understand this, so the link is here; try reading it..... CAREFULLY.

http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view. ... n=hudoc-en

You will find that virtually EVERY objection and representation put to the ECHR by the ROC in its defence that the IPC is not a suitable or fair remedy was thrown out.

[YFred]

Oh I can't be bothered wasting any more time trying to get you thickhead GC to understand this, so the link is here; try reading it..... CAREFULLY.

http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view. ... n=hudoc-en

You will find that virtually EVERY objection and representation put to the ECHR by the ROC in its defence that the IPC is not a suitable or fair remedy was thrown out.

Now don't do that. Solveit we need you expertise. Don't worry about the bash patriots, they will actually drive themselves extinct from bashing their head against the brick wall.
Lemmings come to mind DT? Where are you?