Acikgoz wrote:Big difference however in the ECHR decision to give right to the existing users, new point of law to be debated in GC courts, then appealed at ECJ with ECHR arguments.
This was what didn't make sense personally (non expert) that the ECHR would undermine the GC courts else it would undermine all courts in EU
To the best of my understanding, the ECHR stated at it's last ruling in March that the present occupiers rights also needed to be looked at as to whether the property can be returned to the original owners or that compensation needed to be paid instead, which they left the IPC and the courts in the north to make that determination as to what was best for all concern. No time did the ECHR ever say that the original owners lost their right of ownership of that property, which means, that the ownership remains with the original owner if no action were taken by them, ie, go to the IPC for a resolution . Well, we know what the IPC will say, that the present occupiers cannot be moved, therefore we offer you some ridiculously silly money for your property. Now, if the original owner takes the money, they no longer own that piece of property, but if they don't sell, the present occupiers remain in the property as squatters and not as owners. This has nothing to do with the ECJ ruling on the Orams case, confirmed by the ECHR now, that every squatter can be sued for trespassing in the RoC courts for the property they presently occupy and that these squatters have no place to hide. If the present talks fail, every lawyer in the RoC will be busy suing any squatters the can get their hands on. That's what the present decision on the Orams vs. RoC by the ECHR means.!
