Cyprus-Forum.com

[quattro]

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?

Ok if Bir manage to get hes land back I will make the souvla and BILLC will handle the belly dancing (start learning Billc)

[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?

Ok if Bir manage to get hes land back I will make the souvla and BILLC will handle the belly dancing (start learning Billc)

Very funny!!!

Speaking of bbq when are you posting the losing recipe for your famed bbq method.????

[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?

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)

You better 'Come Dine With Me' then

[erolz3]

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.

No No bill you still missing my point. Exchange land as it is called in the north IS what I mean by 'disputed land'. There is no doubt that TRNC deeds issued in relation to this land is NOT legaly recognised internationaly.

My point I am trying to get accross is that not every tranfer of land done in the TRNC is international legaly invalid, simply because the TRNC is not recognised.

I suggest that transfer of land that was TC prior to 74, that is transfered (sold) willingly by the owner (same TC owner pre and post 74) under the TRNC post 74 would be considered leglay valid internationaly and yet the recognition of the deed would confer NO international legality on the TRNC that issued it. Nor would it matter if the RoC deemed it invlid, ultimately a higer international court would over local such a national determination.

The next stage to this that is less clear, is a TC with land in the south pre 74 who post 74 willingly transfers rights and ownership of this not to a private indivdual but to the TRNC itself, which many did. It may well be that such a transfer (from legal TC owner to unrecognised TRNC) is also legaly valid internationaly, again without conferring any legitimacy on the TRNC.

THis is where the IPC , acting as an agent of Turkey and conferring no legitmacy on the TRNC comes in. I believe it has awarded such TC owned land in the south that was undiputably the TC and that was then post 74 willing transferd by this legal owner to the TRNC. Such an offer for compensation can only be acceptable to the ECHR if the prior willing transfer of the TC owned land in the south to the TRNC is itself valid, and all without changing the status of the TRNC in terms of its recognition as a regiem.

[Pyrpolizer]

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

This is what you said in the other topic:

a)"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."

And this is what you are saying in this topic:

b)"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"

There is a definite contradiction. So which one is it that you support a or b?

As for this comment of yours:

"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."

Internationally recognised deed for the purpose of what? Take a loan in another country? Sell it in another Country? Inherit it in another country?
There is no such thing as internationally recognised deed. Deeds are an internal matter. Even in case you refer to International court cases concerning properties the deed is not automatically internationally recognised. It has to go back to the state concerned to verify its validity.

Btw is this another effort to perhaps get recognition for the "trnc" this time through the deeds??? I am really puzzled!

[Sotos]

There is no such thing as internationally recognised deed. Deeds are an internal matter.

Well said Pyrpolizer. And if a deed is recognized in another country it is recognized because it is issued by the legal state. No country can recognize a deed in Cyprus which issued by something called "trnc".

[Pyrpolizer]

Erolz3 used the misleading term "internationally recognised" and I think I know why…
Interntionally recognised things give you rights over another state and loads the other state with obligations towards you. You can talk for Internationally recognised driving licence, an internationally recognised passport alright..

But there is no such thing as internationally recognised title deeds. Even if another state ACCEPTS those deeds as a legal document coming from another state that it recognises, it has absolutely no rights or obligations towards them and may not even care check if they are true or not. They are totally useless for it, and if you present them to any official in the other state, their fate is definite:
Straight to the garbage bin

[erolz3]

There is a definite contradiction. So which one is it that you support a or b?

As for this comment of yours:

I see your point. What I am saying is that, that it well may be the case that the voluantary transfer of ownership by a TC of proprtey they owned in the south to the TRNC, done in the TRNC, may well be considered a legaly valid transfer in international courts and all without conferring any legitlimacy on the TRNC as a regieme at all.

When I said in a' nor do I think there is an issue with' , I should have said to maintain consistency with here, 'As far as I know there may well not be an issue ..."

The point is the same, the inconsitency is with the degree of certainy I expressed. There is no certainty, I am no expert.

Internationally recognised deed for the purpose of what? Take a loan in another country? Sell it in another Country? Inherit it in another country?
There is no such thing as internationally recognised deed. Deeds are an internal matter. Even in case you refer to International court cases concerning properties the deed is not automatically internationally recognised. It has to go back to the state concerned to verify its validity.

Btw is this another effort to perhaps get recognition for the "trnc" this time through the deeds??? I am really puzzled!

It is kind of sad that you think I am constructing arguments to try and 'get' things. That is not actually the case. I am trying to increase my understanding through dialogue actually.

Anyway let me try and explain again.

THere are some that believe that ANY document or legal process done in the TRNC is automatically not recognised as valid internationaly simply because the TRNC is not recognised and by extension if ANY such document or process was to be internationaly recognised, it would represent legitimising of the status of the TRNC in international law.

I am not convinced this is correct, not because it not being correct would benefit 'my side' but because there seems to be real evidence that it is just not correct.

So to take an example outside of the Cyprus in generic terms. I am born in a state that is not recognised as legitimate internationaly. At some point in the future I need to produce my birth certificate, in a state that is legaly recognised for some legal reason or other. The only birth certificate that I can obtain is from the unrecognised state. I believe that even though the unrecognised state that issued the birth certificate is unrecognised internationaly, the birth certificate it provides me IS recognised as valid internationaly and WITHOUT that confering ANY legitimacy on the state that issued it. I believe this may well be the case , despite it being strange at first appreacne, because under international law the intent of non recognition of a regieme is not to punish me as an indivdual because I happend to born there, but to punish the state. I do believe there is well set precedent on this kind of issue in international law, that basically says, the birth certificate is valid internationaly despite having been issued by and unrecognised state and this in no way confers any legitimacy on the unrecognised state that issued it.

So to with property in Cyprus. The intent of non recognistion in international law in the TRNC is NOT to deprive indivduals of their ability to sell or transfer their valid owned property to who they wish. That in practice the only authority they can register such a transfer with is not itself recognised does not mean that the deeds they issue are not recognised internationaly, all the while conferring NO legitimacy on the unrecognised state AT ALL.

To try and summarise. The idea that any document or legal process done in the TRNC is automaticaly not valid under international law is quite possibly just not correct.

not expert may well be wrong etc etc

[CopperLine]

There is no such thing as internationally recognised deed. Deeds are an internal matter.

Well said Pyrpolizer. And if a deed is recognized in another country it is recognized because it is issued by the legal state. No country can recognize a deed in Cyprus which issued by something called "trnc".

The laws of one state are formally of indifference to that of another state. It is illegal to eat snakes on Sunday in Utah, USA. Does the state of the Republic of Cyprus give a toss about that ? No. Does RoC have to gives its approval or disapproval of eating habits of Rocky mountain Americans ? No. Recognising the USA or the state of Utah is irrelevant to whether or not Sunday snake snacking is legal or illegal in a far off state. Similarly whether a deed is legal or illegal in "trnc" or TRNC or northern Cyprus or Xanadu has nothing to do with recognition.

Recognition of states is a political, not a legal matter.

Every second of every day money transactions take place in northern Cyprus using international currencies and those transactions take place subject to certain laws : contract laws. Are you seriously suggesting that because no other state recognises trnc that those transactions are illegal ? A person who commits a murder in northern Cyprus and finds themselves in prison will be very surprised to hear your argument that because no other country recognises trnc that their murderous activity is not illegal. Why if "No country can recognize a deed in Cyprus which issued by something called "trnc" " does Nike, Coca Cola, British Council, Kellogg's cornflakes, Mastercard, UN, EU, etc etc constantly run contracts in TRNC with no complaints by them of illegality due to non-recognition ?

[CopperLine]

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.

Bill Cobbett I agree with your first post. I disagree with Sotos' reply because rights are not tradable, they're not something one exchanges or gives away, as if we're playing "one for you, one for me". You have a right to X irrespective of whether I have a exercised my right to X or not.

The recognition issue is a red herring in all this. It is perfectly possible to say that "according to the law of the Xanistan ABC is illegal" without first having to recognise Xanistan. Recognition does not in any case signal approval. Just because the UK recognises Iran or Libya doesn't mean that it approves of Iranian or Libyan law.

Surely one of the major points of the Apostelides v. Orams outcomes is precisely that recognition or non-recognition of TRNC is irrelevant or immaterial to the legality-or illegality of acts committed in the TRNC. What the Orams did was found to be illegal and the non-recognition status of TRNC had no bearing on their original actions, on the case brought against them, nor ultimately on the enforceability of judgments.

Commenting on erolz3 contribution, I think he's right if he's trying ti argue that just because an action or transaction takes place in the north it is necessarily illegal. For example, when people have got married in the north since '74 or '83 it does not mean that all these marriages are illegal. Again non-recognition does not alter the status of these marriages. When people buy cars or pay for bottles of water in the north, we're surely not saying that these are illegal ? Where in RoC law is the buying and selling of water prohibited by law ? Nowhere.

And property transactions or real estate transactions - some are illegal and some are not. Transactions of illicit and fraudulent title are illegal, by definition. Transactions of proper title are legal. This applies whether or not TRNC is recognised. If I'm a French citizen trying to sell a fraudulent title to land held in Russia, it is completely irrelevant whether France recognises Russia. What is relevant is what kind of title Russian property law requires for a proper claim to be made.

I think that both GCs and TCs hang for too much importance on the hook of recognition.