Cyprus-Forum.com

[Kikapu]

That is peanuts for that amount of land!! In Limassol you can barely buy two plots (1000sq. meters) for that amount! Such sales are forced sales. The Turks illegally occupy our properties and then when we really need the money they come and give us some peanuts because it is better than nothing! Criminal crooks!

You do not get it do you. You want the GC to have NO CHOICE. You would rather he had no OPTION to recieve over 1/2 million sterling but continue to suffer indefinately. You are mad.

As to the value of the plot, comparing it to limasol make no more sense than comparing it to Hong Kong. It is not IN limasol. [size=18]In fact you have no idea where it is at all or what a fair market price is for it today.

[/size]

It was mentioned that it was in Nicosia. Surely, land values in Capital Cities of any country would be worth as much as land values along it's coastal regions, except with few exceptions, of course. I do not think Limassol qualifies as being one of those exceptions, do you, Erol.??

Are you serious? if you have a house in newham is it worth the same as a house in mayfair???

why not they are both in london?

You have no idea where exactly the property in question is located, to argue that it does not represent value for money is completely stupid.

you are either extremely stupid or are on a huge wind up?

You are the stupid one for not understanding Erol's question/ statement, because he is saying that the coastal land prices are worth more than land prices in Capital cities. Obviously they do not, except in very exceptional places along the coast.!

Really is that right Erol?

I don't think Erol wants to embarrass you by giving you the answer.!:wink:

because the point I think he was making is that without knowing where EXACTLY the plot was it is just stupid to compare it to anywhere else in the world (hong kong).... or is all of Hong kong by the coast?

What you think is not important. What's is important is what Erol said and in what contexts he said it in. The fact that you did not understand what he was saying, does not make others stupid, just yourself.!

Like I said either extremely stupid or on a wind up.

You can't call me cleaver on one post and stupid in another. You need to take a stand as to which is it, because you had already contradicted yourself once already, which is not very smart thing to do and then turn around and call others stupid, just because you cannot fully comprehend the written English language well, written by others here on the forum.!

[Solveit]

At the end of the day, this whole “IPC” story is a waste of time because 99.99% of GC refugees are clearly NOT interested in “compensation”, but their rightful ownership of their land/properties in the occupied territory.

Let the few who want compensation (mostly comprised of ex-Cypriots who have been overseas for too long to return or care about Cyprus anyway) deal with Turkey’s “IPC” (these fools will get what they deserve anyway), while the rest of us press on with trespassing and other inventive ways to keep check of our rightful properties.

End of story!

GR. Do you REALLY think that in the light of this landmark ruling the ROC government will heed your expert (NOT) advice and just pursue trespass cases. Christofias has already changed his tune to assert that he (now) thinks the issue should be solved as part of a political settlement (funny that) so why do you think ROC courts will now continue pursuing trespass cases??

Any more requests to other EU courts for enforcement of trespass cases by ROC courts will now be thrown out in light of the new ECHR ruling. Why, I here you ask? Well, until the IPC sits to hear a case requesting restitution, compensation or loss of use, any judgement on any given property cannot be determined because it will be the IPC that will DETERMINE who is awarded the ownership and title. Therefore a case of trespass would be rejected because if a subsequent occupier of the land is awarded the right to ownership, then how can they be accused of trespass??

I'm afraid your 'inventive' ways are at an end. You've tried to invent many things over the years none of which have really worked, but now the invention has been 'patented' by the IPC, the patent approver being the ECHR.

If 99.99% of GC are like you I'm not surprised the TC's don't want to live with you.

As you say, "END OF STORY"

[DT.]

Christofias has already changed his tune to assert that he (now) thinks the issue should be solved as part of a political settlement (funny that) so why do you think ROC courts will now continue pursuing trespass cases??

Wrong. RIght after the Orams ruling the President said exactly the same thing. He is committed to this process, talat should try it sometime.

[Get Real!]

At the end of the day, this whole “IPC” story is a waste of time because 99.99% of GC refugees are clearly NOT interested in “compensation”, but their rightful ownership of their land/properties in the occupied territory.

Let the few who want compensation (mostly comprised of ex-Cypriots who have been overseas for too long to return or care about Cyprus anyway) deal with Turkey’s “IPC” (these fools will get what they deserve anyway), while the rest of us press on with trespassing and other inventive ways to keep check of our rightful properties.

End of story!

GR. Do you REALLY think that in the light of this landmark ruling the ROC government will heed your expert (NOT) advice and just pursue trespass cases. Christofias has already changed his tune to assert that he (now) thinks the issue should be solved as part of a political settlement (funny that) so why do you think ROC courts will now continue pursuing trespass cases??

It’s not the RoC that will pursue trespassing cases but the refugees (owners) and nobody can stop them.

Any more requests to other EU courts for enforcement of trespass cases by ROC courts will now be thrown out in light of the new ECHR ruling. Why, I here you ask? Well, until the IPC sits to hear a case requesting restitution, compensation or loss of use, any judgement on any given property cannot be determined because it will be the IPC that will DETERMINE who is awarded the ownership and title. Therefore a case of trespass would be rejected because if a subsequent occupier of the land is awarded the right to ownership, then how can they be accused of trespass??

The ECHR decision ONLY refers to those refugees who sue Turkey of obstructing them from accessing their properties, but in the case of Apostolides his ONLY complaint was that someone was TRESSPASSING his rightful property so the matter was very straightforward:

Case #1: Property owner Vs Trespasser (individual)

Result: Trespasser pays compensation and ownership is retained by the owner!

Case #2: Property owners Vs Turkey (country)

Result: Turkey pays “compensation” through the “IPC” and ownership is lost to Turkey.

If 99.99% of GC are like you I'm not surprised the TC's don't want to live with you.

Let’s just say I won’t be losing any sleep tonight... to each his own country and you'll find that most of the world's problems will be gone.

[Solveit]

At the end of the day, this whole “IPC” story is a waste of time because 99.99% of GC refugees are clearly NOT interested in “compensation”, but their rightful ownership of their land/properties in the occupied territory.

Let the few who want compensation (mostly comprised of ex-Cypriots who have been overseas for too long to return or care about Cyprus anyway) deal with Turkey’s “IPC” (these fools will get what they deserve anyway), while the rest of us press on with trespassing and other inventive ways to keep check of our rightful properties.

End of story!

GR. Do you REALLY think that in the light of this landmark ruling the ROC government will heed your expert (NOT) advice and just pursue trespass cases. Christofias has already changed his tune to assert that he (now) thinks the issue should be solved as part of a political settlement (funny that) so why do you think ROC courts will now continue pursuing trespass cases??

It’s not the RoC that will pursue trespassing cases but the refugees (owners) and nobody can stop them.

Any more requests to other EU courts for enforcement of trespass cases by ROC courts will now be thrown out in light of the new ECHR ruling. Why, I here you ask? Well, until the IPC sits to hear a case requesting restitution, compensation or loss of use, any judgement on any given property cannot be determined because it will be the IPC that will DETERMINE who is awarded the ownership and title. Therefore a case of trespass would be rejected because if a subsequent occupier of the land is awarded the right to ownership, then how can they be accused of trespass??

The ECHR decision ONLY refers to those refugees who sue Turkey of obstructing them from accessing their properties, but in the case of Apostolides his ONLY complaint was that someone was TRESSPASSING his rightful property so the matter was very straightforward:

Case #1: Property owner Vs Trespasser (individual)

Result: Trespasser pays compensation and ownership is retained by the owner!

Case #2: Property owners Vs Turkey (country)

Result: Turkey pays “compensation” through the “IPC” and ownership is lost to Turkey.

If 99.99% of GC are like you I'm not surprised the TC's don't want to live with you.

Let’s just say I won’t be losing any sleep tonight... to each his own country and you'll find that most of the world's problems will be gone.

Erm, I think you've lost the plot GR.

1) The ECHR has 'in effect' said that 'ultimate' ownership of land is now in question and will be decided by the IPC. Because the ultimate ownership cannot be confirmed until the IPC decides (or ultimately the ECHR on appeal) then no court outside the ROC will enforce any (ROC court) judgement for trespass cases on that premise. Anyway, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and become the next Mr A, then we'll see how far you get.

2) You will not get compo AND keep the land. Try reading the judgement VERY carefully, as obviously u r a bit slow on the uptake.

Have a good day in paradise, or is it rapidly turning into a hell for you

[Solveit]

Christofias has already changed his tune to assert that he (now) thinks the issue should be solved as part of a political settlement (funny that) so why do you think ROC courts will now continue pursuing trespass cases??

Wrong. RIght after the Orams ruling the President said exactly the same thing. He is committed to this process, talat should try it sometime.

Yeah yeah DT, whatever you say

[Get Real!]

At the end of the day, this whole “IPC” story is a waste of time because 99.99% of GC refugees are clearly NOT interested in “compensation”, but their rightful ownership of their land/properties in the occupied territory.

Let the few who want compensation (mostly comprised of ex-Cypriots who have been overseas for too long to return or care about Cyprus anyway) deal with Turkey’s “IPC” (these fools will get what they deserve anyway), while the rest of us press on with trespassing and other inventive ways to keep check of our rightful properties.

End of story!

GR. Do you REALLY think that in the light of this landmark ruling the ROC government will heed your expert (NOT) advice and just pursue trespass cases. Christofias has already changed his tune to assert that he (now) thinks the issue should be solved as part of a political settlement (funny that) so why do you think ROC courts will now continue pursuing trespass cases??

It’s not the RoC that will pursue trespassing cases but the refugees (owners) and nobody can stop them.

Any more requests to other EU courts for enforcement of trespass cases by ROC courts will now be thrown out in light of the new ECHR ruling. Why, I here you ask? Well, until the IPC sits to hear a case requesting restitution, compensation or loss of use, any judgement on any given property cannot be determined because it will be the IPC that will DETERMINE who is awarded the ownership and title. Therefore a case of trespass would be rejected because if a subsequent occupier of the land is awarded the right to ownership, then how can they be accused of trespass??

The ECHR decision ONLY refers to those refugees who sue Turkey of obstructing them from accessing their properties, but in the case of Apostolides his ONLY complaint was that someone was TRESSPASSING his rightful property so the matter was very straightforward:

Case #1: Property owner Vs Trespasser (individual)

Result: Trespasser pays compensation and ownership is retained by the owner!

Case #2: Property owners Vs Turkey (country)

Result: Turkey pays “compensation” through the “IPC” and ownership is lost to Turkey.

If 99.99% of GC are like you I'm not surprised the TC's don't want to live with you.

Let’s just say I won’t be losing any sleep tonight... to each his own country and you'll find that most of the world's problems will be gone.

Erm, I think you've lost the plot GR.

1) The ECHR has 'in effect' said that 'ultimate' ownership of land is now in question and will be decided by the IPC. Because the ultimate ownership cannot be confirmed until the IPC decides (or ultimately the ECHR on appeal) then no court outside the ROC will enforce any (ROC court) judgement for trespass cases on that premise. Anyway, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and become the next Mr A, then we'll see how far you get.

2) You will not get compo AND keep the land. Try reading the judgement VERY carefully, as obviously u r a bit slow on the uptake.

Have a good day in paradise, or is it rapidly turning into a hell for you

It sounds like you're a carpetbagger PRAYING to get away with your crime so in your defensive mind you have manufactured an interpretation that suits your wishful thinking.

[YFred]

At the end of the day, this whole “IPC” story is a waste of time because 99.99% of GC refugees are clearly NOT interested in “compensation”, but their rightful ownership of their land/properties in the occupied territory.

Let the few who want compensation (mostly comprised of ex-Cypriots who have been overseas for too long to return or care about Cyprus anyway) deal with Turkey’s “IPC” (these fools will get what they deserve anyway), while the rest of us press on with trespassing and other inventive ways to keep check of our rightful properties.

End of story!

GR. Do you REALLY think that in the light of this landmark ruling the ROC government will heed your expert (NOT) advice and just pursue trespass cases. Christofias has already changed his tune to assert that he (now) thinks the issue should be solved as part of a political settlement (funny that) so why do you think ROC courts will now continue pursuing trespass cases??

Any more requests to other EU courts for enforcement of trespass cases by ROC courts will now be thrown out in light of the new ECHR ruling. Why, I here you ask? Well, until the IPC sits to hear a case requesting restitution, compensation or loss of use, any judgement on any given property cannot be determined because it will be the IPC that will DETERMINE who is awarded the ownership and title. Therefore a case of trespass would be rejected because if a subsequent occupier of the land is awarded the right to ownership, then how can they be accused of trespass??

I'm afraid your 'inventive' ways are at an end. You've tried to invent many things over the years none of which have really worked, but now the invention has been 'patented' by the IPC, the patent approver being the ECHR.

If 99.99% of GC are like you I'm not surprised the TC's don't want to live with you.

As you say, "END OF STORY"

We thank Allah that only 30% of GCs are like GR and hence we do have a chance to live in peace with our GC cousins.
Our Chirokitten friend has really lost the plot on this one. But then again, that does happen to our patriotic sheepriot friends whenever the balance corrects itself slightly so it is no longer totally pro GC. We have learned to live with these little anomolies in life.

[Get Real!]

We thank Allah that only 30% of GCs are like GR and hence we do have a chance to live in peace with our GC cousins.
Our Chirokitten friend has really lost the plot on this one. But then again, that does happen to our patriotic sheepriot friends whenever the balance corrects itself slightly so it is no longer totally pro GC. We have learned to live with these little anomolies in life.

And that's exactly why you'd be better off in Turkey where you belong.

[Jerry]

I don't think there is much we can do about it except use the IPC for restitution and exchange but refuse all offers of compensation.

Jerry that will not work. Yeah fine turn down the offer of compo and insist on restitution, take your appeal to the TRNC court, and then on to appeal to the ECHR after waiting god knows how long, but in all likelyhood as long as the IPC offer to you is deemed fair by the ECHR you will get nowhere as they will uphold the IPC decision. Again, if you read the ruling the ECHR opinion is that 'property' is a material object, and as long as fair compensation is offered that will be deemed as fair recompense.

The ECHR opinion states that the more times a property is handed down/inherited from the original occupier pre-74, the more time that is passed, so the link (and rights) are weakened, i.e. for someone who has since died and passed a property on in his/her will, the 'inheritor' may have never 'used' the property, therefore this person, cannot be classed as a 'refugee', nor can they claim for 'loss of use' of a property that they have either never occupied, or maybe occupied for a while in early childhood.

The ECHR are in effect saying that current occupiers can not be ejected in favour of someone who's links to the property over the years have been so diminished and as long as compensation is paid that is it. i.e. as said earlier, possession is 9/10 of the law and the other 1/10 will compensate the original occupier.

You miss the point Solveit. When the IPC was set up the Court refused to accept it as a way of solving the property issue because it did not offer restitution. Now that the IPC offers restitution it is accepted by the IPC - in spite of the fact that only two cases from eighty have been so resolved. The remedy of restitution is little more than one of theory; in practice only 3% of cases have been resolved by it. This ruling stinks to high heaven, it is based on expediency and the right of military might not justice.

Do you honestly believe that a carpetbagger who has just bought a holiday home that he visits a few times a year has a greater right than a GC whose family has owned it for centuries? The Court has made absolutely no effort to deter Turkey from further exploitation of unused GC land and by omission effectively condoned it.

I believe we GCs should apply to the IPC and expose it for the sham it is, it hardly offers restitution in practice, it is merely an expedient means of legalising the events of 1974, endorsed by The European Court of Human Rights.


.