Cyprus-Forum.com

[denizaksulu]

Talking of colourful members:

Just had a lengthy phone conversation with our friend Miltiades.

Today Milti celebrates his 65th birthday. He sends his best regards to all his friends and others on cf. He would be delighted at the return of Pyro, erolz and copperline. He has made a few attempts at re-joining the cf . I have informed him of the 'New Cyprus Forum' coming up. Perhaps ADMIN will make a gesture of WELCOME to ALL past 'miscreants'. (with no strings attached and promises to OBEY the RULES).

I don't know where Spartan Gamer has disappeared to!!

Well Happy Birthday to Milti, if he's having a party why have we not all been invited - probably doesn't want to waste his best bottles of red on our unsophisticated palates.

He has enough on his plate at the mo. Enuf said.

[Jerry]

I'm not sure what you feel you are to blame for. I'm pleased to see your and Copperline's return to CF, whether CFers agree or disagree with you I'd rather see your contributions than the ya boo jibes that have infected the forum for far too long.

and I am glad Piratis is not around because last time I was here he was so unfairly treating CopperLine that made me sick.
CopperLine has very valid and clever points to contribute. The same goes for Erolz3 of course.
It is true the CF became very very poor lately, in fact only Kikapu and a few others were writing anything sensible...

And it seems deeeeep discussions repel Viewpoint which is good too

Agreed, Copperline obviously has a wealth of expertise in most legal matters that relate to the Cyprus Problem. I have not always agreed with what he says but, unlike the "forum fascists" I have not joined in attempts to hound him off CF just because I did not like what he posted. It would be good to see Milti return, I miss his "plonkerisms"

[Jerry]

Talking of colourful members:

Just had a lengthy phone conversation with our friend Miltiades.

Today Milti celebrates his 65th birthday. He sends his best regards to all his friends and others on cf. He would be delighted at the return of Pyro, erolz and copperline. He has made a few attempts at re-joining the cf . I have informed him of the 'New Cyprus Forum' coming up. Perhaps ADMIN will make a gesture of WELCOME to ALL past 'miscreants'. (with no strings attached and promises to OBEY the RULES).

I don't know where Spartan Gamer has disappeared to!!

Well Happy Birthday to Milti, if he's having a party why have we not all been invited - probably doesn't want to waste his best bottles of red on our unsophisticated palates.

He has enough on his plate at the mo. Enuf said.

And enough in his glass no doubt.

[denizaksulu]

Talking of colourful members:

Just had a lengthy phone conversation with our friend Miltiades.

Today Milti celebrates his 65th birthday. He sends his best regards to all his friends and others on cf. He would be delighted at the return of Pyro, erolz and copperline. He has made a few attempts at re-joining the cf . I have informed him of the 'New Cyprus Forum' coming up. Perhaps ADMIN will make a gesture of WELCOME to ALL past 'miscreants'. (with no strings attached and promises to OBEY the RULES).

I don't know where Spartan Gamer has disappeared to!!

Well Happy Birthday to Milti, if he's having a party why have we not all been invited - probably doesn't want to waste his best bottles of red on our unsophisticated palates.

He has enough on his plate at the mo. Enuf said.

And enough in his glass no doubt.

Without doubt! Not called Pappou Krasi for nothing.

[bill cobbett]

Talking of colourful members:

Just had a lengthy phone conversation with our friend Miltiades.

Today Milti celebrates his 65th birthday. He sends his best regards to all his friends and others on cf. He would be delighted at the return of Pyro, erolz and copperline. He has made a few attempts at re-joining the cf . I have informed him of the 'New Cyprus Forum' coming up. Perhaps ADMIN will make a gesture of WELCOME to ALL past 'miscreants'. (with no strings attached and promises to OBEY the RULES).

I don't know where Spartan Gamer has disappeared to!!

Well Happy Birthday to Milti, if he's having a party why have we not all been invited - probably doesn't want to waste his best bottles of red on our unsophisticated palates.

He has enough on his plate at the mo. Enuf said.

And enough in his glass no doubt.

Without doubt! Not called Pappou Krasi for nothing.

Give him best wishes from moi too please D.

[denizaksulu]

Talking of colourful members:

Just had a lengthy phone conversation with our friend Miltiades.

Today Milti celebrates his 65th birthday. He sends his best regards to all his friends and others on cf. He would be delighted at the return of Pyro, erolz and copperline. He has made a few attempts at re-joining the cf . I have informed him of the 'New Cyprus Forum' coming up. Perhaps ADMIN will make a gesture of WELCOME to ALL past 'miscreants'. (with no strings attached and promises to OBEY the RULES).

I don't know where Spartan Gamer has disappeared to!!

Well Happy Birthday to Milti, if he's having a party why have we not all been invited - probably doesn't want to waste his best bottles of red on our unsophisticated palates.

He has enough on his plate at the mo. Enuf said.

And enough in his glass no doubt.

Without doubt! Not called Pappou Krasi for nothing.

Give him best wishes from moi too please D.

Of course.

[Kikapu]

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.

Erolz,

Sorry for the delayed response, as time was needed elsewhere..

I am sorry but I do not agree the IPC is a sham, nor that its purpose is to deny return in all cases.

All you have to do to determine whether the IPC is a sham or not, is to define what the letter "I" in IPC stands for. Can you honestly tell me that the letter "I" stands for "Independent".? Really, when Turkey (through occupation and expulsion of the GCs from their properties) and the "trnc" (who has claimed to have rights over ALL of the expelled GCs properties) and the courts in the north who are "kept & maintained" by Turkey.

The ones who are controlling the IPC are the same people who are controlling the GCs properties. Talk about the fox guarding the hen house or shall I say, "IPC is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch"! :wink:

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.

I never said that what the ECHR did was illegal, by them recognising the IPC to be a local remedy for the GCs who may want to apply to the IPC to have some resolution for their properties in the north. Just because the ECHR did not want to deal with the 1500 cases themselves that were filed against Turkey is an another story however, therefore, their ruling had more to do with self serving interest than justice for the victims. It was one of the most cowardly and immoral rulings the ECHR did in the name of expediency to get rid of the 1500 cases in one swoop. Perhaps they wanted a political solution to solve the property issues rather than the judiciary one. If the political solution does not come about, then the ECHR can expect more cases to land on their laps in the future. If I'm not mistaken, the IPC will stop taking new cases sometime not too far in the distant future. Then what happens.? So yes, what the ECHR did was legal, but it does not mean that the IPC is not a sham, since it does not award the claimants their wishes of having their properties returned to them, except in very few cases perhaps. It appears, that up to 2009, less than 10% of the completed cases resulted in restitution, therefore it is safe to say, that the IPC's main objectives are to resist returning properties back to the GC refugees and my guess is, since the ECHR rulings recently on the IPC, that 10% restitution rate will get reduced significantly.

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.

Pyro made some valid points as to whom one can sign away their properties to and under what conditions and circumstances. It is not as clear cut as you want to make it to be.

But the TCs didn't exactly just sign away their properties to whomever, did they, Erolz? No, they did not. They signed away their properties to an entity, the "trnc", who have claimed illegally ALL the GCs properties in the north to be theirs and to do as they wish with it, and in return for the TCs signing their properties to the "trnc", they had received GCs properties in return. So basically, the TCs did an illegal exchange with the GCs properties without the GC owners consent in the eyes of the RoC's laws while the illegal entity, the "trnc", acting as the "middleman, the front-man and the rear-man". You can argue with me that the "laws" in the "trnc" allowed the TCs to be compensated with GCs properties in return for theirs in the south but it will not cut muster with the RoC's laws nor the EU's laws and dare I say, the International laws, specially when the TCs properties are in the south which ALL land related transactions needs to go through the Land Registry Office to become finalize. The so called "exchange" transactions in the north have not been through the above office, therefore such transactions are not recognized by the RoC for starters as well as they being regarded as fraudulent and criminal acts in nature.

If and when the time comes and the TCs who took part in such transactions will one day want their properties back in the south, have ONLY two options to shift all the blame on to the "trnc" for corrupting themselves to take part in this illegal scheme. One would be to plead ignorant of the facts that they did not know that the GCs land they have received in return for theirs in the south (which majority of the TC land in the south had not yet been through probate yet to determine who and how much they (children) had legally inherited from their parents/grandparent) did not have a clear title to them, which the courts will not allow ignorance as a defense, and secondly, would be for them to plea temporary insanity for them signing away their (parents/grandparents) legally owned land in the south for stolen GC land in the north. The latter would be a better defense than the former in my view. The day will come where most of the TCs who have signed away their properties to receive "exchanged" GC land in the north, will want to get their land back in the south. Talk about a complete balls up by the TCs by going along with the "trnc's" conniving ill conceived plans to receive TCs legally owned land in the south in exchange for stolen GCs properties in the north.

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

.

I have noticed how you tend to take the middle ground on most of the topics here on the forum, in an attempt in not to piss off the RoC or the "trnc". The fact that you live in the north, I can fully understand as to why you don't want to piss off the "trnc". Many here on the forum from the TC community who do live in the north also try very hard not to piss off the "trnc", despite knowing full well what is right and what is wrong. I completely and fully understand theirs and your positions on this.

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.

It may not be a salvation at the present time, but it is one more tool to use in the negotiations if the Rule of Law is going to be used along with relevant UN resolutions as well as the EU Principles to reach an agreement in order for Cyprus to have a Democratic country who will want to live by those principles in the 21st century. So far the RoC is saying "YES" to those principles and the "trnc" (Turkey) is saying "NO" to those principles, and the proof was in the pudding as to what the results were in the 2004 Annan Plan.

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.

Are you referring to the last time I came to Cyprus, Erolz, which was about 4 years ago or did you confuse me someone else.? In any case, I'm honoured that you would want to meet, to which I don't know to what I owe this pleasure to, but thanks all the same. In all reality though, I do not know when the next time I will be in Cyprus and also whether or not the opportunity will present itself to meet with you, but in any case, I'm sure I can get your email address from the "other forum" in order to get in touch with you should the opportunity present itself. The same goes to few other people here on the forum btw.

Again, sorry for the delay in responding to your post.

[Pyrpolizer]

Hello Kikapu,

it's good to notice you 've been away all these days for other priorities in life, than "renegate" reasons like myself

Just a few comments if I may (I am sure Erolz3 will lay his views in detail later).
A minor correction first IPC stands for Immovable Property Commission…

Now my opinnion is that only the IPC but also the ECHR are a sham. I have different reasoning for this view:

The ECHR is a sham because it cannot deliver justice within a reasonable time. Furthermore it cannot handle the volume of applications coming to it not only from Cyprus but from so many other Countries including Turkey.
ANY COURT that cannot deliver justice fast enough, FOR ALL cases that come to it, is a SHAM in my opinion.

The IPC is a sham for these reasons:

a)It cannot potentially deliver justice for ALL. Even if the exchange of properties was without obstacles coming from the RoC it would never have enough volume of Kibrisli properties in the southern part of the island to "exchange" for equal Kypreos properties in the northern part. Simply because the properties left by the Kibrislis are not even 1/5th of those left by the Kypreos in the north.. Valuewise the gap is much much greater. So at the very best it would satisfy a MAXIMUM of some 10-20% of the Kypreos refugees. That’s why the Kybreos call traitors those other Kybreos who run to the IPC, because they do it for their own self interest, not caring what will happen to the remaining 80%. It's like 20% of the Kypreos refugees capitalizing on the expense of the remaining 80% for pure personal greed.
b)The only possible alternative for those 80% remaining would ever be to get financial compensation from the IPC. Has the ECHR ever required to see evidence that those money exist and if they do, have them deposited for this purpose? Has it ever estimated how much that money should be? Obviously not. And we are not talking for billions here but for TRILLIONS of Euro. (Just compare that with Greece's debit of about 70 (?) billion that is about to shut down the whole country down...) So in the end the maximum the IPC would ever potentially do would be to satisfy a few Kypreos refugees and stop there.


So if the ECHR knew all these facts, knew the IPC could not deliver total justice then why did it let it go? I claim it did so to buy time for Turkey and save her face for many years to come. In other words the ECHR took a political decision that makes it even more sham that what already is.

Let's go one step further. Like I said earlier the RoC refuses to transfer ownership of whatever property the IPC has decided so far to exchange. Erolz3 told me that is illegal and against the ECHR ruling. I have my reservations on that, on the mere reasons that whatever internal remedy of Turkey has no right to force the RoC to take action which is against her laws even in cases that the IPC settled the case acting solely as a referee and the 2 individuals agreed between them.
Keeping that reservation of mine aside, and assuming the RoC illegally refuses to abide, then why has it already replied publicly to those who have exchanged their properties at the IPC saying "YOU GO TO THE ECHR, I REFUSE TO TRANSFER YOU ANY PROPERTY that the IPC has decided". Is it perhaps because the RoC also smelled that the ECHR is a sham and will not be able to deal with her illegality in the next 50 years?

[Kikapu]

Hello Kikapu,

it's good to notice you 've been away all these days for other priorities in life, than "renegate" reasons like myself

Just a few comments if I may (I am sure Erolz3 will lay his views in detail later).
A minor correction first IPC stands for Immovable Property Commission…

Now my opinnion is that only the IPC but also the ECHR are a sham. I have different reasoning for this view:

The ECHR is a sham because it cannot deliver justice within a reasonable time. Furthermore it cannot handle the volume of applications coming to it not only from Cyprus but from so many other Countries including Turkey.
ANY COURT that cannot deliver justice fast enough, FOR ALL cases that come to it, is a SHAM in my opinion.

The IPC is a sham for these reasons:

a)It cannot potentially deliver justice for ALL. Even if the exchange of properties was without obstacles coming from the RoC it would never have enough volume of Kibrisli properties in the southern part of the island to "exchange" for equal Kypreos properties in the northern part. Simply because the properties left by the Kibrislis are not even 1/5th of those left by the Kypreos in the north.. Valuewise the gap is much much greater. So at the very best it would satisfy a MAXIMUM of some 10-20% of the Kypreos refugees. That’s why the Kybreos call traitors those other Kybreos who run to the IPC, because they do it for their own self interest, not caring what will happen to the remaining 80%. It's like 20% of the Kypreos refugees capitalizing on the expense of the remaining 80% for pure personal greed.
b)The only possible alternative for those 80% remaining would ever be to get financial compensation from the IPC. Has the ECHR ever required to see evidence that those money exist and if they do, have them deposited for this purpose? Has it ever estimated how much that money should be? Obviously not. And we are not talking for billions here but for TRILLIONS of Euro. (Just compare that with Greece's debit of about 70 (?) billion that is about to shut down the whole country down...) So in the end the maximum the IPC would ever potentially do would be to satisfy a few Kypreos refugees and stop there.


So if the ECHR knew all these facts, knew the IPC could not deliver total justice then why did it let it go? I claim it did so to buy time for Turkey and save her face for many years to come. In other words the ECHR took a political decision that makes it even more sham that what already is.

Let's go one step further. Like I said earlier the RoC refuses to transfer ownership of whatever property the IPC has decided so far to exchange. Erolz3 told me that is illegal and against the ECHR ruling. I have my reservations on that, on the mere reasons that whatever internal remedy of Turkey has no right to force the RoC to take action which is against her laws even in cases that the IPC settled the case acting solely as a referee and the 2 individuals agreed between them.
Keeping that reservation of mine aside, and assuming the RoC illegally refuses to abide, then why has it already replied publicly to those who have exchanged their properties at the IPC saying "YOU GO TO THE ECHR, I REFUSE TO TRANSFER YOU ANY PROPERTY that the IPC has decided". Is it perhaps because the RoC also smelled that the ECHR is a sham and will not be able to deal with her illegality in the next 50 years?

Hi Pyro,

Thanks for the correction on the "I". I just had "Independent" on my brain believing that the IPC it is not "Independent" at all and just overlooked the "Immovable" side of the "I" in the IPC.

Your points are well taken on the ECHR also being a sham. I had already chastised them with their last ruling on the IPC, so there's no need for me to further crap on them.

[erolz3]

Hi. Sorry I do not have time or enrgey to post my usual full length response, not to well atm

You may weel regard the ECHR and or specific decisions as a sham. That does not change it's legality. I regard the way an all GC RoC government gained recognition as the sole legitimate government of Cyprus from 64 onwards a 'sham' not based on any concept of justice or leglity but was the result of expedient self interest of powerful third party states. That does not change it's legality today however.

The point as to how 'voluantary' TC signing of their south properties to the TRNC was is a valid one. However what I suggested is that if a TC today was to agree to do such and exhange, not in exchange for land in the north that is still disputed, but for land in the north that is no longer dispute, say for example land where dispute has already been settled by the IPC or for land that was never GC pre 74, then this is a different senario.

As to the ECHR not having the right to force the RoC to do anything that is against its own laws, this is just plain wrong. The ECHR has the jurisdiction to make such judgments and the emans of enforcement as well. If the ECHR finds a national law infringes an indivduals human rights, then its ruling will contain a demand that the national law is ammended so that such infringments stop. THat is what the ECHR does, that is its purpose. If a country refuses to accept ECHR rulings then it has the ultimate sanction of expulsion of said member state from the CoE. The ECHR is a higher court than national courts.
There is a recent example in the UK. A case was bought saying it is an infringment of a prisoners human rights to deny them the right to vote in elections. The law in the UK denies all convicted criminals the right to vote whilst in prison serving sentances. THe ECHR has said such a blanket prosciption is in breach of human rights and the UK must ammend its law accordingly. Even though the UK parliament has voted overwhealmingly in support of current laws accross all parties, it just does not matter. For now the UK government is just 'ignoring' the ruling, but it will sooner or later have to make the necessary adjustments. Even if a referendum was help and 100% of the british population voted to keep the laws as it is, the UK would still have to ammend the law eventualy. To not do so would be to say international agreements that it has signedare not binding and can be arbitarily ignored by it as and when it feels like it and would risk the ultimate sanction of expulsion from the COE.

PS Kikapu - I probaly did confuse with someone else - though you were the one writting the long account of their recent visit to cyprus. Also I do not take a middle road for any fear because I live in the "TRNC". I offer my views nothing more and nothing less.