Cyprus-Forum.com

[Vincehugo]

Why the Native GCs will regain ALL their lands ...

ALL their lands? Even the land GCs have given up for compensation after going to the IPC?

http://www.northcyprusipc.org/

As of 16 July 2010, 602 applications have been lodged with the Commission and 113 of them have been concluded through friendly settlements and four through formal hearing. The Commission has paid GBP 43,428,850 to the applicants as compensation. Moreover, it has ruled for exchange and compensation in two cases, for restitution in one case and for restitution and compensation in five cases. In one case it has delivered a decision for restitution after the settlement of Cyprus Issue, and in one case it has ruled for partial restitution

Why don't you fuck off (go on, complain to Admin again) with your stupidities. They might receive compensation for loss of use, but no one can take away their legitimate right to claim their own properties! And, finally, the whole of Cyprus belongs to the RoC.

I think you have fundamentally misunderstood the role of the IPC. Any successful claim to the IPC require the applicant to give up their right to this property. It is not possible to claim solely for loss of use (although loss of use can form part of a claim). It is of course your legitimate right to ignore the IPC but anyone receiving compensation or exchange from the IPC, by their own definition (below) must give up their legitimate right to the property in question. In summary - you are wrong Oracle.


Extracted from Law 67/2005.

10. (1) Applicants who receive compensation in return for their rights over immovable properties in virtue of the application of the provisions this Law, can under no condition, make a claim of right of ownership over immovable property for which they have received compensation.
(2) Applicants who receive new immovable property by way of exchange in virtue of the application of the provisions of this Law, can, under no condition, make a claim to a right of ownership over the immovable property on which their application was based.

Vincehugo, you seemed to have missed the point entirely!

Whose "laws" are those? The invaders! The whole of Cyprus belongs to the RoC and administration will be restored there when the Turks have had enough and gone (pushed or fallen?). None of those "transactions" are legal and binding because they have NOT passed through the RoC-administered Land Registry. Same goes for every one of the "transactions" committed in the occupied north since 1974. All those, by virtue of the fact they were not authorised by the RoC, are reversible upon its say-so. So, don't quote me made up pseudo-laws as if they have some authority in a normal world!

I think it's pretty clear to most sane people who has missed the point!

This is an approach to resolving property issues, proposed by Turkey and ratified by the ECHR. It may not fit with your view of the world but it is happening. You can bang on about RoC Land Registry till the cows come home but, believe it or not, there are greater powers at work here.

Or maybe this is just your attempt to try and gloss over the fact that your have not understood the way that the IPC works - i.e. you can't just pick up some dosh for "loss of use" and then wait to claim your land back - it's all or nothing.

It's about time you and some of your friends on here woke up and smelt the coffee. The world view of Cyprus is changing, whether you like it or not and your petty insults make not a jot of difference to the big picture.

Fine, Turkey can give the GCs as much money as she likes as rent or compensation for loss of use, but no one can tell the RoC to accept these transactions as legal in term of registering new "owners" in the Land Registry and issuing Turkey with Title Deeds!

I think you'll find the RoC decides on Land Registry administration in Cyprus, not the ECHR.

See most recent Orams' reinforcement ...

It seems that the IPC is proving really hard for you to understand. The IPC are not going to hand out ANY money for rent, compensation or loss of use UNLESS the claimant agrees to give up any claim on the property in question. You might like to think that claimants can sign an agreement and then ignore it but I think you will find they will not have a leg to stand on.

Are you living in a time warp? I think you will find that when it comes to property in Cyprus the ECHR will overule the RoC Land Registry every time.

As for the "Orams reinforcement" even you must understand that the whole ridiculous Orams saga is entirely separate from the IPC process so of absolutely no relevance to the current discussion.

Once again, wake up and smell the coffee.

[Oracle]

I think you have fundamentally misunderstood the role of the IPC.

I think everyone has a clear understanding of what they do by now...

I'm not so sure that you can count Oracle in on the "everyone". It does seem as though she supports the view that it's OK to go to the IPC and take money from Turkey in "full and final settlement" and then run back to the RoC Land Registry and attempt to reclaim ownership. Very honest behaviour - not!

Don't think anyone will get very far with this approach.

Who calls the shots? "Full and final" settlement, you hope? But, Cyprus belongs to the RoC! Hence the RoC has the final say! How many times do I have to tell you?

You find that hard to accept; but, you think Turkey can invade and blackmail us into giving her our lands, huh? That's OK with you, Mr Rational?

Whatever you have "bought" which has not gone through the RoC will be claimed back by the rightful owners whether you pay them rent or compensation for loss of use and you can call it "full and final settlement" but the pseudo-laws you follow mean NOTHING; and taking things under duress (43,000 Turkish gun-toting troops) is NOT legal and binding!

[Oracle]

Why the Native GCs will regain ALL their lands ...

ALL their lands? Even the land GCs have given up for compensation after going to the IPC?

http://www.northcyprusipc.org/

As of 16 July 2010, 602 applications have been lodged with the Commission and 113 of them have been concluded through friendly settlements and four through formal hearing. The Commission has paid GBP 43,428,850 to the applicants as compensation. Moreover, it has ruled for exchange and compensation in two cases, for restitution in one case and for restitution and compensation in five cases. In one case it has delivered a decision for restitution after the settlement of Cyprus Issue, and in one case it has ruled for partial restitution

Why don't you fuck off (go on, complain to Admin again) with your stupidities. They might receive compensation for loss of use, but no one can take away their legitimate right to claim their own properties! And, finally, the whole of Cyprus belongs to the RoC.

I think you have fundamentally misunderstood the role of the IPC. Any successful claim to the IPC require the applicant to give up their right to this property. It is not possible to claim solely for loss of use (although loss of use can form part of a claim). It is of course your legitimate right to ignore the IPC but anyone receiving compensation or exchange from the IPC, by their own definition (below) must give up their legitimate right to the property in question. In summary - you are wrong Oracle.


Extracted from Law 67/2005.

10. (1) Applicants who receive compensation in return for their rights over immovable properties in virtue of the application of the provisions this Law, can under no condition, make a claim of right of ownership over immovable property for which they have received compensation.
(2) Applicants who receive new immovable property by way of exchange in virtue of the application of the provisions of this Law, can, under no condition, make a claim to a right of ownership over the immovable property on which their application was based.

Vincehugo, you seemed to have missed the point entirely!

Whose "laws" are those? The invaders! The whole of Cyprus belongs to the RoC and administration will be restored there when the Turks have had enough and gone (pushed or fallen?). None of those "transactions" are legal and binding because they have NOT passed through the RoC-administered Land Registry. Same goes for every one of the "transactions" committed in the occupied north since 1974. All those, by virtue of the fact they were not authorised by the RoC, are reversible upon its say-so. So, don't quote me made up pseudo-laws as if they have some authority in a normal world!

I think it's pretty clear to most sane people who has missed the point!

This is an approach to resolving property issues, proposed by Turkey and ratified by the ECHR. It may not fit with your view of the world but it is happening. You can bang on about RoC Land Registry till the cows come home but, believe it or not, there are greater powers at work here.

Or maybe this is just your attempt to try and gloss over the fact that your have not understood the way that the IPC works - i.e. you can't just pick up some dosh for "loss of use" and then wait to claim your land back - it's all or nothing.

It's about time you and some of your friends on here woke up and smelt the coffee. The world view of Cyprus is changing, whether you like it or not and your petty insults make not a jot of difference to the big picture.

Fine, Turkey can give the GCs as much money as she likes as rent or compensation for loss of use, but no one can tell the RoC to accept these transactions as legal in term of registering new "owners" in the Land Registry and issuing Turkey with Title Deeds!

I think you'll find the RoC decides on Land Registry administration in Cyprus, not the ECHR.

See most recent Orams' reinforcement ...

It seems that the IPC is proving really hard for you to understand. The IPC are not going to hand out ANY money for rent, compensation or loss of use UNLESS the claimant agrees to give up any claim on the property in question. You might like to think that claimants can sign an agreement and then ignore it but I think you will find they will not have a leg to stand on.

Are you living in a time warp? I think you will find that when it comes to property in Cyprus the ECHR will overule the RoC Land Registry every time.

As for the "Orams reinforcement" even you must understand that the whole ridiculous Orams saga is entirely separate from the IPC process so of absolutely no relevance to the current discussion.

Once again, wake up and smell the coffee.

Please show me where the ECHR has said the IPC has taken over the RoC's Land Registry and the granting of legal Title Deeds!

[Vincehugo]

I think you have fundamentally misunderstood the role of the IPC.

I think everyone has a clear understanding of what they do by now...

I'm not so sure that you can count Oracle in on the "everyone". It does seem as though she supports the view that it's OK to go to the IPC and take money from Turkey in "full and final settlement" and then run back to the RoC Land Registry and attempt to reclaim ownership. Very honest behaviour - not!

Don't think anyone will get very far with this approach.

Who calls the shots? "Full and final" settlement, you hope? But, Cyprus belongs to the RoC! Hence the RoC has the final say! How many times do I have to tell you?

You find that hard to accept; but, you think Turkey can invade and blackmail us into giving her our lands, huh? That's OK with you, Mr Rational?

Whatever you have "bought" which has not gone through the RoC will be claimed back by the rightful owners whether you pay them rent or compensation for loss of use and you can call it "full and final settlement" but the pseudo-laws you follow mean NOTHING; and taking things under duress (43,000 Turkish gun-toting troops) is NOT legal and binding!

My word, you are a slippery character, aren't you?

Firstly, if we might just go back to my original point, do you accept that the IPC does not provide for GC's to claim purely for loss of use - that this can only be covered as part of a claim for a full and final settlement of their property rights? A simple YES or No will do?

Secondly, do you believe that it is OK for a GC to sign a legally binding contract to forego their rights to property in Northern Cyprus, take the money offered and then claim that they still own the property. Again a simple YES or NO will do?

Thirdly, you see it as OK to use the international courts to hound down the Orams outside the legislation of the RoC but you don't think that it would be acceptable for those taking money from the IPC to be pursued if they were to try and "double dip"?

Fourthly, what is the equitable remedy proposed by the RoC for those TC's who, according to your precious RoC Land Registry, still own property in the South? How do they go about enforcing their rights - especially when the land has been gifted by the RoC government for others to build houses on (and please don't tell me that this hasn't happened - it's just not believable).

Have you ever tried to look at the situation from an objective perspective, rather than your xenophobic and intransigent stance. How do you think Cyprus is going to move forward . . REALISTICALLY and PRACTICALLY. At least Turkey is trying to unravel the mess created by 36 years of dogma ON BOTH SIDES through the introduction of the IPC. What is the RoC doing - 6 months residency rules for property claims, out of court settlements to avoid escalation to the ECHR, procrastination in the negotations for a solution.

Hey Oracle, it's 2010 -arise and sniff the espresso!

[Oracle]

Firstly, if we might just go back to my original point, do you accept that the IPC does not provide for GC's to claim purely for loss of use - that this can only be covered as part of a claim for a full and final settlement of their property rights? A simple YES or No will do?

Rephrase the question, please? Leave out double negatives and keep to one clause if you ask for only one answer!

Secondly, do you believe that it is OK for a GC to sign a legally binding contract to forego their rights to property in Northern Cyprus, take the money offered and then claim that they still own the property. Again a simple YES or NO will do?

The IPC do not produce legally binding documents recognisable in the RoC.

Thirdly, you see it as OK to use the international courts to hound down the Orams outside the legislation of the RoC but you don't think that it would be acceptable for those taking money from the IPC to be pursued if they were to try and "double dip"?

It's not "double dip" as the GCs own those properties and they are entitled to compensation for loss of use but they should not be blackmailed into losing their homes -- that is illegal.

Fourthly, what is the equitable remedy proposed by the RoC for those TC's who, according to your precious RoC Land Registry, still own property in the South? How do they go about enforcing their rights - especially when the land has been gifted by the RoC government for others to build houses on (and please don't tell me that this hasn't happened - it's just not believable).

It's irrelevant whether it's believable to you or not. If you doubt it, find out.

Have you ever tried to look at the situation from an objective perspective, rather than your xenophobic and intransigent stance. How do you think Cyprus is going to move forward . . REALISTICALLY and PRACTICALLY. At least Turkey is trying to unravel the mess created by 36 years of dogma ON BOTH SIDES through the introduction of the IPC. What is the RoC doing - 6 months residency rules for property claims, out of court settlements to avoid escalation to the ECHR, procrastination in the negotations for a solution.

All Turkey has to do is leave. Turkey is the cause of ALL the mess and this "IPC" is further Turkish mess.

Cyprus is moving forward, as in the case of the Orams ...

[Vincehugo]

Firstly, if we might just go back to my original point, do you accept that the IPC does not provide for GC's to claim purely for loss of use - that this can only be covered as part of a claim for a full and final settlement of their property rights? A simple YES or No will do?

Rephrase the question, please? Leave out double negatives and keep to one clause if you ask for only one answer!

Secondly, do you believe that it is OK for a GC to sign a legally binding contract to forego their rights to property in Northern Cyprus, take the money offered and then claim that they still own the property. Again a simple YES or NO will do?

The IPC do not produce legally binding documents recognisable in the RoC.

Thirdly, you see it as OK to use the international courts to hound down the Orams outside the legislation of the RoC but you don't think that it would be acceptable for those taking money from the IPC to be pursued if they were to try and "double dip"?

It's not "double dip" as the GCs own those properties and they are entitled to compensation for loss of use but they should not be blackmailed into losing their homes -- that is illegal.

Fourthly, what is the equitable remedy proposed by the RoC for those TC's who, according to your precious RoC Land Registry, still own property in the South? How do they go about enforcing their rights - especially when the land has been gifted by the RoC government for others to build houses on (and please don't tell me that this hasn't happened - it's just not believable).

It's irrelevant whether it's believable to you or not. If you doubt it, find out.

Have you ever tried to look at the situation from an objective perspective, rather than your xenophobic and intransigent stance. How do you think Cyprus is going to move forward . . REALISTICALLY and PRACTICALLY. At least Turkey is trying to unravel the mess created by 36 years of dogma ON BOTH SIDES through the introduction of the IPC. What is the RoC doing - 6 months residency rules for property claims, out of court settlements to avoid escalation to the ECHR, procrastination in the negotations for a solution.

All Turkey has to do is leave. Turkey is the cause of ALL the mess and this "IPC" is further Turkish mess.

Cyprus is moving forward, as in the case of the Orams ...

1. There is no double negative here. It is a straightforward question - you just have to answer it. (Sorry if you don't understand English). Or carry on wriggling.

2. Irrelevant. If you sign a contract and accept money in return are you not bound by the agreement you signed? Anything else is immoral. So just more wriggling.

3. Of course it's a double dip. You are benefiting twice from the "ownership" of a single property. It's not blackmail or illegal - GC's are not forced to go to the IPC - but if they do they can't expect to receive money from the IPC and still own the property. And, even though I thought I'd already made it clear, the IPC will not pay out purely for loss of use, only as part of a full and final settlement of any property claim. GC's have been up in arms about the possibility of this sort of behaviour with regard to TC properties in the South (hence, supposedly, the 6 month rule). It's double dipping and double standards. And more wriggling from you.

4. I have found out - it has happened - but you haven't answered the question about the equitable remedy available to the TC's through the RoC courts. Another case of wriggling I fear.

5. Turkey isn't going to leave until there is a realistic solution. Get over it. I think you'll find that the cause of all the mess lies a lot nearer to home but the IPC at least offers some means of untangling the mess. What REALISTIC suggestions do you have. Or would you rather carry on with your wriggling?

As for the Orams - remind me, how is Mr Apostolides getting on moving back into his old house? What did all that really achieve, and what's more, could any future cases really be expected to follow the same course. If so, why haven't we seen the flood? If you think that the Orams case represents Cyprus moving forward then you really are out of touch with reality.

How old are you 'cos it feels like I'm in a dialogue with a petulant child and if that's the case I probably ought to be more supportive of your early attempts at intelligent discussion?

Or is it just that you like the "sound" of your own voice.

Rouse and whiff the capuccino.

[Murataga]

Maybe the Aegean should be avoided by non indigenous sailors who do not know their way around.

Hitler born a Greek would not have said it any different.

Interesting criteria though I must admit... I recall a bunch who surgically found their way on to a tiny piece of heavily guarded Aegean rock in the middle of the night when it really counted. Were they perhaps 'indigenous' enough for you?

[Murataga]

Murataga, when you came to Cyprus you found the Venetians, and when they came who did they find?

It is not a matter of who found who - it is that YOU came here from elsewhere when others were already here. Hence by definition you do not originate from this island. The origins of this island are NOT Greek.

Today you sing the national anthem of where you came from, wave the flag of where you came from on the border, speak the language of where you came from, and put your allegiance and loyalty to where you came from. So go sell your cheap propaganda elsewhere.

Who had been here all along and endured all those comings and goings?

Not you.

The indigenous population.

No, not necessarily. If you look at the history of the island you will see that a variety of peoples affiliated with one governance witnessed the arrival of a new one. TCs are a good example.

You know, the ones who built churches dating from the 4th century, and pre christian monuments dating back to 1200 BC.

Cyprus was dominated by different empires throughout history. A variety of peoples lived on this island, before and after your arrival, with no affiliation to you. They all left their mark in one way or another which is something I find to be wonderful. You should try to embrace this diversity instead of promoting your Nazi-like ideology of claiming the whole history and geography of the island to yourself.

Hard to swallow I know, but the way to become local is not to deny but accept the history of the place you want to call home.

It is you who seems to have a hard time swallowing the fact that this island does not solely belong to you - neither from a historical, political or cultural viewpoint. The minute you face this reality is the minute you will start shedding off your racist identity. Cyprus is not solely Greek - deal with it.

Till then you are siding with an invader.

I have every right to defend myself against those who wish to annex the island to Greece, those who broke an international agreement at will, those who assembled and still use an unconstitutional army against me, those who wave the Greek flag and sing the national anthem of Greece yet try to pass themselves as something else, and those who refuse to acknowledge GCs as part of a politically BI-COMMUNAL framework on this island.

I saw the situation between 1968 and 1974 and know who enforced the enclaves. Try that ploy on someone younger or with less memory.

You mean the time when the TCs traveling on the road outside the enclaves had to submit to an unconstitutional armed band established and bred by the GCs? You mean the time which Clerides described in his book as Makarios preferring to have his hands cut off rather than sign an agreement banning ENOSIS in Cyprus? Those must have been the good old days for a Nazi like you. It is with great pleasure that I confidently say to you: there is no going back to those days.

[SKI-preo]

At least Turkey is trying to unravel the mess created by 36 years of dogma

Are you kidding me?
The IPC is just a face saving exercise as the Quasi judicial nature of the commission does not make findings of "guilt" in the way a formal court would. Nominal compensation is being paid and only the most desparate refugee with gambling addictions opts for "compensation" through the IPC. The IPC is a tool to achieve partition which will make the region unstable and partition will ultimately lead to war sometime down the track. Restitution has only been awarded in a couple of cases and the refugees have not been able to return anyway. If a refugee returns will he enjoy democratic rights or recognised human rights?

[Vincehugo]

At least Turkey is trying to unravel the mess created by 36 years of dogma

Are you kidding me?
The IPC is just a face saving exercise as the Quasi judicial nature of the commission does not make findings of "guilt" in the way a formal court would. Nominal compensation is being paid and only the most desparate refugee with gambling addictions opts for "compensation" through the IPC. The IPC is a tool to achieve partition which will make the region unstable and partition will ultimately lead to war sometime down the track. Restitution has only been awarded in a couple of cases and the refugees have not been able to return anyway. If a refugee returns will he enjoy democratic rights or recognised human rights?

Remind me - what are the RoC doing towards untangling the mess?