Cyprus-Forum.com

[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.

Yeah yeah DT, whatever you say

I hate idiots

2009 After ECJ ruling

http://www.mfa.gov.cy/mfa/Embassies/Hag ... enDocument

President Christofias said many fear that Greek Cypriots will now begin resorting to the courts. Speaking during a lunch hosted in his honor by the National Federation of Cyprus in the UK, President Christofias, who is in London on a private visit, assessed that the Cyprus problem and its property issue will not be solved in courts.

[Solveit]

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..

Jerry I'm not missing the point at all. May I ask, do you own land and or buildings? Has it been developed and or in use?

[Malapapa]

For the record I do not own a property in Cyprus, but I have some TC friends, have been to the TRNC a number of times, and am interested in the history (albeit oftentimes tragic). Over the past few years i've seen the venom from some on here aimed at TC's.

Not all TCs. Only those that support Turkey's continued illegalities and human rights violations, over decades, in Cyprus. Brits experiencing the same would express the same venom - and then some!

More often than not the TC's on here try to make reasoned arguments whereas the extremist GC's get nasty especially if things don't go their way. I actually feel sorry for ALL cypriots TC AND GC that just want an end to all this and to get on with their lives.

We all want this but only if there is real justice for the island's people will it end so they can all get on with their lives. The IPC ensures Turkey can delay and obfuscate and make judgments in its interests, not in the interests of Cyprus and all (including TCs) its people. So why are you, an outsider, so happy and smug about this?

Forgive me, but it sound as though you have some vested interest, beyond having "some TC friends" and beyond having been to the internationally acknowledged (including Britain) illegitimate entity you term the TRNC (without inverted commas).

Come clean. What are your interests? So we know what sort of person we're exchanging with here.

[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

I hate idiots

2009 After ECJ ruling

http://www.mfa.gov.cy/mfa/Embassies/Hag ... enDocument

President Christofias said many fear that Greek Cypriots will now begin resorting to the courts. Speaking during a lunch hosted in his honor by the National Federation of Cyprus in the UK, President Christofias, who is in London on a private visit, assessed that the Cyprus problem and its property issue will not be solved in courts.

Hmmm you hate idiots eh, shame, it must be awful looking in the mirror each day.

What you quote is now OLD NEWS. Christofias was referring to the flood of cases that could go through the courts post Orams ruling. Things have now changed and that route is now dead imo. As I said to GR, why don't you try it and we will see.

The link you posted does indeed quote Christo' as saying that the problem needs to be solved politically, but in that same article he also said that the ECJ enforcement ruling needed to be exploited. Meaning that he would exploit this in the talks and use the ruling to beat Talat with the stick to get more concessions from the TC's.

NOW he is saying the same thing, but in a different context, because NOW he knows the ball is firmly in the other court because TALAT has wrestled the stick from Christo' so TALAT now has the upper hand. So now a 'political solution' is the ONLY hope for Christo' as the stick is gone.

Get it??

[Solveit]

For the record I do not own a property in Cyprus, but I have some TC friends, have been to the TRNC a number of times, and am interested in the history (albeit oftentimes tragic). Over the past few years i've seen the venom from some on here aimed at TC's.

Not all TCs. Only those that support Turkey's continued illegalities and human rights violations, over decades, in Cyprus. Brits experiencing the same would express the same venom - and then some!

More often than not the TC's on here try to make reasoned arguments whereas the extremist GC's get nasty especially if things don't go their way. I actually feel sorry for ALL cypriots TC AND GC that just want an end to all this and to get on with their lives.

We all want this but only if there is real justice for the island's people will it end so they can all get on with their lives. The IPC ensures Turkey can delay and obfuscate and make judgments in its interests, not in the interests of Cyprus and all (including TCs) its people. So why are you, an outsider, so happy and smug about this?

Forgive me, but it sound as though you have some vested interest, beyond having "some TC friends" and beyond having been to the internationally acknowledged (including Britain) illegitimate entity you term the TRNC (without inverted commas).

Come clean. What are your interests? So we know what sort of person we're exchanging with here.

No vested interest here, believe what you like I don't realy care, as said I have some TC friends and have visited "TRNC" (there you go, inverted commas to please your semantics) a number of times for hols, i've seen how things are for them and have taken an interest in the whole Cyprus issue, nothing more, nothing less. Again, as said before, I would like to see everyone get their land, or compo, or whatever they want but the reality is that it aint gonna happen in all cases so until you guys get your heads around this no-one will ever really move on. I almost get the feeling that some are scared for the problem to be solved for worry that they'll have nothing else to occupy their lives any more!!!

[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.

Yeah yeah DT, whatever you say

I hate idiots

2009 After ECJ ruling

http://www.mfa.gov.cy/mfa/Embassies/Hag ... enDocument

President Christofias said many fear that Greek Cypriots will now begin resorting to the courts. Speaking during a lunch hosted in his honor by the National Federation of Cyprus in the UK, President Christofias, who is in London on a private visit, assessed that the Cyprus problem and its property issue will not be solved in courts.

Hmmm you hate idiots eh, shame, it must be awful looking in the mirror each day.

What you quote is now OLD NEWS. Christofias was referring to the flood of cases that could go through the courts post Orams ruling. Things have now changed and that route is now dead imo. As I said to GR, why don't you try it and we will see.

The link you posted does indeed quote Christo' as saying that the problem needs to be solved politically, but in that same article he also said that the ECJ enforcement ruling needed to be exploited. Meaning that he would exploit this in the talks and use the ruling to beat Talat with the stick to get more concessions from the TC's.

NOW he is saying the same thing, but in a different context, because NOW he knows the ball is firmly in the other court because TALAT has wrestled the stick from Christo' so TALAT now has the upper hand. So now a 'political solution' is the ONLY hope for Christo' as the stick is gone.

Get it??

You still can't tell the difference between the ECJ ruling and the ECHR ruling, can you?

The ECJ ruling matey makes Cypriot court decisions enforceable in any court in the EU. Where has this changed by the ECHR ruling?

[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..

Jerry I'm not missing the point at all. May I ask, do you own land and or buildings? Has it been developed and or in use?

Yes I do own a house in Cyprus, it's currently a holiday home for a TC or mainland Turk. Most of the empty land surrounding it (many acres), owned by my brother-in-law, is gradually being built on. The Court has said nothing that will halt the further exploitation of his land. That is the point that you have missed or unable to fairly respond to and that is what makes this ruling so unfair and one-sided.

[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

I hate idiots

2009 After ECJ ruling

http://www.mfa.gov.cy/mfa/Embassies/Hag ... enDocument

President Christofias said many fear that Greek Cypriots will now begin resorting to the courts. Speaking during a lunch hosted in his honor by the National Federation of Cyprus in the UK, President Christofias, who is in London on a private visit, assessed that the Cyprus problem and its property issue will not be solved in courts.

Hmmm you hate idiots eh, shame, it must be awful looking in the mirror each day.

What you quote is now OLD NEWS. Christofias was referring to the flood of cases that could go through the courts post Orams ruling. Things have now changed and that route is now dead imo. As I said to GR, why don't you try it and we will see.

The link you posted does indeed quote Christo' as saying that the problem needs to be solved politically, but in that same article he also said that the ECJ enforcement ruling needed to be exploited. Meaning that he would exploit this in the talks and use the ruling to beat Talat with the stick to get more concessions from the TC's.

NOW he is saying the same thing, but in a different context, because NOW he knows the ball is firmly in the other court because TALAT has wrestled the stick from Christo' so TALAT now has the upper hand. So now a 'political solution' is the ONLY hope for Christo' as the stick is gone.

Get it??

You still can't tell the difference between the ECJ ruling and the ECHR ruling, can you?

The ECJ ruling matey makes Cypriot court decisions enforceable in any court in the EU. Where has this changed by the ECHR ruling?

Oh Jesus Christ DT where did I say that the ECHR overrules the ECJ ruling??? They are about two entirely different things, the ECJ ruling being about 'enforcement'. What I'm saying is that another EU court would now think twice about enforcing any trespass case on a public policy issue because the ECHR ruling brings into play the legality of the ROC ruling as until the IPC has ruled on 'ultimate ownership' how can you say if trespass is valid or not??

Thats it from me for now, I have to go get a life Speak again soon.

[Malapapa]

No vested interest here, believe what you like I don't realy care,

Sorry, for some reason I was under the impression you did care.

as said I have some TC friends and have visited "TRNC" (there you go, inverted commas to please your semantics) a number of times for hols, i've seen how things are for them and have taken an interest in the whole Cyprus issue, nothing more, nothing less.

Outsiders who side with a foreign occupier and its instruments, do Cyprus and all its people, a great disservice

Again, as said before, I would like to see everyone get their land, or compo, or whatever they want but the reality is that it aint gonna happen in all cases so until you guys get your heads around this no-one will ever really move on.

I only wish I could place Britain (if that's your homeland) in an equivalent position to what Cyprus finds itself, so you can get your head around how its people feel.

I almost get the feeling that some are scared for the problem to be solved for worry that they'll have nothing else to occupy their lives any more!!!

You really have no idea have you? I can just about put up with traumatised, brainwashed TCs spouting nonsense but, if you're an outsider, you really have no excuse. I suggest you start empathising with all the island's people if you're hoping to make a constructive contribution here.

Otherwise, you'll just be lumped in with all the other carpetbaggers.

[Solveit]

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..

Jerry I'm not missing the point at all. May I ask, do you own land and or buildings? Has it been developed and or in use?

Yes I do own a house in Cyprus, it's currently a holiday home for a TC or mainland Turk. Most of the empty land surrounding it (many acres), owned by my brother-in-law, is gradually being built on. The Court has said nothing that will halt the further exploitation of his land. That is the point that you have missed or unable to fairly respond to and that is what makes this ruling so unfair and one-sided.

Jerry I have missed no point at all. I do understand how you feel though. IMO what is built upon is built upon, I'm not saying it was neccessarily right, but whats done is done and thats why unraveling this mess is always going to end up with those happy and tose unhappy, especially if people want their land back and not compensation. Imo, all further land development should cease on both sides in order to preserve what is left so that both sides still have a chance to get something back, but what if the two communities carry on arguing for another 5-10 years? then what? I have read in the past about the reasons GC voted against the AP, but it seems that you will get back far less now (i.e Morphou etc) than you would have then!! In voting no in 04 I think you really shot yourselves in the foot. Just my opinion.

Anyway, as said I must go, but have enjoyed the debate.