Cyprus-Forum.com

[Jerry]

It looks like the ECHR has not completely abandoned the Greek Cypriots in their search for justice: -


The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.
Just satisfaction
Economou v. Turkey (no. 18405/91)
Evagorou Christou v. Turkey (no. 18403/91)
Gavriel v. Turkey (no. 41355/98)
Ioannou v. Turkey (no. 18364/91)
Kyriacou v. Turkey (no. 18407/91)
Michael v. Turkey (no. 18361/91)
Nicolaides v. Turkey (no. 18406/91)
Orphanides v. Turkey (no. 36705/97)
Sophia Andreou v. Turkey (no. 18360/91)
In judgments of 20 and 27 January 2009, the Court held that in all these cases, concerning the applicants’ right of access to their property in the northern part of Cyprus, there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). With the exception of Economou and Nicolaides, the Court also held that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life). The Court held that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision in any of those cases.
In today’s judgments the Court awarded the applicants sums ranging between EUR 10,000 and EUR 400,000 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, and sums ranging between EUR 4,476 and EUR 8,000 for costs and expenses.
http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view. ... n=hudoc-en

[Kikapu]

ECHR awards damages to nine refugees
By Stefanos Evripidou
Published on June 23, 2010

THE EUROPEAN Court of Human Rights (ECHR) yesterday awarded damages to nine Greek Cypriot refugees, ordering Turkey to pay up for preventing access to their properties.
The Strasburg-based court had ruled in January 2009 that Turkey was prohibiting access to the properties of the nine applicants in the occupied areas. The ECHR condemned Turkey for violating the applicants’ right to protect their properties as well as their right for respect of their private and family life.
The Court ruled that Turkey had violated Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention of Human Rights regarding the protection of property in all nine cases, while in seven of those cases the Court ruled that Turkey had violated Article 8 of the Convention on respect of private and family life.
The final judgment of the Court was made public yesterday. Turkey is to pay the applicants pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages ranging between €10,000 and €400,000 plus additional costs and expenses.
Kypros Chrysostomides, who represented three of the applicants from Ayios Ambrosia at the ECHR said yesterday that the damages awarded were much less than what was sought.
“The three cases are now completed and damages awarded. The compensation sought does not reflect what was awarded,” he said, noting that the court procedure took two decades.
In Ioannou v Turkey, his client sought €1,397,000 in damages and was awarded €250,000 plus €8,000 for costs. In another case, Chrysostomides argued for €1,194,000 but the Court awarded the much smaller figure of €80,000 plus costs to his client.
“The most important thing is compensation was awarded and (the applicants’) right to property was not affected by this compensation,” said Chrysostomides. 
Last month, the ECHR rejected Turkey’s demand that 35 cases regarding Greek Cypriot properties in the occupied north be examined by the Turkish Cypriot property commission. Those cases will now be examined by the ECHR, which will decide on compensation for loss of use since the 1974 Turkish invasion. Following yesterday’s ruling on the nine applications, these remaining 35 cases will be the last property cases the ECHR will examine.
The rest, if any, would have to go to the Immovable Property Commission (IPC) set up by Turkey and recognised by the ECHR in March as a domestic remedy for such cases.

http://www.cyprus-mail.com/cyprus/echr- ... s/20100622

[humanist]

yeah well its all good to be finding ... against ..... Turkey but they don't do anything to enforce the compensation .... therefore Turkey will continue to ignore it ....... it shows how corrupt the ECHR is.

So lets not celebrate just yet.

JUSTICE FOR CYPRUS

[Kikapu]


“The most important thing is compensation was awarded and (the applicants’) right to property was not affected by this compensation,” said Chrysostomides. 
Last month, the ECHR rejected Turkey’s demand that 35 cases regarding Greek Cypriot properties in the occupied north be examined by the Turkish Cypriot property commission. Those cases will now be examined by the ECHR, which will decide on compensation for loss of use since the 1974 Turkish invasion. Following yesterday’s ruling on the nine applications, these remaining 35 cases will be the last property cases the ECHR will examine.
The rest, if any, would have to go to the Immovable Property Commission (IPC) set up by Turkey and recognised by the ECHR in March as a domestic remedy for such cases.

Does this not mean then, that if the IPC does not award compensation for denied usage of the GC properties by their owners in the north due to occupation by Turkey, then the IPC is not really a local remedy to do the ECHR's job as the ECHR did in the above cases.?? Once the IPC denies compensation to the GC owners for denied usage of their properties, then these GC owners once again will end up at the ECHR's door steps.!

[insan]

In Ioannou v Turkey, his client sought €1,397,000 in damages and was awarded €250,000 plus €8,000 for costs. In another case, Chrysostomides argued for €1,194,000 but the Court awarded the much smaller figure of €80,000 plus costs to his client.
“

They'd better apply to IPC i think...

[Bananiot]

The ECHR has completely abandoned the Greek Cypriots Jerry. In fact, the ECHR has totally aligned with the ICP philosophy and this can be seen in the sums awarded as damages. In one case the sum of 10 000 euro was awarded!

[bill cobbett]

ECHR awards damages to nine refugees
By Stefanos Evripidou
Published on June 23, 2010

THE EUROPEAN Court of Human Rights (ECHR) yesterday awarded damages to nine Greek Cypriot refugees, ordering Turkey to pay up for preventing access to their properties.
The Strasburg-based court had ruled in January 2009 that Turkey was prohibiting access to the properties of the nine applicants in the occupied areas. The ECHR condemned Turkey for violating the applicants’ right to protect their properties as well as their right for respect of their private and family life.
The Court ruled that Turkey had violated Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention of Human Rights regarding the protection of property in all nine cases, while in seven of those cases the Court ruled that Turkey had violated Article 8 of the Convention on respect of private and family life.
The final judgment of the Court was made public yesterday. Turkey is to pay the applicants pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages ranging between €10,000 and €400,000 plus additional costs and expenses.
Kypros Chrysostomides, who represented three of the applicants from Ayios Ambrosia at the ECHR said yesterday that the damages awarded were much less than what was sought.
“The three cases are now completed and damages awarded. The compensation sought does not reflect what was awarded,” he said, noting that the court procedure took two decades.
In Ioannou v Turkey, his client sought €1,397,000 in damages and was awarded €250,000 plus €8,000 for costs. In another case, Chrysostomides argued for €1,194,000 but the Court awarded the much smaller figure of €80,000 plus costs to his client.
“The most important thing is compensation was awarded and (the applicants’) right to property was not affected by this compensation,” said Chrysostomides. 
Last month, the ECHR rejected Turkey’s demand that 35 cases regarding Greek Cypriot properties in the occupied north be examined by the Turkish Cypriot property commission. Those cases will now be examined by the ECHR, which will decide on compensation for loss of use since the 1974 Turkish invasion. Following yesterday’s ruling on the nine applications, these remaining 35 cases will be the last property cases the ECHR will examine.
The rest, if any, would have to go to the Immovable Property Commission (IPC) set up by Turkey and recognised by the ECHR in March as a domestic remedy for such cases.

http://www.cyprus-mail.com/cyprus/echr- ... s/20100622

Believe there is a typo in this article from the CY Mail.

Suspect the village it refers to above is Agios Amvrosios, Kyrenia District... which further believe is known by some including the CheapskateLandthievingCarpetShaggers, and the Partitionists Bananiot and Halil as Eesenteepee (or something like that)

[denizaksulu]

ECHR awards damages to nine refugees
By Stefanos Evripidou
Published on June 23, 2010

THE EUROPEAN Court of Human Rights (ECHR) yesterday awarded damages to nine Greek Cypriot refugees, ordering Turkey to pay up for preventing access to their properties.
The Strasburg-based court had ruled in January 2009 that Turkey was prohibiting access to the properties of the nine applicants in the occupied areas. The ECHR condemned Turkey for violating the applicants’ right to protect their properties as well as their right for respect of their private and family life.
The Court ruled that Turkey had violated Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention of Human Rights regarding the protection of property in all nine cases, while in seven of those cases the Court ruled that Turkey had violated Article 8 of the Convention on respect of private and family life.
The final judgment of the Court was made public yesterday. Turkey is to pay the applicants pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages ranging between €10,000 and €400,000 plus additional costs and expenses.
Kypros Chrysostomides, who represented three of the applicants from Ayios Ambrosia at the ECHR said yesterday that the damages awarded were much less than what was sought.
“The three cases are now completed and damages awarded. The compensation sought does not reflect what was awarded,” he said, noting that the court procedure took two decades.
In Ioannou v Turkey, his client sought €1,397,000 in damages and was awarded €250,000 plus €8,000 for costs. In another case, Chrysostomides argued for €1,194,000 but the Court awarded the much smaller figure of €80,000 plus costs to his client.
“The most important thing is compensation was awarded and (the applicants’) right to property was not affected by this compensation,” said Chrysostomides. 
Last month, the ECHR rejected Turkey’s demand that 35 cases regarding Greek Cypriot properties in the occupied north be examined by the Turkish Cypriot property commission. Those cases will now be examined by the ECHR, which will decide on compensation for loss of use since the 1974 Turkish invasion. Following yesterday’s ruling on the nine applications, these remaining 35 cases will be the last property cases the ECHR will examine.
The rest, if any, would have to go to the Immovable Property Commission (IPC) set up by Turkey and recognised by the ECHR in March as a domestic remedy for such cases.

http://www.cyprus-mail.com/cyprus/echr- ... s/20100622

Believe there is a typo in this article from the CY Mail.

Suspect the village it refers to above is Agios Amvrosios, Kyrenia District... which further believe is known by some including the CheapskateLandthievingCarpetShaggers, and the Partitionists Bananiot and Halil as Eesenteepee (or something like that)

You are absolutely correct. It is Ay. AMVROSIOS

Even on the attached map it is wait for it Ayios AMVRISIOS CHIFTLIK I will not ask what that means; I think it was already discussed a few years back.




What am I doing here?

[Kikapu]

The ECHR has completely abandoned the Greek Cypriots Jerry. In fact, the ECHR has totally aligned with the ICP philosophy and this can be seen in the sums awarded as damages. In one case the sum of 10 000 euro was awarded!

I didn't realise that if one does not win the monetary award they seek from the courts, no matter what the amount may be, which some plaintiffs lawyers often ask for the moon in the hopes they can receive big awards, does not mean that victims of the occupation are abandoned by the ECHR.! Any monetary award is better than a "sharp stick in the eye", since the victims continue to remain the legal owners of their properties even after gaining what ever awards from the courts. That is hardly anything to sneer at.

If the IPC is not going to follow the trend set by the ECHR in awarding victims compensation for them not being able to use their properties in the north due to Turkey's occupation of the northern part of Cyprus, but instead only offer to buy their properties on the cheap, then the IPC will not become a local remedy to replace the ECHR that the ECHR had wished for. Indeed those who do want to sell their properties through the IPC can do so, but the overwhelming majority have not chosen to take that option, except perhaps by those victims who are hard hit economically, thanks to the occupation of the north by Turkey.

[bill cobbett]

ECHR awards damages to nine refugees
By Stefanos Evripidou
Published on June 23, 2010

THE EUROPEAN Court of Human Rights (ECHR) yesterday awarded damages to nine Greek Cypriot refugees, ordering Turkey to pay up for preventing access to their properties.
The Strasburg-based court had ruled in January 2009 that Turkey was prohibiting access to the properties of the nine applicants in the occupied areas. The ECHR condemned Turkey for violating the applicants’ right to protect their properties as well as their right for respect of their private and family life.
The Court ruled that Turkey had violated Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention of Human Rights regarding the protection of property in all nine cases, while in seven of those cases the Court ruled that Turkey had violated Article 8 of the Convention on respect of private and family life.
The final judgment of the Court was made public yesterday. Turkey is to pay the applicants pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages ranging between €10,000 and €400,000 plus additional costs and expenses.
Kypros Chrysostomides, who represented three of the applicants from Ayios Ambrosia at the ECHR said yesterday that the damages awarded were much less than what was sought.
“The three cases are now completed and damages awarded. The compensation sought does not reflect what was awarded,” he said, noting that the court procedure took two decades.
In Ioannou v Turkey, his client sought €1,397,000 in damages and was awarded €250,000 plus €8,000 for costs. In another case, Chrysostomides argued for €1,194,000 but the Court awarded the much smaller figure of €80,000 plus costs to his client.
“The most important thing is compensation was awarded and (the applicants’) right to property was not affected by this compensation,” said Chrysostomides. 
Last month, the ECHR rejected Turkey’s demand that 35 cases regarding Greek Cypriot properties in the occupied north be examined by the Turkish Cypriot property commission. Those cases will now be examined by the ECHR, which will decide on compensation for loss of use since the 1974 Turkish invasion. Following yesterday’s ruling on the nine applications, these remaining 35 cases will be the last property cases the ECHR will examine.
The rest, if any, would have to go to the Immovable Property Commission (IPC) set up by Turkey and recognised by the ECHR in March as a domestic remedy for such cases.

http://www.cyprus-mail.com/cyprus/echr- ... s/20100622

Believe there is a typo in this article from the CY Mail.

Suspect the village it refers to above is Agios Amvrosios, Kyrenia District... which further believe is known by some including the CheapskateLandthievingCarpetShaggers, and the Partitionists Bananiot and Halil as Eesenteepee (or something like that)

You are absolutely correct. It is Ay. AMVROSIOS

Even on the attached map it is wait for it Ayios AMVRISIOS CHIFTLIK I will not ask what that means; I think it was already discussed a few years back.




What am I doing here?

Delighted you popped in.....

.....cos that map is brilliant, cos for years been looking for a little hamlet that's dissapeared from modern maps, in which have an interest, .... and it's marked on your map!!!!!!!.... nowhere near where thought it was .... soooooo you've made a sort of refugee from that area vereeeeeeee happeeeeeeee .............