Cyprus-Forum.com

[Gasman]

They summed up by saying that though the situation has taken a turn for the worse, it cannot be described as a tragedy.

Apparently it is not just descendents of GCs who never lived in the property who cannot claim under the rule. It will apply to people who did live there but were only 11 or 12 years of age at the time?

[B25]

So, let me get this, I have been left property in the north, I am prevented from access to it through no fault of my own, and now I have no rights due to the time lapse that I have never been to it???

What sort of absurd logic is that? Whatever happend to the ECJ ruling that the original legal owner is still the legal owner. Of the British High Court that said the same thing during the orams case.

Are we to believe that there rulings were meaningless and now the ECHR, which is coming over as being 'Bent' to decide on my property rights? Who are they to strip me of my universal rights to my property, becasus if thats the case, I will go and claim acres of space world wide and sit on it for 30+years and claim its mine??? Utter bollocks. They fucked up with the IPC decision and now this. Smacks of some corruption somewhere, don't you think????

Fucking Hell!

[Gasman]

now I have no rights due to the time lapse that I have never been to it???

No, I don't think it is saying you have NO rights. Just not the right to evict those who have been living in it for yonks. I am sure you will still have the right to compensation.

The ECHR was being lauded at the GC saviour when it made decisions that went in favour of the GCs with property there.

I must say they seem to do a lot of 'about faces'.

Can't help thinking that pressure may be being exerted on them due to the desire not to upset Ankara because of more important matters globally and that that looms larger than the desire not to upset GC inheritors of land and property in the North.

Also the ECHR is swamped with a backlog of zillions of cases and are probably looking for ways to offload some of them to be sorted elsewhere.

As for you squatting on land or in property for x amount of years and then claiming it - it is possible to do that in lots of places.

But none I know of where the original title deed holder is around, has their deeds and is claiming their ownership.

May I ask why you have waited so long to claim what is yours in the North? I really don't understand this. Or were GCs waiting to get into the EU thinking it would all be sorted out for them by some higher power then? Or what?

And also ask if it is your desire to go and live in the property you have inherited?

I have so far only met GCs who would like to keep that property as 'holiday homes' or to continue to pass on to their descendants, none who actually want to give up their established live in the RoC and relocate to the North (well, not unless by some miracle, all Turks, Turkish troops and preferably TCs too, were ejected from there first).

Behind every claim someone makes that they are being 'deprived' of their property in the North, it seems there are lots of different circumstances, situations, history etc. It is not clear cut and the same for all. I've been reading a book about 'Refugee status' as applied to descendants of those who were actually 'displaced' and how they perceive themselves today. Very interesting.

[YFred]

So, let me get this, I have been left property in the north, I am prevented from access to it through no fault of my own, and now I have no rights due to the time lapse that I have never been to it???

What sort of absurd logic is that? Whatever happend to the ECJ ruling that the original legal owner is still the legal owner. Of the British High Court that said the same thing during the orams case.

Are we to believe that there rulings were meaningless and now the ECHR, which is coming over as being 'Bent' to decide on my property rights? Who are they to strip me of my universal rights to my property, becasus if thats the case, I will go and claim acres of space world wide and sit on it for 30+years and claim its mine??? Utter bollocks. They fucked up with the IPC decision and now this. Smacks of some corruption somewhere, don't you think????

Fucking Hell!

Fuckin hell indeed. But you said it would be settled in court. Now that the parameters have been set by the court, are you saying that you will not accept them?

Now that is interesting. I wonder if Orams can take up their casue in the new light. Perhaps they can go for retrial on account that they nerver really had one to start with. Now there's an idea for our Ms Booth.

[Nikitas]

B25, do not confuse dissimilar things. The ECHR ruling concerned pleadings as to the ENJOYMENT of property, and the people who relied on that human right specified in the Charter failed since they were not the original holders of the property but heirs. As heirs they could not show loss of enjoyment, something they never had.

The issue of ownership and right of access is another matter altogether, and on that there can be no deviation from present norms, the EU is based on right to property and establishment.

I am surprised that the lawyers of these applicants pleaded loss of enjoyment in these two cases.

The ECHR case law has many foundations on which a case brought by heirs could be built. Neither the passage of time nor the devolution of property can be blocks to the rights of owners. And this applies equally to GC land in the north as to TC land in the south.

[B25]

B25, do not confuse dissimilar things. The ECHR ruling concerned pleadings as to the ENJOYMENT of property, and the people who relied on that human right specified in the Charter failed since they were not the original holders of the property but heirs. As heirs they could not show loss of enjoyment, something they never had.

The issue of ownership and right of access is another matter altogether, and on that there can be no deviation from present norms, the EU is based on right to property and establishment.

I am surprised that the lawyers of these applicants pleaded loss of enjoyment in these two cases.

The ECHR case law has many foundations on which a case brought by heirs could be built. Neither the passage of time nor the devolution of property can be blocks to the rights of owners. And this applies equally to GC land in the north as to TC land in the south.

Nikita, thanks for the clarification, but I still object to this as, even though they may be heirs, their right to enjoy was restricted by the invading and permanent 40,000 turkish troops. How the hell can they enjoy it otherwise??

The ECHR has lost all its credibilty in terms of showing impartiality to sensitive issues, they are a sham.

[Gasman]

Another Cyprus Mail article about it today:

“This has to do with the concept of home,” human rights lawyer Achilleas Demetriades said yesterday. He said ‘home’ is a distinct human right that has nothing to do with the meaning of property.

“Unfortunately the result is not good for our side because the court ruled that the concept of home by itself cannot be protected when it comes to children who were 10-11-years-old in 1974,” Demetriades told state radio. “With the passage of time it is no longer considered that their home is there.”

The applicants, Tasos Asproftas and Marianna Petrakidou, were born in 1963 and live in Nicosia.

http://www.cyprus-mail.com/cyprus/echr-tells-refugees-it-s-no-longer-your-home/20100529

I cannot help thinking that a lot of GCs will be feeling that they were badly advised in the past.

[YFred]

B25, do not confuse dissimilar things. The ECHR ruling concerned pleadings as to the ENJOYMENT of property, and the people who relied on that human right specified in the Charter failed since they were not the original holders of the property but heirs. As heirs they could not show loss of enjoyment, something they never had.

The issue of ownership and right of access is another matter altogether, and on that there can be no deviation from present norms, the EU is based on right to property and establishment.

I am surprised that the lawyers of these applicants pleaded loss of enjoyment in these two cases.

The ECHR case law has many foundations on which a case brought by heirs could be built. Neither the passage of time nor the devolution of property can be blocks to the rights of owners. And this applies equally to GC land in the north as to TC land in the south.

Nikita, thanks for the clarification, but I still object to this as, even though they may be heirs, their right to enjoy was restricted by the invading and permanent 40,000 turkish troops. How the hell can they enjoy it otherwise??

The ECHR has lost all its credibilty in terms of showing impartiality to sensitive issues, they are a sham.

So much for 200,000 court cases we were promissed a year ago.

How many times do we have to say this is not a legal matter but a political one. It can only be solved by politics with compromising. Sooner you realise that better it is for your heart. Too much stress is not good for you.

[Gasman]

In today's Mail article, it says:

Nor can the term ‘home’ be interpreted as synonymous with the notion of “family roots”, which is a vague and emotive concept.

[Jerry]

Interesting quote from Thieves Paradise CY 44



Nobody is more pro TRNC than me, fully appreciating the appalling treatment of Turkish Cypriots since 1960.
I understand your wish to celebrate, however I suspect that you are all being very premature in using this judgement to signify a final verdict on this matter.
My reading of all the articles "linked" to this thread is that the plaintiffs went to UCHR on the wrong grounds - ie they claimed that they had been denied access and use of their "HOMES". The court quite rightly said that they were not their "HOMES", according to article 8.

What will happen if they claim (under some other article) that they have been denied access and use of their "LAND" or their "FARMING INCOME" ?

The UCHR may then agree with them!

Hold your celebrations. I think and hope you/I will eventually win, but I dont think this is the final victory