Cyprus-Forum.com

[boulio]

I have a question can the ECHR ruling be challenged and how?because i believe and everyone pretty much does as well(including many turks)that this was a ruling taken to force a faster resolution to the cyprus problem as well to enchance Talats election campain.THe ruling contridicts one of the eu's four basic freedoms of enjoying and owning ones property.

[Kikapu]

I have a question can the ECHR ruling be challenged and how?because i believe and everyone pretty much does as well(including many turks)that this was a ruling taken to force a faster resolution to the cyprus problem as well to enchance Talats election campain.THe ruling contridicts one of the eu's four basic freedoms of enjoying and owning ones property.

Probably after Talat is re-elected, which I already predicted that he will be after Erdogan started sending "love" messages to the GCs with his recent statements. This will all help in getting Talat re-elected. This must all be Eroglu's worse nightmare at what has happened in the last week or so.!

[boulio]

http://www.politis-news.com/cgibin/hweb ... V=articles

Basically says that the original pilot case Aresti vs. Turkey that was decided in may of 2007,the compensation award has still not been payed by turkey.

Why do i have a feeling this is all smoke and mirrors considering turkey did not even pay the original settlement.THis will be grounds for a appeal.

Buying time i guess till a solution?

[DTA]

http://www.politis-news.com/cgibin/hweb?-A=934212&-V=articles

Basically says that the original pilot case Aresti vs. Turkey that was decided in may of 2007,the compensation award has still not been payed by turkey.

Why do i have a feeling this is all smoke and mirrors considering turkey did not even pay the original settlement.THis will be grounds for a appeal.

Buying time i guess till a solution?

Pilot case in terms of IPC?

I think there was some changes to the IPC after this case, I cant read greek so dont know what is written.

[CopperLine]

I have a question can the ECHR ruling be challenged and how?because i believe and everyone pretty much does as well(including many turks)that this was a ruling taken to force a faster resolution to the cyprus problem as well to enchance Talats election campain.THe ruling contridicts one of the eu's four basic freedoms of enjoying and owning ones property.

The answer to your question boulio is, effectively, no.

To understand this answer you have to appreciate the foundation, history and structure of the ECHR. The ECHR is an international convention (or treaty) in which signatories have agreed that an international court and legal process be established and which the signatories have agreed to be subject. Effectively on signature (or ratification) parties are saying that in the field of human rights the ECHR has the final say. Having said that the ECHR is NOT technically a court of appeal. The ECHR is there to consider cases in which the national processes have failed to uphold human rights for substantive reasons and/or for procedural reasons.

In the normal course of things ECHR cases are heard by panels of judges and decision is made. But sometimes on particularly significant cases the case might be held before the Grand Chamber. It is only to the Grand Chamber that an appeal against a panel judgment can be made, but the important thing is that it stays within the ECHR. One might be dissatisfied with this arrangement, but given that all legal systems logically have a highest court somewhere, one would have to ask where else after the ECHR could one lodge an appeal ? It can't go back down the legal chain because it was the inadequacy of the lower levels that provoked the petition to the ECHR in the first place (the local remedies have been exhausted) and one can't go higher because there is no 'higher' !


On your second point I think two things : first, you are completely off target when you say "this was a ruling taken to force a faster resolution to the cyprus problem as well to enchance Talats election campain [sic]" : what evidence from this case and from the reasoning of the court do you have to come to such a conclusion ? Speculation is as easy as it is misleading. Second, you say "THe ruling contridicts [sic] one of the eu's [sic] four basic freedoms of enjoying and owning ones property". The ECHR is not an EU court so this is nothing to do with the EU. Next the judgment does not at all contradict the enjoyment of property, in fact it is the ECHR which first explicitly specified this human right. And this decision repeats again and again that this right has to be upheld by the respondent state (Turkey) and that the respondent state MUST have an effective local remedy, in this case the IPC. This judgment does not contradict the right to enjoyment of property - on no rational reading of the decision can you come to the conclusion that it contradicts that freedom.

[boulio]

copper couple of points;
Talat was down 12-15 points in polls to eroglu pre judgment,down 5 points after(matter of days)

in its judgment does it not bring up along the line that after 35 years ownership is in question.and that makes mention of g/c leaving there properties,did they forget that for many it was at gunpoint?

[Jerry]

Copperline, in so far as the IPC has only awarded restitution in two cases it can hardly be seen as an effective local remedy to uphold the rights of the legal GC owners in the north. The judgment infers that the present occupier of my property has a greater right to enjoy it than I have, I call that a contradiction. Furthermore the Court's unwillingness/inability to order Turkey to adopt measures to refrain from the further exploitation of vacant GC property can only be seen as conflicting with its raison d'etre.

With regard to the EU, is it not a fact that following the Lisbon Treaty the EU plans to aceede to the EchR, so there is/will be a link?

[CopperLine]

Copperline, in so far as the IPC has only awarded restitution in two cases it can hardly be seen as an effective local remedy to uphold the rights of the legal GC owners in the north. The judgment infers that the present occupier of my property has a greater right to enjoy it than I have, I call that a contradiction. Furthermore the Court's unwillingness/inability to order Turkey to adopt measures to refrain from the further exploitation of vacant GC property can only be seen as conflicting with its raison d'etre.

With regard to the EU, is it not a fact that following the Lisbon Treaty the EU plans to aceede to the EchR, so there is/will be a link?

Point 2 first : insofar as all EU states are also parties to the ECHR (with all being parties to the ECHR before they became EU members) then the effect is for all practical purposes negligible, at least in the short run.

Point 1, next. Whether we agree with it or not, the ECHR considers the IPC as the local remedy, its creation being the result of an earlier ECHR case. Essentially the ECHR is assessing whether the IPC is an effective local remedy and so far, on balance, it has appraised it as being so. [Personally I don't think so mainly for reasons of lack of speediness and problems of restitution, but our individual opinions are irrelevant. I think it absurd, though, that just because one may have a widely different opinion from the ECHR one therefore jumps to the conclusion that it is corrupt/'political'/ serving Turkey/Greece/Cyprus/US/etc interests]

The judgment does not infer [sic, you mean implies] at all that present occupier has greater rights. What it does consider is that current residents also have human rights that need to be weighed in the balance. It is for this reason, I think, that the point about limiting inheritance claims is significant.

On the ECHR's alleged "... unwillingness/inability to order Turkey ..." I really think that that is an unfair charge. The ECHR regularly finds against Turkey, imposes penalties, etc - in fact more so and in reference to the widest range of breaches than just about every other party to the ECHR. This includes Cyprus/northern Cyprus related cases, and that again also includes the IPC case. That the ECHR has very limited enforcement powers and that Turkey has frequently failed to comply with ECHR decisions or pay penalties is not a criticism of the ECHR so much as an identification with the terms of the convention on the one hand and the non-compliance of one of the parties on the other hand.

Putting it crudely the ECHR can either try to protect the human rights of GC property claimants in the best way available to it or it could just say 'screw it, there's bugger all we can do; you're on your own'

[Kifeas]

I have a question can the ECHR ruling be challenged and how?because i believe and everyone pretty much does as well(including many turks)that this was a ruling taken to force a faster resolution to the cyprus problem as well to enchance Talats election campain.THe ruling contridicts one of the eu's four basic freedoms of enjoying and owning ones property.

It can be partly changed, or even completely, by only another ruling of the same court. This will take place though in some few years time, after one of those cases that have been pending at the court and now have to be directed to the IPC, goes back to the court for non-just satisfaction. This will surely happen, since the last ECtHR ruling is completely perforated with legal mistakes, however, the new procedures through the IPC and the Administrative court in the occupied areas have to be exhausted first. It may take from 3-5 years.

[boulio]

so kifeas do you believe it was a political ruling to help(save)talat?

nowing the echr that for the forseable future(next months to t/c community elections)it really dosent matter because it will be changed to a legal ruling in the future(3-5 years)and not one of political expediancy