Cyprus-Forum.com

[Gasman]

http://www.cyprus-mail.com/opinions/our-view-echr-closes-its-doors-refugees-over-compensation/20100624

Cyprus Mail today:

WHEREAS a few years ago we had pinned all our hopes for a just settlement on the European Court of Human Rights now this avenue has been blocked off for good. This week’s decisions in nine cases, brought by refugees seeking compensation from Turkey for loss of use of and restitution of property sent a clear message to Greek Cypriots: the Immovable Property Commission (IPC) in the occupied north is offering acceptable remedies to any property claims so do not expect anything more from the ECHR.

The paltry compensations awarded by the ECHR to the nine Greek Cypriots for loss of use and moral damages, were in line with the amounts given to refugees by the Commission. These amounts were about 10 per cent of what the refugee was demanding. The total demands for compensation in the nine cases were in excess of €8 million, Turkey offered €916,000 and the court decided a total payment of €1.2m – less than 15 per cent of the amount demanded. In some cases the claimants did not even receive 10 per cent of their initial claim.

There was a change of thinking at the ECHR. In an earlier case (Demades), for a house in Kyrenia, the claimant was awarded €830,000 for loss of use and for moral damages. In the case of Ioannou, for a house in Kyrenia and eight pieces of land in the Kyrenia district, the court awarded total damages of €250,000, while the claimant was demanding €1.75 million and Turkey had offered €68,000. In a claim for €5.23 million the court decided compensation of €400,000.

All the amounts were slightly higher than what Turkey had offered in compensation, but drastically lower than what had been demanded. In this way, the court endorsed Turkey’s compensations and discouraged refugees from appealing to the ECHR against the amounts offered by the IPC. Essentially, the court has closed its doors to refugees seeking compensation from Turkey for violation of their property rights. Nobody would take the trouble to appeal in order to secure a slightly bigger compensation, with a danger of losing the appeal and ending up paying the legal fees as well.

What now for refugees, who were urged to vote against the Annan plan because they were being promised a better deal by lawyer/politicians via the European courts? Considering, our political leadership has advised them not to appeal to the IPC, what should they do? They should wait for a settlement, declared one of the lawyer/politicians, who had been championing the ECHR recourses and opposes going to the IPC, on a radio show yesterday. It might be a very long wait, as we do not want asphyxiating or artificial time-frames.

[Gasman]

And in another article today:
http://www.cyprus-mail.com/cyprus/interests-refugee-property-owners-not-being-taken-care/20100624

TOP HUMAN rights lawyer Achilleas Demetriades yesterday warned that the government had to do more if it was to ensure refugees get adequate levels of compensation for their properties in any court case or solution to the Cyprus problem.

Commenting on the compensation levels awarded by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on Tuesday to nine Greek Cypriot applicants, Demetriades said: “Regarding the sums awarded, we have a problem.”

While some applicants sought compensation for loss of use of their properties in the occupied areas in the millions of euros, the Court awarded between €10,000 and €400,000. Demetriades noted that the important thing was that the cases were not lost. The nine cases are the first batch of 32 that were pending before the Court. These are considered to be the last dealing with this issue, as from now on, the Court has made it clear Greek Cypriots must first exhaust local remedies, taken to mean the Immoveable Property Commission (IPC) in the north.

In Tuesday’s ruling, Turkey was still deemed to be responsible for violation of the rights to the protection of property and right to a private and family life. The Court also rejected the Turkish side’s efforts for the applicants to relinquish their title deeds, awarding compensation for loss of use only.

However, the level of compensation was much lower than the sums sought by the Greek Cypriot applicants who calculated their figures based on the value of property in 1974 and the rate of increase of that value.

Speaking to the state broadcaster, the human rights lawyer argued that where applicants are dealing with areas outside of the fenced off area of Famagusta or Kyrenia, then there is little solid evidence in the form of recorded transactions to specify what the value of land was in 1974 for that area. The relevant information was left in the Land Registries of Famagusta and Kyrenia in the occupied areas, allowing “the Turkish side to selectively present what suited it”.

He added: “That is the most serious problem, because it is not limited to the 32 cases pending in the ECHR, but it goes to the heart of the property problem.

“Now there are talks going on about the property issue. If tomorrow some people will get compensation because they’re not going to return to their properties, what values will we give to these properties? We don’t have credible evidence on our side and have to collect it to prove the 1974 values in an objective way.”

Demetriades argued this was “something the state should have done a long time ago”. The Turkish side could now point towards the ECHR when negotiating the values of properties that will be settled using the compensation option.

The lawyer also referred to the fact that the IPC would wind up operations on December 21, 2011. “If people don’t appeal to the IPC, they won’t get anything, and the dilemma is get nothing and wait for a Cyprus solution or try to get something, even if it is at a reduced value. Otherwise they must know that next December, that option ends, and who will explain that they can’t get anything.”

Demetriades said he was not convinced by the government’s advice to refugees to wait for a solution, saying they have been waiting 36 years already. He advised that refugees seek compensation for loss of use at the IPC and reinstatement of their property.

Another lawyer and former deputy, Christos Clerides disagreed, saying the ECHR’s latest decision proved that the Court would not provide refugees with the level of compensation they are seeking, whether they go through the IPC or to Strasburg.

He also warned that those who apply to the IPC will “gamble” with their property because the “pseudo-commission is not interested in awarding loss of use, but in illegal expropriations”. In the vast number of cases, the IPC legalises the confiscation of applicants’ properties, he said, calling on refugees to wait for a comprehensive solution.

Clerides noted that only 1,400 applications were made to the ECHR in the last 19 years, marking a small minority of the total number of refugees. “The overwhelming majority of Greek Cypriot refugees did not move legally for 20 years, so now they have received another message. Since they didn’t do it for 20 years, they will wait.”

He added: “I want to refer to what Machiavelli said in The Prince, that when you have property, you never forget it. You might forget the dead, those you lost, but not property because it is there waiting for you, you will never forget it.”

It does seem to me that those who have diligently followed the advice of their govt and leading lawyers and waited patiently are now being penalised for having done so.

[BOF]

It seems some Refugees are now looking towards the Government..
for lost income.
Also from todays Cyprus Mail

http://www.cyprus-mail.com/cyprus/refug ... m/20100624

Refugee couple sues state for €10m - Cyprus Mail

PEOPLE crowded a Larnaca courtroom yesterday to watch the first of its kind hearing of a €10 million lawsuit brought against the Cypriot government by a refugee family claiming lost income from their property in the Turkish-occupied north.

The suit was filed by Thomas and Eleni Kaoulas from Famagusta, demanding €10 million in lost income for 36 years.

It is considered a test case for 250 similar suits involving some 800 refugees.

Yesterday’s hearing mainly dealt with procedural issues like the submission of various documents by property surveyor Andreas Pantazis regarding the couple’s land in Famagusta on August 16, 1974, the day Varosha was abandoned by its inhabitants.

The court adjourned for July 19 when the claimants are plaintiffs are expected to detail their claim that respective governments had not shared out the burden from the consequences of the invasion equally across the whole population – refugees and non-refugees – as it had been declared.

Vasos Economou, the chairman, of the movement for the rights of refugees, said they were saddened to be forced to reach this stage but it was not their choice.

To reach this stage, Economou said, they have exhausted every option, patience and tolerance, and showed great understanding.

Asked why they turned against the government instead of Turkey – the real culprit – Economou said they were claiming what they were owed by the state but they never got.

“I do not want to give out the message that we demand from our state to weaken our state,” Economou said. “When a state wants justice from the occupiers, this state should, foremost, grant justice to its own citizens.”

After the invasion, the overwhelming majority of refugees were left with nothing.

They needed housing, with many renting flats and houses in the south.

At the same time the value of land in the government-controlled areas went up as a result of the need to house the refugees.

And refugees, who lost their properties in the north, now have to pay exorbitant amounts of money to buy new property.

[Nikitas]

Is this simply for the money? Is that what the judges of the ECHR think? If so then they are a bunch of sorry bastards. They do not understand what or who they are dealing with.

[Gasman]

I can see why some who have listened to their govt advice over the years would be angry with their own govt. if it now seems they are to be penalised for taking that advice. Or even maybe to be given the impression they would be deemed as some sort of 'traitors' NOT to heed that advice.

It is infuriating to take the advice of the govt. of a country you were born and grew up in, only to have the rug pulled out from under you for having done so.

This applies to lots of people in the UK who heeded Govt advice to save and take out private pensions to safeguard their old age. They now find that those who spent without a thought to providing for their own old age are looked after by the Govt and given every assistance (after having enjoyed spending their money instead of saving or investing it for their future) while for those who were prudent, the value of their savings has eroded and the interest from them gone with the wind and them being told they are not entitled to any assistance because 'they have savings' and told basically to spend those savings and come back when they've all gone!

[Gasman]

Nikitas - are you saying that regarding the 'property situation' no GCs are interested in money or being compensated? Or that none of them feel resentment at some seeming to 'have done alright' out of the situation whilst others have suffered badly? That all of them are only interested in returning to where they were ousted from?

[DT.]

Nikitas - are you saying that regarding the 'property situation' no GCs are interested in money or being compensated? Or that none of them feel resentment at some seeming to 'have done alright' out of the situation whilst others have suffered badly? That all of them are only interested in returning to where they were ousted from?

You have no idea what the collective return of a town like Famagusta or Morphou means to a Cypriot. You have no idea because you don't undertsand the history of the towns of Famagusta, Morphou and Kyrenia and the generations upon generations of Greek Cypriots that have lived and died there.

I don't clearly understand the idea of what Famagusta means to a Famagustian let alone you.

[Get Real!]

The notion that the RoC government is at fault and should pay compensation to refugees is downright STUPID!

The perpetrators of the Cyprus problem and violators of international law are clearly…


GREECE: For initiating a coup that overthrew the legit government of Cyprus and the paving the way for Turkey.

And

TURKEY: For invading, ethnic cleansing, and illegaly occupying 37% of Cyprus.


UN RESOLUTION 361 (1974)
http://www.un.int/cyprus/scr353.htm

UN RESOLUTION 541 (1983)
http://www.un.int/cyprus/scr541.htm


If international law ONLY applies whenever other country’s interests are served, then I piss on this law and all those who claim to uphold it.

[Nikitas]

How possibly can you put a money value on losing your home town? It is not a physical thing, the loss of lousy piece of dirt, it is the loss of the total web of social contacts that forms your life.

The people I knew from Famagusta have gone to the five corners of the world, never to reform again. And these sorry judges and lawyers think that the petition is to get a pittance for this loss. Nothing can make up for this loss other than complete return of the town and even then it will be a huge task to rebuild the human web that made it a living hub.

[Gasman]

How possibly can you put a money value on losing your home town? It is not a physical thing, the loss of lousy piece of dirt, it is the loss of the total web of social contacts that forms your life.

I understand what you are saying.

What I DO NOT understand is why all those who feel as strongly as you do about this have not been RAISING HELL for the past 30 odd years about it?

Why so passive? Why not railing against your government, or whoever you feel is responsible for it?

I ask this again and again and NEVER get an answer.