Vincehugo wrote:Oracle wrote:Vincehugo wrote: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.
Why don't you answer it then!
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?
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.
If the contract is illegal then of course you are not bound. The Orams signed a "contract" and "bought" a house -- but the courts overthrew it!
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.
It's not "double dip" because the IPC has no right to take over other peoples' properties at gunpoint (courtesy of 43,000 Turkish troops). I lease out an apartment for which I am payed rent -- yet the property is still mine and it is NOT "double-dip". You really are stuck on that hope!
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.
Let's see your evidence then!
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?
The IPC only offers to solve the problem of thieves. We don't go along with that, so get over it!
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.
Mr Apostolides is free to enforce whatever he wishes now. His arrangement with the Orams is now private -- and his property is acknowledged world-wide as being his! How about yours?
Rouse and whiff the capuccino.
Lay off the caffeine ...
