Cyprus-Forum.com

[Sotos]

The TCs can have their properties back once they give ours back. It can not be that a TC is occupying refugee property in the north or even worst sold one for illegal profits and then he is also given his own property back!!! Exceptions are those TCs who live abroad and who refused to take GC properties in occupied areas.

Reh Sotos, we have to be a bit careful with our language, cos nothing that happens in the Occupied Areas on matters of property has any legal basis, so has no legal reality. Any "transactions", or any "exchanges" that have taken place don't have any basis in legal fact.

A reminder also please that it is public policy in every single member state of the UN (save the usual one) to do nothing to recognise anything about Tnucland, and we are in real danger ourselves of recognising the acts and laws of the Illegal Regime when we talk about property sometimes.

The other thing to be said is that the Republic knows it hasn't got a leg to stand on in this. It paid a huge sum of money to the Sofi woman a year or so ago to keep her matter out of the ECHR.

I am not talking about transactions or exchanges. I am talking about illegally trespassing on our land. How about this: We give them their land back and at the same time put them in jail for 5-10 years for trespassing on our land.

[Sotos]

"trnc" is legally invalid.

RESOLUTION 541 (1983)

Adopted by the Security Council
on 18 November 1983



The Security Council,

Having heard the statement of the Foreign Minister of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus,

Concerned at the declaration by the Turkish Cypriot authorities issued on 15 November 1983 which purports to create an independent state in northern Cyprus,

Considering that this declaration is incompatible with the 1960 Treaty concerning the establishment of the Republic of Cyprus and the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee,

Considering therefore that the attempt to create a "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus", is invalid, and will contribute to a worsening of the situation in Cyprus,

Reaffirming its resolutions 365(1974) and 367(1975),

Aware of the need for a solution of the Cyprus problem, based on the mission of good offices undertaken by the Secretary-General,

Affirming its continuing support for the United Nations Peace-Keeping Force in Cyprus,

Taking note of the Secretary-General's statement of 17 November 1983,

1. Deplores the declaration of the Turkish Cypriot authorities of the purported secession of part of the Republic of Cyprus;

2. Considers the declaration referred to above as legally invalid and calls for its withdrawal;

3. Calls for the urgent and effective implementation of its resolutions 365(1974) and 367(1975);

4. Requests the Secretary-General to pursue his mission of good offices in order to achieve the earliest possible progress towards a just and lasting settlement in Cyprus;

5. Calls upon the parties to cooperate fully with the Secretary-General in his mission of good offices;

6. Calls upon all States to respect the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and non-alignment of the Republic of Cyprus;

7. Calls upon all States not to recognise any Cypriot state other than the Republic of Cyprus;

8. Calls upon all States and the two communities in Cyprus to refrain from any action which might exacerbate the situation;

9. Requests the Secretary-General to keep the Security Council fully informed.

Adopted at the 2500th meeting by 13 votes to 1 against (Pakistan) with 1 abstention (Jordan).

And that changes what exactly

That means any paper issued by the "trnc" has the same value as the toilet paper I wipe my ass No transaction of something called "trnc" can be legal because the "trnc" itself is legally invalid.

[bill cobbett]

The TCs can have their properties back once they give ours back. It can not be that a TC is occupying refugee property in the north or even worst sold one for illegal profits and then he is also given his own property back!!! Exceptions are those TCs who live abroad and who refused to take GC properties in occupied areas.

Reh Sotos, we have to be a bit careful with our language, cos nothing that happens in the Occupied Areas on matters of property has any legal basis, so has no legal reality. Any "transactions", or any "exchanges" that have taken place don't have any basis in legal fact.

A reminder also please that it is public policy in every single member state of the UN (save the usual one) to do nothing to recognise anything about Tnucland, and we are in real danger ourselves of recognising the acts and laws of the Illegal Regime when we talk about property sometimes.

The other thing to be said is that the Republic knows it hasn't got a leg to stand on in this. It paid a huge sum of money to the Sofi woman a year or so ago to keep her matter out of the ECHR.

I am not talking about transactions or exchanges. I am talking about illegally trespassing on our land. How about this: We give them their land back and at the same time put them in jail for 5-10 years for trespassing on our land.

Yes, would agree, would love to see some of the CarpetSlaggers, as well as members of the TA who were rewarded for services to Turkey with gifts of the lands of others, thrown in to jail, but regretfully trespass is a civil matter, ...although do believe dealing with dodgy kochans is a criminal matter.

[Pyrpolizer]

Admirable consistency Bill in post one. Presumably this is a response to the points I made in the other thread. Anyway credit where credit is due.

I do however have issue with the claim that nothing that happens in the North on matters of property has any legal basis. Non recognition of a regiem does not mean the people living under that reigeme should be punished by the non recognition. THis is well establish in international legal precedetn I believe. Just because the TRNC is not recognised it does not mean that automaticaly any transaction done under that regeiem has no legal force. If one TC wish to sell their pre 74 undisputed land in the North in a valid transaction for example, this trnasaction would be , I believe deem legal under ointernational law, for the intent of non recognition is not to punish indivduals and prevent them enjoying their valid rights as such, but to punish the reigeme. As to if an indivdual voluntarily selling his property to the non recognised reigeme is also legaly valid is unclear as far as I can see, but the fact that the ECHR does seem to have accepted IPC offers of compensating property in this category as valid would seem to indicate they do recognise the legality of such prior voluntary transfer of TC property to TRNC. I am no expert and these are just thoughts of mine. I may well be entirely worng.

I don't see consistency in your writings though. In the other topic you said exactly the opposite.
Secondly in case you haven't realized it yet the ECHR has nor accepted the IPC as an internal legal remedy of the so called "trnc" but as an internal legal remedy of TURKEY.
Start by setting your facts straight or you will always be reaching fallacious conclusions....

[erolz3]

Yes, my understanding is that transactions of pre-74 title land within the Occupied Areas in a person to person transaction are acceptable to the Republic, who continue to turn a blind eye to matters of administration, due registration and capital gains tax in these personal sales.

My point is even if such transactions were not deemed aceptable by the RoC, they would ultimately be deemed as legaly valid under interantional law. My understanding comes from previous internaional case law, where it various rulings in other senarios it has been deemed that for example the issuance of bith certificates by non recognised regime (that one was for you kurupetos) are legaly valid internationaly even though the regime that issued them is not. This ruling is based on the principal that in international law the intent of non recognition of a regime is not to punish indivduals who live under such but to punish the regime. The recognition of the leglity under international law of such a document issued by a non recognised regime does not alter the status of that regime at all.

So I am suggesting that even if the RoC was to delcare sales of non disputed property in the north by those living in the north as recorded by the TRNC illegal, if this was first challenged in the RoC and then taken to the ECHR, the ECHR would rule such a sale legal. The principal being that the intent of non recognition of the TRNC is not to punish indivduals who live under that regime and to restrict their indivdual human rights. Such recognition of deed would in no way change the status of the TRNC as unrecognised or the status of the RoC as legal government of all of cyprus. It would just say the RoC can not restrict an indivduals rights in the north just because they live in the north.

Disputed land is a totaly different senario indeed. I am just pointing out that it may well be possible that deeds issued by the trnc on non disputed land are internationaly valid.

Indeed the IPC does not give any international legal recognition to the TRNC. Nor would international recognition of deeds issued by the TRNC on non disputed property give it any international recognition.

Like I said before I am no expert and I may be entirely wrong about the above but from what I have read i think it is possible.

[Sotos]

Disputed land is a totaly different scenario indeed.

Which is this "disputed land"?

[erolz3]

I don't see consistency in your writings though. In the other topic you said exactly the opposite.

I think you have misunderstood what I am trying to say. Maybe because I havent explained it very well. Try my previous post, that might be clearer.

Secondly in case you haven't realized it yet the ECHR has nor accepted the IPC as an internal legal remedy of the so called "trnc" but as an internal legal remedy of TURKEY.
Start by setting your facts straight or you will always be reaching fallacious conclusions....

No I am not claiming that IPC rulings give any legitimacy to the TRNC in international law. I am well aware they do not and that the IPC is a body of Turkey deemed to be the putable party by the ECHR.

My point is that it may well be possible for documents issued by a non recognised state to be deemed legal, without that giving any legla legitimacy to that regime.

THe point with the IPC is NOT that it gives any legitimacy to the TRNC as a regime. My point is that the ECHR seems to accept that deeds issued by it are valid interntaional even though the regime is unrecognised and without giving it any recognition. I know it sounds strange but I think there is much well establish international case law that says essentialy the same thing all be it not necessarily in relation to property.

I'll try and summarise.

I am talking here ONLY of non disputed land.

Is it possible that a deed issued by the TRNC relating to non disputed land in the north is intrnationaly recognised and yet such recognition of the deed gives no legtimacy to the regime internationaly ? Yes I think that may well be the case.

Is there 'secondary' evidence that this is the case in Cyprus. I suggest the following as such - that when the IPC, as a body of Turkey and giving no legitimacy to the TRNC, offers land in the south as compensation to a GC claimant, that it accquired by voluntary transfer of said property in the south from the legitmate non disputed owner, that transfer, done in the TRNC, is recognised as legitimate without conferring any legitimacy on the TRNC itself.

Usual disclaimer - no expert etc etc

[denizaksulu]

All will be aware that there is a requirement within the laws of the Republic that those CYs displaced at various past times and who now reside in the Occupied Areas and elsewhere are obliged to live in the Free Areas of the Republic for a period of 6 months as the primary condition of re-settlement of their lands.

Now there may have been a justification for this rule in the past but it is well past its sell-by date. It's their property, and the Republic should not interfere with the peaceful enjoyment of its citizen's right to property. Indeed the Republic should do all it can to assist those wishing to re-claim their lands, whether to re-settle, to develop their lands or for other reasons.

This is not to say that there shouldn't be exceptionally thorough checks on the identities of those wishing to re-claim their lands. We wouldn't after all want any VP, Abeebeezim, ttoli, Frederoulla etc etc turning up without very thorough id checks.

First wave ...to avoid dislocations, those properties where there are no refugees.

So BIR has no chance of returning to his home. No refugees except a few ants. Those TCs that had good house that did not fall to ruin are excluded too. Oh well; life sucks.

Oh, btw young BillC; do you appreciate a bit of belly dancing?

[bill cobbett]

I don't see consistency in your writings though. In the other topic you said exactly the opposite.

I think you have misunderstood what I am trying to say. Maybe because I havent explained it very well. Try my previous post, that might be clearer.

Secondly in case you haven't realized it yet the ECHR has nor accepted the IPC as an internal legal remedy of the so called "trnc" but as an internal legal remedy of TURKEY.
Start by setting your facts straight or you will always be reaching fallacious conclusions....

No I am not claiming that IPC rulings give any legitimacy to the TRNC in international law. I am well aware they do not and that the IPC is a body of Turkey deemed to be the putable party by the ECHR.

My point is that it may well be possible for documents issued by a non recognised state to be deemed legal, without that giving any legla legitimacy to that regime.

THe point with the IPC is NOT that it gives any legitimacy to the TRNC as a regime. My point is that the ECHR seems to accept that deeds issued by it are valid interntaional even though the regime is unrecognised and without giving it any recognition. I know it sounds strange but I think there is much well establish international case law that says essentialy the same thing all be it not necessarily in relation to property.

I'll try and summarise.

I am talking here ONLY of non disputed land.

Is it possible that a deed issued by the TRNC relating to non disputed land in the north is intrnationaly recognised and yet such recognition of the deed gives no legtimacy to the regime internationaly ? Yes I think that may well be the case.

Is there 'secondary' evidence that this is the case in Cyprus. I suggest the following as such - that when the IPC, as a body of Turkey and giving no legitimacy to the TRNC, offers land in the south as compensation to a GC claimant, that it accquired by voluntary transfer of said property in the south from the legitmate non disputed owner, that transfer, done in the TRNC, is recognised as legitimate without conferring any legitimacy on the TRNC itself.

Usual disclaimer - no expert etc etc

Well yes would also use the disclaimer "no expert" to pick up on the word "voluntary" that you use... and it's a word that would have to be considered by the courts and experts, in determining the circumstances of the 74 and 75 population exchanges, a determination of how people "exchanged" their lands and to find out whether the "exchange" was freely entered into, and let's state the obvious, EXCHANGE IS A 2 WAY STREET, and let's bring another sort of land in to the equation... the land which was not "exchanged"; land that has been expropriated and gifted to Settlers, the TA etc.

[bill cobbett]

All will be aware that there is a requirement within the laws of the Republic that those CYs displaced at various past times and who now reside in the Occupied Areas and elsewhere are obliged to live in the Free Areas of the Republic for a period of 6 months as the primary condition of re-settlement of their lands.

Now there may have been a justification for this rule in the past but it is well past its sell-by date. It's their property, and the Republic should not interfere with the peaceful enjoyment of its citizen's right to property. Indeed the Republic should do all it can to assist those wishing to re-claim their lands, whether to re-settle, to develop their lands or for other reasons.

This is not to say that there shouldn't be exceptionally thorough checks on the identities of those wishing to re-claim their lands. We wouldn't after all want any VP, Abeebeezim, ttoli, Frederoulla etc etc turning up without very thorough id checks.

First wave ...to avoid dislocations, those properties where there are no refugees.

So BIR has no chance of returning to his home. No refugees except a few ants. Those TCs that had good house that did not fall to ruin are excluded too. Oh well; life sucks.

Oh, btw young BillC; do you appreciate a bit of belly dancing?

Would think Bir would have every chance D. Even as things stand now, as an overseas CY, moving back to reclaim his rubble.

(Yes... belly dancing is very pleasant)