Cyprus-Forum.com

[Solveit]

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

I meant I don't really care what you think of me!

I DO hope that all Cypriots get as much satisfaction out of any settlement asap, but the reality is that not everyone will get EVERYTHING they want. The two sides between you have created one unholy mess for yourselves over the last 50 years. I wish you all good luck in unravelling it.

Bye for now (for the third and final time)

[Malapapa]

Thats it from me for now, I have to go get a life

Yes please. Go and solve Britain's problems out and leave the Cyprus one alone.

[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?

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.

Are you for real? Do you honestly think the ECHR has authorised the IPC to rule on who has legal ownership?

How did you manage to debate this across this thread while thinking that this was the case?

[Piratis]

Solveit, as the Apostolides VS Orams case showed it doesn't matter what you build on our land. Our land will always be our land and if you build something on it you will be required by a Cypriot court to demolish it. Tresspasing is a criminal offense in Cyprus and Cyprus can issue European arrest warrants against anybody (foreigner or TC) who is illegally trespassing on our land. Not only you will have to pay money for this illegality but you can even end up in jail.

If you thought you could force us to accept your own terms regarding property you are very mistaken. We have a lot of weapons to use, and we will use them if you do not accept a fair solution to the Cyprus problem, which among other things will give priotity to the owner and not to the trespasser. The Annan plan was not a fair solution and that is why it was rightly rejected and it became null and void.

Another thing you will have to do in order to reach an agreement is to hand back a lot more than what was given to us with the Annan plan. You might illegally occupy 36% of land, but we legally have the 100% of power in the one and only legal state in Cyprus. If we are going to let you have any sort of legitimate power you will have to give a lot more than a few square kilometers of land.

[Piratis]

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.

Are you for real? Do you honestly think the ECHR has authorised the IPC to rule on who has legal ownership?

How did you manage to debate this across this thread while thinking that this was the case?

The fact that our refugee has the legal ownership is undisputed. This is why his human rights are violated in the first place.

Furthermore the court in any other EU country has no authority to judge whether the ruling of the Cyprus court was right or not. A court in the UK or any other EU country is no higher than a court in Cyprus and has no power to overrule a ruling of a Cypriot court. The only thing that a court in another EU country needs to know is if the decision of the Cypriot court can be enforced in their own country. Now they know the answer to that, and that is all that they need to know.

[YFred]

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.

Are you for real? Do you honestly think the ECHR has authorised the IPC to rule on who has legal ownership?

How did you manage to debate this across this thread while thinking that this was the case?

The fact that our refugee has the legal ownership is undisputed. This is why his human rights are violated in the first place.

Furthermore the court in any other EU country has no authority to judge whether the ruling of the Cyprus court was right or not. A court in the UK or any other EU country is no higher than a court in Cyprus and has no power to overrule a ruling of a Cypriot court. The only thing that a court in another EU country needs to know is if the decision of the Cypriot court can be enforced in their own country. Now they know the answer to that, and that is all that they need to know.

Lest just wait and see for a few weeks to see how many new cases are sent to the EU courts for the next few weeks shall we.
It seems to me you guys are shell shocked by this decision. What are you going to be like when we have direct flights by the end of the year. Just can't wait.

[Kikapu]

Are you for real? Do you honestly think the ECHR has authorised the IPC to rule on who has legal ownership?

How did you manage to debate this across this thread while thinking that this was the case?

DT, Soleit believes that the recent ECHR ruling is a "Landmark" decision where whole of Europe has to abide by it, which I believe he is very much mistaken. This decision by the ECHR, as I understand it, is restricted ONLY on how the IPC in the "trnc" operates and what to take into consideration when providing redress for the GCs if they choose to apply to get it. If Solveit thinks that it is a landmark decision that IPC in the north has the power to determine who is now the owners of any property in the north, then he must also believe that the IPC in the "trnc" is also the organ who will now decide who is the owner of any property in the rest of the entire Europe since he believes that this was a "landmark" ruling by the ECHR, just like the Orams case was made by the ECJ.! The moment there is a settlement, then the IPC will become no longer as the arm of the occupying force of Turkey. At that time, this ruling by the ECHR should become no longer valid also. On the other hand, the Orams ruling was a landmark ruling and will remain so even if there is a settlement in Cyprus since the Orams ruling is now the fabric of all European courts unlike what the ECHR ruling gave the IPC in the "trnc". Lets hear it from CopperLine, to see what his take is on all this.!

[Solveit]

Are you for real? Do you honestly think the ECHR has authorised the IPC to rule on who has legal ownership?

How did you manage to debate this across this thread while thinking that this was the case?

DT, Soleit believes that the recent ECHR ruling is a "Landmark" decision where whole of Europe has to abide by it, which I believe he is very much mistaken. This decision by the ECHR, as I understand it, is restricted ONLY on how the IPC in the "trnc" operates and what to take into consideration when providing redress for the GCs if they choose to apply to get it. If Solveit thinks that it is a landmark decision that IPC in the north has the power to determine who is now the owners of any property in the north, then he must also believe that the IPC in the "trnc" is also the organ who will now decide who is the owner of any property in the rest of the entire Europe since he believes that this was a "landmark" ruling by the ECHR, just like the Orams case was made by the ECJ.! The moment there is a settlement, then the IPC will become no longer as the arm of the occupying force of Turkey. At that time, this ruling by the ECHR should become no longer valid also. On the other hand, the Orams ruling was a landmark ruling and will remain so even if there is a settlement in Cyprus since the Orams ruling is now the fabric of all European courts unlike what the ECHR ruling gave the IPC in the "trnc". Lets hear it from CopperLine, to see what his take is on all this.!

Oh well I guess I can't stay away lol. Ok, I didn't mean 'landmark' in the sense that its something thats sets precedent for the whole of europe as in the ECJ ruling. And I agree Kikapu that in the event of a solution the IPC will probably not be used, thus the ECHR decision will not matter.

HOWEVER, where it IS significant is that without a solution the IPC and thus the ruling, WILL be used to determine any applications from GC's in the meantime.

In addition, The TC's will hold out for more in the talks knowing that the ECHR decision regarding the validity of the IPC decision making process is now approved as a valid remedy for those that wish to use it.

The ECHR decision also shows the way of thinking amongst non Cypriots in terms of how the property problem can be remedied i.e. restitution, compensation or exchange, in a similar way that the AP did. So keep dreaming if you think that you will ALL return to your lands in the north, because I think that those lands currently occupied will not be handed back.

[Jerry]

Solveit,

RESTITUTION IN THEORY ONLY, VERY LITTLE CHANCE OF ACHIEVING IT (3% to date?)

That, despite its earlier ruling, is what the ECHR has dished up for GCs.

IT IS NOT JUSTICE

[Kikapu]

Are you for real? Do you honestly think the ECHR has authorised the IPC to rule on who has legal ownership?

How did you manage to debate this across this thread while thinking that this was the case?

DT, Soleit believes that the recent ECHR ruling is a "Landmark" decision where whole of Europe has to abide by it, which I believe he is very much mistaken. This decision by the ECHR, as I understand it, is restricted ONLY on how the IPC in the "trnc" operates and what to take into consideration when providing redress for the GCs if they choose to apply to get it. If Solveit thinks that it is a landmark decision that IPC in the north has the power to determine who is now the owners of any property in the north, then he must also believe that the IPC in the "trnc" is also the organ who will now decide who is the owner of any property in the rest of the entire Europe since he believes that this was a "landmark" ruling by the ECHR, just like the Orams case was made by the ECJ.! The moment there is a settlement, then the IPC will become no longer as the arm of the occupying force of Turkey. At that time, this ruling by the ECHR should become no longer valid also. On the other hand, the Orams ruling was a landmark ruling and will remain so even if there is a settlement in Cyprus since the Orams ruling is now the fabric of all European courts unlike what the ECHR ruling gave the IPC in the "trnc". Lets hear it from CopperLine, to see what his take is on all this.!

Oh well I guess I can't stay away lol. Ok, I didn't mean 'landmark' in the sense that its something thats sets precedent for the whole of europe as in the ECJ ruling. And I agree Kikapu that in the event of a solution the IPC will probably not be used, thus the ECHR decision will not matter.

I know, the CF can be addictive sometimes.! OK, your above takes care of your "landmark ruling" statements, so lets not go any further with it.

HOWEVER, where it IS significant is that without a solution the IPC and thus the ruling, WILL be used to determine any applications from GC's in the meantime.

Well, what's changed. IPC was there before few days ago too, and whether the GCs applies to IPC or Turkey directly via the ECHR, it's the same thing, is it not.? The GCs applying to get redress will walk away with the same results, which is not very much. Until it is made clear that one cannot get compensation from the IPC for a GC not being able to use their property in the last 36 years as they could by going through the ECHR, that would be the only difference. Although it is a major difference, it only effects those who do not wish to sell their properties in the north, which seems to be the overwhelming majority of the GC refugees, therefore they will now concentrate of using the Orams ruling to go after the TCs and anyone else on trespass to get compensation with the TCs properties that are already in the south now. This ruling by the ECHR will not bring Compassion and Understanding as my friend Bir had hoped for. In fact, it may become more the case of "well show you" attitude by both sides.

In addition, The TC's will hold out for more in the talks knowing that the ECHR decision regarding the validity of the IPC decision making process is now approved as a valid remedy for those that wish to use it.

That's fair and square. So will the RoC hold out for more as being the only recognised government in Cyprus and that the north is still the territory of the RoC who still have a veto power over Turkey's EU aspirations. If there is no settlement, then the north remains the "welfare state" of Turkey, that's all.

The ECHR decision also shows the way of thinking amongst non Cypriots in terms of how the property problem can be remedied i.e. restitution, compensation or exchange, in a similar way that the AP did. So keep dreaming if you think that you will ALL return to your lands in the north.

Annan Plan was not just faulty on the property issues, but was faulty on all fronts, so lets not use the AP as a guide as to how the Cyprus problem should be solved, OK, and this is coming from a TC.!