Cyprus-Forum.com

[Lit]

Direct trade between the EU and Cyprus Turkish occupied areas is wrong

October 19, 2010

http://www.financialmirror.com/News/Bus ... ance/21612

The European Parliament Committee on Legal Affairs approved on Monday with 18 votes in favour, five against and one abstention the opinion of the Council Legal Service, that the legal basis of the regulation on direct trade between the EU and Cyprus Turkish occupied areas is wrong and that the proper legal basis is Article 1(2) of Protocol No 10 on Cyprus to the Treaty of Accession of April 2003 .

The Committee rejected by majority the postponement of the relevant discussion and endorsed the opinion of the Council Legal Service.

The decision of the Committee will be evaluated during the Conference of Presidents of the European Parliament, in view of the political decisions to be taken on the regulation.

Cyprus has been divided since 1974 when Turkish troops invaded the island.

The Republic of Cyprus joined the EU on May 1, 2004.

[Lit]

The reality of it all. Ever read the Turkish press and their broken record about the realities on the ground in Cyprus?

Weeell.......

Surely the Turks must now see the "realities" with all these judgments against their breakaway State. NO to direct trade with your breakaway State. NO to direct flights with your breakaway State. These are the real "realities", are they not my Turkish friends?

[Lit]

The reality of it all. Ever read the Turkish press and their broken record about the realities on the ground in Cyprus?

Weeell.......

Surely the Turks must now see the "realities" with all these judgments against their breakaway State. NO to direct trade with your breakaway State. NO to direct flights with your breakaway State. These are the real "realities", are they not my Turkish friends?

Direct trade with the "TRNC" still possible? NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

But you can still sell potatoes and oranges with the outside world by opening up the ghost city of Varosha. Is that likely to occur, of course not....that would obviously be the descent thing to do and you guys certainly do not want to give up that bargaining chip!

More great news:

http://www.iewy.com/10453-meps-reject-legal-treatment-of-the-northern-part-of-cyprus-as-a-third-country.html



MEPs reject legal treatment of the northern part of Cyprus as a third country

EU trade with the northern part of Cyprus should be governed directly by EU single market and customs union rules, and not by the EU’s rules for international trade. Possible trade with the northern part of Cyprus based on article 207 of the Lisbon Treaty on international trade would wrongly imply that it is not part of the EU, said the Legal Affairs Committee on Monday.

[CopperLine]

Reading this thread one could be forgiven for thinking that the Direct Trade Regulations were something designed by Turkey and imposed on Cyprus or that TCs were forcing the Republic of Cyprus to do something illegal. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In actual fact the direct trade regulations, which obliged the Republic of Cyprus from 2004, to open trade have been unilaterally refused by the Republic of Cyprus contra the Council of Europe, the European Commission, Article 133 of the establishing treaty of the EC, all of which the Republic of Cyprus agreed to precisely because it claimed during accession negotiations and afterwards that it represented the whole island and not just part of it.

Furthermore there have been repeated "calls upon the authorities of the Republic of Cyprus.... to lift objections to the adoption of the Council of the European Union’s Direct Trade Regulation put forward by the European Commission allowing free direct trade."

The failure to implement the Direct Trade Regulations is a breach of
RoC's treaty obligations. Nothing to do with RoT or TCs.

(The european parliament's legal committee is not against direct trade as the title of this thread misleadingly claims. The heart of the Committee's case is that the Commission does not have the requisite authority to bring the RoC into line in the way proposed. It is a legal argument which echos that of the Council's Legal Service for many years. Basically the Commission is pissed off with and frustrated by the RoCs obduracy and bad faith regarding accession commitments. For what it is worth, legally I think the Legal Committee has the stronger argument).

[Get Real!]

Reading this thread one could be forgiven for thinking that the Direct Trade Regulations were something designed by Turkey and imposed on Cyprus or that TCs were forcing the Republic of Cyprus to do something illegal. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In actual fact the direct trade regulations, which obliged the Republic of Cyprus from 2004, to open trade have been unilaterally refused by the Republic of Cyprus contra the Council of Europe, the European Commission, Article 133 of the establishing treaty of the EC, all of which the Republic of Cyprus agreed to precisely because it claimed during accession negotiations and afterwards that it represented the whole island and not just part of it.

Furthermore there have been repeated "calls upon the authorities of the Republic of Cyprus.... to lift objections to the adoption of the Council of the European Union’s Direct Trade Regulation put forward by the European Commission allowing free direct trade."

The failure to implement the Direct Trade Regulations is a breach of
RoC's treaty obligations. Nothing to do with RoT or TCs.

(The european parliament's legal committee is not against direct trade as the title of this thread misleadingly claims. The heart of the Committee's case is that the Commission does not have the requisite authority to bring the RoC into line in the way proposed. It is a legal argument which echos that of the Council's Legal Service for many years. Basically the Commission is pissed off with and frustrated by the RoCs obduracy and bad faith regarding accession commitments. For what it is worth, legally I think the Legal Committee has the stronger argument).

That’s a very long and elaborate way of saying that the RoC is right!

[bill cobbett]

CyBC late news in Greek reported the outcome of the discussion within the European Parliament Legal Committee tonight as being 18 in favor of accepting the report against accepting the European Commission recommendation regarding direct trade with Turkish occupied Cyprus, 5 in favour and 1 abstention.

One can not help wondering whether those responsible within the European Commission for that recommendation to the European Parliament will resign, now that the recommendation they had proposed have been found to have been contrary to EU law ?

Well def yes, they should go... and go soon cos this matter goes far, far beyond CY.

Here we have had some of the members of the unelected, Get Rich on the Usual Perks Euro Comm trying to use little CY to promote an extension of their power by mis-using the part of the Lisbon Treaty that refers to international trade to interfere (illegally in the view of the Legal Committee) in the internal trade matters of a sovereign state, something which was always going to be judged a matter that is the sole preserve of each member-state.

Who was guilty? Which of the unelected Euro Scummission were behind this Illegal and Villainous attack on European Democracy, on all Europeans? Well if we leave aside considerations of Collective Responsibility in which case they are all guilty, then look to the Get Turkey in to the EU and Sod Cy Turkofool Fule as the driving force behind this... and Barrosso's leadership as Pres must be called in to question as well.

Both Barrosso and Fule must go.

[grokked]

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/en/pressr ... 19IPR87993

MEPs reject legal treatment of the northern part of Cyprus as a third country
External/international trade − 19-10-2010 - 20:25
Committee: Legal Affairs
Share / Save
Social networking sites
Facebook
MySpace
Twitter
Favorites
Favorites
Delicious
Digg
Google
Live


EU trade with the northern part of Cyprus should be governed directly by EU single market and customs union rules, and not by the EU's rules for international trade. Possible trade with the northern part of Cyprus based on article 207 of the Lisbon Treaty on international trade would wrongly imply that it is not part of the EU, said the Legal Affairs Committee on Monday.

The EU has always considered Cyprus to have joined the EU as a whole, but upon accession by Cyprus in 2004, EU legislation was "temporarily suspended" in the areas not under the effective control of the government of the Republic of Cyprus.

Cyprus's north-south divide is not an EU external border

The Legal Affairs Committee shared the opinion of the Parliament's legal service that the territory of Cyprus is fully part of EU customs territory. MEPs reiterated that the Union should not seek to regulate its internal arrangements for the movement of goods among Member States on the basis of the common commercial policy, as proposed in 2004 by the Commission, because this would "imply that de facto the line separating the territory of Cyprus would be tantamount to an external border of the Union".

"We need to keep things simple. It is difficult to draft a regulation on the basis of external action and trade policy because Cyprus as a whole is already a member of the EU", commented rapporteur Kurt Lechner (EPP, DE), adding "let's see the case as it is and not use other examples which do not fit". MEPs approved with 18 votes in favour, 5 against and one abstention the proposal of the rapporteur to adopt Protocol 10 of the Accession Treaty of Cyprus to the EU as the correct legal basis of the regulation..

Ending the "temporary suspension"

Lifting the temporary suspension of the EU legislation would require a new proposal, within a new legal framework (Article 1 (2) of Protocol n° 10), which says that it is for the Council to decide - on the basis of a proposal by the European Commission, on the withdrawal of the suspension of the internal market and customs rules. The Council will need to act unanimously.

Next steps

The Legal Affairs Committee will send its conclusions to the Conference of Presidents, which had asked it for its opinion.

In the chair: Klaus-Heiner LEHNE (EPP, DE)

REF. : 20101019IPR87993

[grokked]

http://www.ansamed.info/en/cipro/news/ME.XEF57113.html

CYPRUS: NORMALISE TRADE WITH NORTH, EP COMMISSION
19 OCTOBER , 14:40

BackPrintSendScrivi alla redazioneSuggest
(ANSAmed) - STRASBOURG, OCTOBER 19 - The Commission for Legal Affairs at the European Parliament, which was asked to deliver a verdict on a proposal from the EU Commission, says that trade relations with Northern Cyprus should be normalised, as it is part of the EU and cannot be treated as a third party. It says that the line dividing the two parts of the island cannot be considered an external border of the 27-member EU.

In order to bring the community of Northern Cyprus out of isolation and encourage its economic development, the European Commission would like to apply a preferential scheme to products from Northern Cyprus admitted to EU customs as, since 2004, when the Republic of Cyprus joined the EU, the EU acquis, including the European Community customs code, has been suspended in areas that are not under the effective control of the Nicosia government. According to the Commission for Legal Affairs at the European Parliament, the 2004 suspension should be partially revised and the rules concerning the single market free circulation of goods and the EU customs union should be directly applied. This view will now be examined by the European Parliament's International Trade Commission. A draft report will then emerge and be submitted to a vote at the plenary session. Any decision on the end of the suspension of EU trade regulations depends on a unanimous vote by the EU Council of Ministers. (ANSAmed).

[Hermes]

The failure to implement the Direct Trade Regulations is a breach of
RoC's treaty obligations. Nothing to do with RoT or TCs.

I don't know where you get the idea from that the ROC was ever obliged by the EC on its accession to implement a direct trade regulation. A draft regulation providing for “direct trade” with the occupied area was tabled by the European Commission in July 2004 (in a misguided effort to "reward" T/Cs for supporting the Annan Plan) but was vetoed by Cyprus and other EU member states because it would effectively upgrade the status of the illegal occupation regime.

The ROC has always maintained that the legal basis of the Commission's regulation on direct trade between the EU and Cyprus's Turkish occupied areas is wrong and that the proper legal basis is Article 1(2) of the Treaty of Accession's Protocol No 10 between Cyprus and the EU, signed in April 2003. This has been upheld this week.

Let's not kid ourselves: this was never about trade or the economic benefit of Turkish Cypriots. This was always about upgrading the status of the secessionist regime. To argue this has nothing to do with Turkey is disingenuous to say the least.

Moreover, Turkey has coupled the "direct trade" regulation to its accession course by linking it to its obligations under the Ankara Protocol. As a result it has ended up stalling its own accession process. That is Turkey's problem. No point blaming the ROC for legally defending its own interests.

[BirKibrisli]

Make no mistake about it...This is another victory for those two sly foxes,Erdogan and Davutoglu...I've been telling you all along...The AKP (Erdogan's ruling party) do not want to join the EU...They are simply using Cyprus to slow down the negotiation process till they feel strong and confident enough politically (in Turkey against the threat from the Military) to announce their decision to withdraw from the EU accession process...In the mean time the population of the Turkish settlers nears the millionth mark,and Turkification of the North gathers speed and endurance...The game is up...Anybody who thinks that the EU or the USA can and will force Turkey to withdraw from Cyprus one day is a prized idiot...