Cyprus-Forum.com

[halil]

The European Court of Human Rights has delivered a landmark judgment on two cases concerning formerly owned Greek Cypriot properties in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. The court ruled that two Greek Cypriots applicants had lost all rights of use over their former properties on the grounds that they had never actually lived on their estates.

The Greek Cypriot applicants, Tasos Asproftas and Marianna Petrakidu, had applied to the court by relying on Articles 8, right to respect for home, and had both complained of not having been able to return to and enjoy their homes.

The court ruled that there was no violation of Articles 8, stating that the two had lost all rights of use over the property on the grounds that they had not lived long enough in the homes in reference and that the houses had in fact belonged to their families.

Experts say that the judgment is a serious blow for the Greek Cypriot Side’s position regarding the property issue which claims that the original owner and not the current user should have first say over the disputed property.

The Greek Cypriot media says that the court has stripped the right of many Greek Cypriots to return to the properties formerly owned by their families or to solve the issue through court battles.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

any links to actual decision ?

[Kikapu]

The European Court of Human Rights has delivered a landmark judgment on two cases concerning formerly owned Greek Cypriot properties in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. The court ruled that two Greek Cypriots applicants had lost all rights of use over their former properties on the grounds that they had never actually lived on their estates.

The Greek Cypriot applicants, Tasos Asproftas and Marianna Petrakidu, had applied to the court by relying on Articles 8, right to respect for home, and had both complained of not having been able to return to and enjoy their homes.

The court ruled that there was no violation of Articles 8, stating that the two had lost all rights of use over the property on the grounds that they had not lived long enough in the homes in reference and that the houses had in fact belonged to their families.

Experts say that the judgment is a serious blow for the Greek Cypriot Side’s position regarding the property issue which claims that the original owner and not the current user should have first say over the disputed property.

The Greek Cypriot media says that the court has stripped the right of many Greek Cypriots to return to the properties formerly owned by their families or to solve the issue through court battles.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

any links to actual decision ?

But the GC owner still owns the property, do they not, even if he is not allowed to live in it. He will become the landlord to those who are living on his property and collect rent..! The GCs will own most of the north even if they don't live there..!

[insan]

The ECHR observed that restitution may not always be possible because 35 years had elapsed since Greek-Cypriot applicants “lost possession of their property. The local population has not remained static . . . Turkish-Cypriot refugees from the south have settled in the north; Turkish settlers . . . have arrived in large numbers. Greek-Cypriot property has changed hands . . . whether by sale, donation or inheritance”.

The court also mentioned that bases housing 30,000 Turkish occupation troops could negatively affect restitution. Greek-Cypriot property constituted 58.2 per cent of land in the north, 16.2 per cent belonged to Turkish Cypriots and 22.8 per cent was public land.

It sounds like this news article is at least 2 months old re Halili Vuyuglagi.

http://agora-dialogue.com/?p=4521

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/wor ... 97653.html

[YFred]

The ECHR observed that restitution may not always be possible because 35 years had elapsed since Greek-Cypriot applicants “lost possession of their property. The local population has not remained static . . . Turkish-Cypriot refugees from the south have settled in the north; Turkish settlers . . . have arrived in large numbers. Greek-Cypriot property has changed hands . . . whether by sale, donation or inheritance”.

The court also mentioned that bases housing 30,000 Turkish occupation troops could negatively affect restitution. Greek-Cypriot property constituted 58.2 per cent of land in the north, 16.2 per cent belonged to Turkish Cypriots and 22.8 per cent was public land.

It sounds like this news article is at least 2 months old re Halili Vuyuglagi.

http://agora-dialogue.com/?p=4521

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/wor ... 97653.html

There was sombody on the forum that said something about possession is 90% of the law and it may apply here.

Can't remember who, but never mind.

GCs can always take ECHR to itself.

[B25]

Halil proves me right again, the chief shit spreader.

in his orgasm to post this article thinking he has got one over on us again, hi jizzed his pants and got caught out.

Halil, you are an arsehole re malaka.

[YFred]

Halil proves me right again, the chief shit spreader.

in his orgasm to post this article thinking he has got one over on us again, hi jizzed his pants and got caught out.

Halil, you are an arsehole re malaka.

Reh Bastardo, what are you worried about. Surely you take ECHR to itself, no?

[Gasman]

I will not be surprised if any Court rules that, after such a long passage of time, and the applicants never having lived in the property (I know some who have never actually even SEEN the property they have been bequeathed), that it is unreasonable for them to expect anyone who has been living in it for a long time to just get out and hand it back to them.

But it STILL BELONGS TO THEM. No one can take away the legal interpretation of 'ownership' by Courts in civilised countries.

They might be denied the right to return and take up residence. But they are not being denied the right to compensation etc.

I imagine there are a lot of GCs who are well settled into their lives in the South and who are actually just looking forward to getting compensation paid, especially if it is land (not houses) that they own but have never used, worked, done anything with or maybe never even seen.

Most who actually did live in their property and had a life in the North of Cyprus back then must be very old by now. I cannot help thinking that, if even more time passes, most 'court actions' will be concerning property that the 'owners' have never lived in and maybe it is thought that this will simplify things?

There will OBVIOUSLY be some who do want to return. I know one such person. An old man of 76, living in Limassol, who claims to want nothing more than he wants to return to his family property in Morphou and die there (well he actually said he would probably live longer if he could go there because he feels 'rejuvenated' when he visits there now).

This man was not driven out of his home in the North. He was not in Cyprus. Like a lot of other Cypriots, he had gone to live and work in South Africa (his mother had lived in the property and her family before her). He returned to Cyprus after 1974.

[YFred]

I will not be surprised if any Court rules that, after such a long passage of time, and the applicants never having lived in the property (I know some who have never actually even SEEN the property they have been bequeathed), that it is unreasonable for them to expect anyone who has been living in it for a long time to just get out and hand it back to them.

But it STILL BELONGS TO THEM. No one can take away the legal interpretation of 'ownership' by Courts in civilised countries.

They might be denied the right to return and take up residence. But they are not being denied the right to compensation etc.

I imagine there are a lot of GCs who are well settled into their lives in the South and who are actually just looking forward to getting compensation paid, especially if it is land (not houses) that they own but have never used, worked, done anything with or maybe never even seen.

Most who actually did live in their property and had a life in the North of Cyprus back then must be very old by now. I cannot help thinking that, if even more time passes, most 'court actions' will be concerning property that the 'owners' have never lived in and maybe it is thought that this will simplify things?

There will OBVIOUSLY be some who do want to return. I know one such person. An old man of 76, living in Limassol, who claims to want nothing more than he wants to return to his family property in Morphou and die there (well he actually said he would probably live longer if he could go there because he feels 'rejuvenated' when he visits there now).

This man was not driven out of his home in the North. He was not in Cyprus. Like a lot of other Cypriots, he had gone to live and work in South Africa (his mother had lived in the property and her family before her). He returned to Cyprus after 1974.

You start saying things like that and GC patriots will have your guts for garters. What do you mean some may have to get compensation?

Everyone back to their homes whether they want to or not, you here?

[halil]

The ECHR observed that restitution may not always be possible because 35 years had elapsed since Greek-Cypriot applicants “lost possession of their property. The local population has not remained static . . . Turkish-Cypriot refugees from the south have settled in the north; Turkish settlers . . . have arrived in large numbers. Greek-Cypriot property has changed hands . . . whether by sale, donation or inheritance”.

The court also mentioned that bases housing 30,000 Turkish occupation troops could negatively affect restitution. Greek-Cypriot property constituted 58.2 per cent of land in the north, 16.2 per cent belonged to Turkish Cypriots and 22.8 per cent was public land.

It sounds like this news article is at least 2 months old re Halili Vuyuglagi.

http://agora-dialogue.com/?p=4521

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/wor ... 97653.html

Re Insan efendi this is a new news re gardash..... have a read from below link.

http://tr.euronews.net/ajans/273243-ahm ... hne-karar/

[halil]

also according to another news from the Kıbrıs postası with connection to above ECHR decision TRNC police can arrests and judge, when the GC's came to boarder in 1989 for demonstrations .

http://www.kibrispostasi.com/index.php/ ... _HABERLERI