Cyprus-Forum.com

[vaughanwilliams]

On 20 October 2006 a criminal code amendment relating to property came into effect. Under the amendment, buying, selling, renting, promoting or mortgaging a property without the permission of the owner (the person whose ownership is registered with the Republic of Cyprus Land Registry, including Greek Cypriots displaced from northern Cyprus in 1974), is a criminal offence. This also applies to agreeing to sell, buy or rent a property without the owner’s permission. The maximum prison sentence is seven years. Furthermore, the amendment to the law states that any attempt to undertake such a transaction is a criminal offence and could result in a prison sentence of up to 5 years. This law is not retrospective, so will not criminalise transactions that took place before 20 October 2006.

Kikapu said:

Often laws are put on the books and are seldom used for what ever reason, and at the same time, laws from the last century may be used on those today. Laws on the books are not wasted. They can be used anytime now or in the future.

That is true. But see above, this is not an old law so that bit doesn't apply. It is very recent.

By having the laws already on the books, in this case from 2006, means that it can be used anytime in the future, which means all those who may have violated this law can be charged since it's inception. As I've said, having laws on the books are not wasted even if they are not used for political reasons now, shouldn't mean comfort for those who can be charged with this law in the future going back to 2006.

This doesn't answer the question, though. Laws are usually introduced to address a contemporary problem. To not enforce the new law almost from day one, seems very strange indeed. It's almost like introducing speed cameras to address speeding but saying that they won't actually be activated yet, but may or may not be at some time in the unforeseeable future. In the mean time, the speeding continues.

[Jerry]

"In practice, their current policy is not to do so."

Why? If they are sure they could get away with it and that it would deter others, why?

It really does not take much imagination to see that the ROC does not want to do anything that may prejudice the talks with the "trnc"

Anything?
Like clamping down on proposed sporting events intra-Cyprus?
Like screaming blue murder on Direct Trade?
Like trying to close down ferry routes?
Like the Orams case?
That sort of thing?

You stupid man, BOTH sides have issues with each other, do you really want me to post a list of GC grievances.

I fear it may be you that is stupid. Either that or you are obfuscating. This isn't about issues or grieviences, this is about actions, some of which you don't care to take, in case it rocks the boat with the TCs, and some which you are perfectly happy to take, a few I have mentioned above.
Now you either want to prejudice the talks or you don't, but I think it's a case of you only persuing the measures you think you can get away with.

Call them what you like clever dick, would you like a list of actions that the "trnc" and its parent State has taken against the people and government of the ROC.

Perhaps you could list the reciprocal gestures the "trnc" has made in response to those of the ROC, it shouldn't take you too long.

[vaughanwilliams]

"In practice, their current policy is not to do so."

Why? If they are sure they could get away with it and that it would deter others, why?

It really does not take much imagination to see that the ROC does not want to do anything that may prejudice the talks with the "trnc"

Anything?
Like clamping down on proposed sporting events intra-Cyprus?
Like screaming blue murder on Direct Trade?
Like trying to close down ferry routes?
Like the Orams case?
That sort of thing?

You stupid man, BOTH sides have issues with each other, do you really want me to post a list of GC grievances.

I fear it may be you that is stupid. Either that or you are obfuscating. This isn't about issues or grieviences, this is about actions, some of which you don't care to take, in case it rocks the boat with the TCs, and some which you are perfectly happy to take, a few I have mentioned above.
Now you either want to prejudice the talks or you don't, but I think it's a case of you only persuing the measures you think you can get away with.

Call them what you like clever dick, would you like a list of actions that the "trnc" and its parent State has taken against the people and government of the ROC.

Perhaps you could list the reciprocal gestures the "trnc" has made in response to those of the ROC, it shouldn't take you too long.

I suspect you cannot differentiate between the past and the present. The TRNC is presently embaroed at the behest of the RoC. The TRNC is not in a position to reciprocate.

[Jerry]

"In practice, their current policy is not to do so."

Why? If they are sure they could get away with it and that it would deter others, why?

It really does not take much imagination to see that the ROC does not want to do anything that may prejudice the talks with the "trnc"

Anything?
Like clamping down on proposed sporting events intra-Cyprus?
Like screaming blue murder on Direct Trade?
Like trying to close down ferry routes?
Like the Orams case?
That sort of thing?

You stupid man, BOTH sides have issues with each other, do you really want me to post a list of GC grievances.

I fear it may be you that is stupid. Either that or you are obfuscating. This isn't about issues or grieviences, this is about actions, some of which you don't care to take, in case it rocks the boat with the TCs, and some which you are perfectly happy to take, a few I have mentioned above.
Now you either want to prejudice the talks or you don't, but I think it's a case of you only persuing the measures you think you can get away with.

Call them what you like clever dick, would you like a list of actions that the "trnc" and its parent State has taken against the people and government of the ROC.

Perhaps you could list the reciprocal gestures the "trnc" has made in response to those of the ROC, it shouldn't take you too long.

I suspect you cannot differentiate between the past and the present. The TRNC is presently embaroed at the behest of the RoC. The TRNC is not in a position to reciprocate.

Really? Varosha is denied to the GCs at present, how about giving it back?

[Kikapu]

On 20 October 2006 a criminal code amendment relating to property came into effect. Under the amendment, buying, selling, renting, promoting or mortgaging a property without the permission of the owner (the person whose ownership is registered with the Republic of Cyprus Land Registry, including Greek Cypriots displaced from northern Cyprus in 1974), is a criminal offence. This also applies to agreeing to sell, buy or rent a property without the owner’s permission. The maximum prison sentence is seven years. Furthermore, the amendment to the law states that any attempt to undertake such a transaction is a criminal offence and could result in a prison sentence of up to 5 years. This law is not retrospective, so will not criminalise transactions that took place before 20 October 2006.

Kikapu said:

Often laws are put on the books and are seldom used for what ever reason, and at the same time, laws from the last century may be used on those today. Laws on the books are not wasted. They can be used anytime now or in the future.

That is true. But see above, this is not an old law so that bit doesn't apply. It is very recent.

By having the laws already on the books, in this case from 2006, means that it can be used anytime in the future, which means all those who may have violated this law can be charged since it's inception. As I've said, having laws on the books are not wasted even if they are not used for political reasons now, shouldn't mean comfort for those who can be charged with this law in the future going back to 2006.

This doesn't answer the question, though. Laws are usually introduced to address a contemporary problem. To not enforce the new law almost from day one, seems very strange indeed. It's almost like introducing speed cameras to address speeding but saying that they won't actually be activated yet, but may or may not be at some time in the unforeseeable future. In the mean time, the speeding continues.

Well, using your speed camera example, whether they are enforced or not, or whether there are any films in those cameras or not is irrelevant, since they make most of the drivers take causion when approaching those speed cameras and slow down. Only those who are very cocky enough would speed past those cameras believing they will never be turned on, to find out one day, that they are without notice. Playing "Russian Roulette" is all matter of numbers. Sooner or later, "your" number will be called upon.!

[Gasman]

But it is also true to say that the way cases that are brought to court and tried are dealt with sets a 'precedent' for the way future similar cases will be dealt with.

That's why I'm interested to find out if anyone knows what happened in the case of the Russian lady who was prosecuted under this law.

[vaughanwilliams]

On 20 October 2006 a criminal code amendment relating to property came into effect. Under the amendment, buying, selling, renting, promoting or mortgaging a property without the permission of the owner (the person whose ownership is registered with the Republic of Cyprus Land Registry, including Greek Cypriots displaced from northern Cyprus in 1974), is a criminal offence. This also applies to agreeing to sell, buy or rent a property without the owner’s permission. The maximum prison sentence is seven years. Furthermore, the amendment to the law states that any attempt to undertake such a transaction is a criminal offence and could result in a prison sentence of up to 5 years. This law is not retrospective, so will not criminalise transactions that took place before 20 October 2006.

Kikapu said:

Often laws are put on the books and are seldom used for what ever reason, and at the same time, laws from the last century may be used on those today. Laws on the books are not wasted. They can be used anytime now or in the future.

That is true. But see above, this is not an old law so that bit doesn't apply. It is very recent.

By having the laws already on the books, in this case from 2006, means that it can be used anytime in the future, which means all those who may have violated this law can be charged since it's inception. As I've said, having laws on the books are not wasted even if they are not used for political reasons now, shouldn't mean comfort for those who can be charged with this law in the future going back to 2006.

This doesn't answer the question, though. Laws are usually introduced to address a contemporary problem. To not enforce the new law almost from day one, seems very strange indeed. It's almost like introducing speed cameras to address speeding but saying that they won't actually be activated yet, but may or may not be at some time in the unforeseeable future. In the mean time, the speeding continues.

Well, using your speed camera example, whether they are enforced or not, or whether there are any films in those cameras or not is irrelevant, since they make most of the drivers take causion when approaching those speed cameras and slow down. Only those who are very cocky enough would speed past those cameras believing they will never be turned on, to find out one day, that they are without notice. Playing "Russian Roulette" is all matter of numbers. Sooner or later, "your" number will be called upon.!

I say "Touche!" to your reply, but still maintain that there is something very fishy about introducing a new law to address an existing problem and then not enforcing it. It cannot be compared to the old laws still on the UKs statute books.

[bill cobbett]

Yes, even those laws which are not as actively pursued as some would like, do affect behaviour. To take the speed camera analogy back to Cyprob...

How many of our CarpetBagging friends would dare turn up at LCA or at the crossing points going north with Dodgy Kochans knowing that they might just run into a diligent official? Well, guess all of the Cheapskates lose their Regime Supporting Bravado, and travel through Tymbou when they have these stashed in cases. Isn't that the oft-quoted advice on CY4+4+X=0?

Then ask what wider effect the 2006 law has on the Scammy Property Market in the Occupied Areas? Can't have helped eh?

As to the Russian Lady who got pulled up with Photoshopped Kochans that Gaseroulla reminds us of, yes what became of that matter?

[repulsewarrior]

touchez, i say;

goes to the most wonderful bill.

it means that reselling the land (or i should say selling the land that was taken) no longer limits an Individual's responsibility to the act. criminal charges will be made in the future, or can we expect that in those heady days there was no criminal enterprise, no murder, for land. my hope is that such a law is retroactive to 1963.

[repulsewarrior]

...i'll add some food for thought,

when the Problem is solved with a federated state as well as (at least) two constituent states, this law will provide a great incentive in the negociation that will necessarily follow between users and owners of the land. otherwise, without this goodwill an owner is not in the position to act fairly when he is confronted with having to choose the pleasure they enjoy from their property by other interlocutors. individuals who refuse outright the owner's considerations are criminal now if the possesion is sold, people like the Orams who bought from one of these sellers we now know (unless they resell) they are not criminal, but liable, as well.