Cyprus-Forum.com

[erolz3]

A worthy document, like so many modern day UN documents full of worthy 'ideals' and 'guidelines' that unfortunately are far from becomming real world realites any time soon. Worthy ideals like

"8.1 Everyone has the right to adequate housing. ". Everyone has the right to it but even in 2011 100's of millions if not billions of people world wide do not have it. Still a worthy Ideal

Anyway I wanted to ask Bill if you have read this document from the perspective of how the RoC treats restitution of TC property in the south ? I am thinking of sections like, but not only

13.1 Everyone who has been arbitrarily or unlawfully deprived of housing, land and/or property should be able to submit a claim for restitution and/or compensation to an independent and impartial body, to have a determination made on their claim and to receive notice of such determination. States should not establish any preconditions for filing a restitution claim.

13.4 States should ensure that the restitution claims process is accessible for refugees and other displaced persons regardless of their place of residence during the period of displacement, including in countries of origin, countries of asylum or countries to which they have fled. States should ensure that all affected persons are made aware of the restitution claims process, and that information about this process is made readily available, including in countries of origin, countries of asylum or countries to which they have fled.

13.5 States should seek to establish restitution claims-processing centres and offices throughout affected areas where potential claimants currently reside. In order to facilitate the greatest access to those affected, it should be possible to submit restitution claims by post or by proxy, as well as in person. States should also consider establishing mobile units in order to ensure accessibility to all potential claimants.

13.7 States should develop restitution claims forms that are simple and easy to understand and use and make them available in the main language or languages of the groups affected. Competent assistance should be made available to help persons complete and file any necessary restitution claims forms, and such assistance should be provided in a manner that is age and gender sensitive.

13.9 States should establish a clear time period for filing restitution claims. This information should be widely disseminated and should be sufficiently long to ensure that all those affected have an adequate opportunity to file a restitution claim, bearing in mind the number of potential claimants, potential difficulties of collecting information and access, the extent of displacement, the accessibility of the process for potentially disadvantaged groups and vulnerable individuals, and the political situation in the country or region of origin.

[Kikapu]

A worthy document, like so many modern day UN documents full of worthy 'ideals' and 'guidelines' that unfortunately are far from becomming real world realites any time soon. Worthy ideals like

"8.1 Everyone has the right to adequate housing. ". Everyone has the right to it but even in 2011 100's of millions if not billions of people world wide do not have it. Still a worthy Ideal

Anyway I wanted to ask Bill if you have read this document from the perspective of how the RoC treats restitution of TC property in the south ? I am thinking of sections like, but not only

13.1 Everyone who has been arbitrarily or unlawfully deprived of housing, land and/or property should be able to submit a claim for restitution and/or compensation to an independent and impartial body, to have a determination made on their claim and to receive notice of such determination. States should not establish any preconditions for filing a restitution claim.

13.4 States should ensure that the restitution claims process is accessible for refugees and other displaced persons regardless of their place of residence during the period of displacement, including in countries of origin, countries of asylum or countries to which they have fled. States should ensure that all affected persons are made aware of the restitution claims process, and that information about this process is made readily available, including in countries of origin, countries of asylum or countries to which they have fled.

13.5 States should seek to establish restitution claims-processing centres and offices throughout affected areas where potential claimants currently reside. In order to facilitate the greatest access to those affected, it should be possible to submit restitution claims by post or by proxy, as well as in person. States should also consider establishing mobile units in order to ensure accessibility to all potential claimants.

13.7 States should develop restitution claims forms that are simple and easy to understand and use and make them available in the main language or languages of the groups affected. Competent assistance should be made available to help persons complete and file any necessary restitution claims forms, and such assistance should be provided in a manner that is age and gender sensitive.

13.9 States should establish a clear time period for filing restitution claims. This information should be widely disseminated and should be sufficiently long to ensure that all those affected have an adequate opportunity to file a restitution claim, bearing in mind the number of potential claimants, potential difficulties of collecting information and access, the extent of displacement, the accessibility of the process for potentially disadvantaged groups and vulnerable individuals, and the political situation in the country or region of origin.

Erolz,

Surely the above conditions ONLY apply during peacetime and not during wars and occupation of a country by a foreign force. At the present time in Cyprus, I wouldn't exactly call it a "peacetime", would you.? I'm sure the UN document Bill posted is also intended when peacetime once again is in Cyprus. In another words, "the day after"!

[erolz3]

Kikapu for me I do not see how you can say this document should govern how pre74 property of GC in the north should be dealt with now, but not how pre74 property of TC in the South should be dealt with now. Nor do I see anything in the document that suggest a different treatment for each.

Its just my personal view, but I think hoping for 'salvation' for GC property woes, and specifically for woes re the ECHR ruling on the legitimacy of the IPC in the north, from a document that the RoC itself does not respect, is perhaps overly optimisitc ?

[Kikapu]

Kikapu for me I do not see how you can say this document should govern how pre74 property of GC in the north should be dealt with now, but not how pre74 property of TC in the South should be dealt with now. Nor do I see anything in the document that suggest a different treatment for each.

I did not state that the UN documents that you and Bill presented should ONLY deal with the pre 74 GCs properties and not the TCs. I only said, that these UN documents can ONLY be applicable in peacetime and since we have not reach that peacetime yet, then naturally both the TCs and GCs pre 74 properties are negatively effected. However, once the "war" has ended, then these UN documents will have effect on ALL the pre TC and GC properties, hence the phrase that I used "the day after", meaning after the "war" has ended.

Its just my personal view, but I think hoping for 'salvation' for GC property woes, and specifically for woes re the ECHR ruling on the legitimacy of the IPC in the north, from a document that the RoC itself does not respect, is perhaps overly optimisitc ?

The IPC is a sham, you know it, I know it and the ECHR knows it, regardless what the ECHR stated, since the IPC's main objective is to deny returning of the properties of the GCs in the north to their lawful pre 74 owners, which the ECHR still recognises these pre 74 owners as the ONLY legitimate owners. The IPC wants ONLY compensate the pre 74 GC owners ( and on the cheap I may add) or do an "exchange" with a TC property in the south, which in itself may have many legal problems in the future, unless the pre 74 TC owner of the land in the south also agrees for the IPC to give away their land to a GC in the form of an "exchange". Just because the "trnc" is holding onto the deeds of TCs properties in the south in exchange for giving the TCs stolen GC properties in the north, is hardly going to hold up in a court of law as being a legal exchanged transaction, and if any TC who has had their properties exchanged in their name by the IPC (on the behalf of the "trnc"), may well have a case to overturn such an arrangement once the "war" is over.

[erolz3]

The IPC is a sham, you know it, I know it and the ECHR knows it, regardless what the ECHR stated, since the IPC's main objective is to deny returning of the properties of the GCs in the north to their lawful pre 74 owners, which the ECHR still recognises these pre 74 owners as the ONLY legitimate owners.

I am sorry but I do not agree the IPC is a sham, nor that its purpose is to deny return in all cases.
I also do not think you can reasoanbly demand legality and justice and when you get a result from a legal and proper authortiy like the ECHR, just say, oh we don't like that legal ruling from a proper authority, so we will refuse to accept it. To me if you demand legality then you must be prepared to accept legal judgments from proper authorites that you do not like along with those you do like. Otherwise all you are really saying is I want legality if I get what I want and if I dont I will deny the validity of a proper courts legal rulings.
Nor do I think there is an issue with the legality of TC having voluntarily signed rights to property they own to another party , in this case the TRNC. As long as it was volunatary, then those TC were perfectly within their rights to sign their own property to anyone they wanted, including the TRNC, or its predessor.

Anyway I don't have the energy to keep arguing all this stuff.

It seemed to me that Bill viewed this UN document as potential 'salvation' to GC property woes and the decisions of the ECHR decision on the IPC. My suggsetion was that it might not represent the slavation that he seemed to me to think it was and I explained why I think that. Maybe I am wrong, maybe I am not.

PS I am glad you had such an enjoyable time in your vist by the way. Maybe when you return next time we can meet up. Drop us a line if you want to, by email is best.

[Pyrpolizer]

The IPC is a sham, you know it, I know it and the ECHR knows it, regardless what the ECHR stated, since the IPC's main objective is to deny returning of the properties of the GCs in the north to their lawful pre 74 owners, which the ECHR still recognises these pre 74 owners as the ONLY legitimate owners.

I am sorry but I do not agree the IPC is a sham, nor that its purpose is to deny return in all cases.
I also do not think you can reasoanbly demand legality and justice and when you get a result from a legal and proper authortiy like the ECHR, just say, oh we don't like that legal ruling from a proper authority, so we will refuse to accept it. To me if you demand legality then you must be prepared to accept legal judgments from proper authorites that you do not like along with those you do like. Otherwise all you are really saying is I want legality if I get what I want and if I dont I will deny the validity of a proper courts legal rulings.
Nor do I think there is an issue with the legality of TC having voluntarily signed rights to property they own to another party , in this case the TRNC. As long as it was volunatary, then those TC were perfectly within their rights to sign their own property to anyone they wanted, including the TRNC, or its predessor.

Anyway I don't have the energy to keep arguing all this stuff.

It seemed to me that Bill viewed this UN document as potential 'salvation' to GC property woes and the decisions of the ECHR decision on the IPC. My suggsetion was that it might not represent the slavation that he seemed to me to think it was and I explained why I think that. Maybe I am wrong, maybe I am not.

PS I am glad you had such an enjoyable time in your vist by the way. Maybe when you return next time we can meet up. Drop us a line if you want to, by email is best.

There is an issue. Property rights are given to you, and are governed by the laws of the state that gives them to you. As such you cannot transfer your ownership rights to anyone you wish.You may have to pay taxes to do it, or even be declined you the right to transfer ownership to another person depending on who that is e.g. a foreigner. Let aside transfer your ownership to an illegal regime which is a product of invasion and occupation....

There are extremely tough restrictions in case you would sell to another legal state. In that case the other legal state is limited to buying property for only a few things like building an embassy etc. And you are telling me you don't see any problem transfering your property ownership to "trnc" LOL

[bill cobbett]

Picking up on something Pyrpo says immediately above about how human rights are given to us...

They ain't, we have human rights as of right, we are, if you will, born with them. No one gives them to us, certainly no government gives them to us. We may look to governments and bodies like the ECHR to respect them, but we have them, like the air we breathe, as inalienable rights.

To put the right to free enjoyment of property in to perspective, may help to think of one of the other HRs, the Right to Life. Does any bleeding government really give us the right to live???????

Is the Right to Life negotiable??????????

So if you go with this interpretation of what rights are about, let me go on to ask...

How outrageous is it that the leaders at the talks, are every day that these talks go on, trying to negotiate the HR to own and freely enjoy property of tens of thousands of CYs??????

Have we really sunk so low that we turn blind eyes to this disgraceful interference with the Rights of CYs?

[Pyrpolizer]

Picking up on something Pyrpo says immediately above about how human rights are given to us...

They ain't, we have human rights as of right, we are, if you will, born with them. No one gives them to us, certainly no government gives them to us. We may look to governments and bodies like the ECHR to respect them, but we have them, like the air we breathe, as inalienable rights.

To put the right to free enjoyment of property in to perspective, may help to think of one of the other HRs, the Right to Life. Does any bleeding government really give us the right to live???????

Is the Right to Life negotiable??????????

So if you go with this interpretation of what rights are about, let me go on to ask...

How outrageous is it that the leaders at the talks, are every day that these talks go on, trying to negotiate the HR to own and freely enjoy property of tens of thousands of CYs??????

Have we really sunk so low that we turn blind eyes to this disgraceful interference with the Rights of CYs?

Human rights is a complicated issue Bill. And yes you can even lose your human right to life, if you are convicted to be hung by the head until dead.

i still agree with what you said about the leaders negotiating for our properties. By the time we got property rights either through buying or inheritence by the state itself, the state cannot taker those rights away just like that. It may need to pay compensation or give you another property.

I think Christofias is not negotiating our properties in the way you said....

[bill cobbett]

Picking up on something Pyrpo says immediately above about how human rights are given to us...

They ain't, we have human rights as of right, we are, if you will, born with them. No one gives them to us, certainly no government gives them to us. We may look to governments and bodies like the ECHR to respect them, but we have them, like the air we breathe, as inalienable rights.

To put the right to free enjoyment of property in to perspective, may help to think of one of the other HRs, the Right to Life. Does any bleeding government really give us the right to live???????

Is the Right to Life negotiable??????????

So if you go with this interpretation of what rights are about, let me go on to ask...

How outrageous is it that the leaders at the talks, are every day that these talks go on, trying to negotiate the HR to own and freely enjoy property of tens of thousands of CYs??????

Have we really sunk so low that we turn blind eyes to this disgraceful interference with the Rights of CYs?

Human rights is a complicated issue Bill. And yes you can even lose your human right to life, if you are convicted to be hung by the head until dead.

i still agree with what you said about the leaders negotiating for our properties. By the time we got property rights either through buying or inheritence by the state itself, the state cannot taker those rights away just like that. It may need to pay compensation or give you another property.

I think Christofias is not negotiating our properties in the way you said....

Don't really know P file, what Pres X gets up to, (but hope your're right.)... and there's a prob with the lack of info... only a day or two ago we hear there was convergence on external treaties, but where are the details? Details that should engage the CY electorate in a continuing debate. Are they again gonna have a several hundred page doc to think about for 24 hours before a ref?

[Pyrpolizer]

Picking up on something Pyrpo says immediately above about how human rights are given to us...

They ain't, we have human rights as of right, we are, if you will, born with them. No one gives them to us, certainly no government gives them to us. We may look to governments and bodies like the ECHR to respect them, but we have them, like the air we breathe, as inalienable rights.

To put the right to free enjoyment of property in to perspective, may help to think of one of the other HRs, the Right to Life. Does any bleeding government really give us the right to live???????

Is the Right to Life negotiable??????????

So if you go with this interpretation of what rights are about, let me go on to ask...

How outrageous is it that the leaders at the talks, are every day that these talks go on, trying to negotiate the HR to own and freely enjoy property of tens of thousands of CYs??????

Have we really sunk so low that we turn blind eyes to this disgraceful interference with the Rights of CYs?

Human rights is a complicated issue Bill. And yes you can even lose your human right to life, if you are convicted to be hung by the head until dead.

i still agree with what you said about the leaders negotiating for our properties. By the time we got property rights either through buying or inheritence by the state itself, the state cannot taker those rights away just like that. It may need to pay compensation or give you another property.

I think Christofias is not negotiating our properties in the way you said....

Don't really know P file, what Pres X gets up to, (but hope your're right.)... and there's a prob with the lack of info... only a day or two ago we hear there was convergence on external treaties, but where are the details? Details that should engage the CY electorate in a continuing debate. Are they again gonna have a several hundred page doc to think about for 24 hours before a ref?

I do share your concerns my friend ....