Cyprus-Forum.com

[erolz3]

Copperline, I think a contract in the TRNC that related to say the renting of a proprerty that was GC pre 74, would be in dubious legal standing if challenged in an international court. However one that related to property that was TC owned and where the legal TC owner (pre 74 and post it) consents to the contract would be regarded as legally valid in international courts, even though it was drawn up in and under the TRNC that is not recognised internationaly and WITHOUT changing this status of the TRNC or conferring any legitimacy on it as a state.

I think we may be saying the same things here but I am just trying to be sure.

There are those that think, or maybe want to think, or maybe want others to think, that ANY and EVERY document, contract, legal process done in the TRNC is legaly invalid in international law, simply because the TRNC is unrecognised internationaly. I strongly suspect that these people are wrong, but I am not an expert blah blah blah.

[CopperLine]

Copperline, I think a contract in the TRNC that related to say the renting of a proprerty that was GC pre 74, would be in dubious legal standing if challenged in an international court. However one that related to property that was TC owned and where the legal TC owner (pre 74 and post it) consents to the contract would be regarded as legally valid in international courts, even though it was drawn up in and under the TRNC that is not recognised internationaly and WITHOUT changing this status of the TRNC or conferring any legitimacy on it as a state.

Agreed

I think we may be saying the same things here but I am just trying to be sure.

There are those that think, or maybe want to think, or maybe want others to think, that ANY and EVERY document, contract, legal process done in the TRNC is legaly invalid in international law, simply because the TRNC is unrecognised internationaly. I strongly suspect that these people are wrong, but I am not an expert blah blah blah.

Agreed

[erolz3]

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

Absolutely agreed. But I am no expert blah blah blah

[Pyrpolizer]

Well, you ‘d rather talk for things you are sure Erolz3 if you want to get some meaningful discussion and or conclussion out of it.
Using terms like "may be" , "could be", "it’s possible", "it’s not certain", "I could be wrong" etc., serves no other purpose other than filling up space with scattered thoughts

The "trnc" is not recognised because the very basis of it’s legal existence/foundation relies on ethnic cleansing violation of human rights of the GCs and stealing their properties. Other than that it is accepted as an administration, and in fact whatever actions are taken by that adminitration that have nothing to do with the illegal foundation of it are accepted as valid.
Such things concern birth certificates, marriage certificates, eduacational certificates and many other things like you said. So far so good.

However any administrative actions of the "trnc" on the matter of properties is not accepted by anyone as legally valid unless the legal state which is RoC confirms it.
In this respect bying-selling pre-1974 TC owned properties between individuals will surely never cause a problem, and eventually considered an acceptable administrative action of the "trnc", but transfering ownership to the "trnc" is NOT.

Rather than me writting volumes why, better think about why it is NOT.

[erolz3]

A link that might be of relevance an interest to those with an interest

http://books.google.com/books?id=e9PFcj ... &q&f=false

then again maybe its of no relevance, I am not an expert etc etc

[erolz3]

Well, you ‘d rather talk for things you are sure Erolz3 if you want to get some meaningful discussion and or conclussion out of it.
Using terms like "may be" , "could be", "it’s possible", "it’s not certain", "I could be wrong" etc., serves no other purpose other than filling up space with scattered thoughts

The way I learn is to posit possibilites and have those examined, preferably by more than just myself and in cases like this even more so by those who have 'opposing views' to myself. I am sorry if you find this approach useless. It works for me, within the limits of the sincerity of those I am discussing with and my own limitations.

However any administrative actions of the "trnc" on the matter of properties is not accepted by anyone as legally valid unless the legal state which is RoC confirms it.
In this respect bying-selling pre-1974 TC owned properties between individuals will surely never cause a problem, and eventually considered an acceptable administrative action of the "trnc", but transfering ownership to the "trnc" is NOT.

Believe me I HAVE thought about it, quite alot. I am not an expert and am limited by my own abilites but I do sincerely do my best.

I think that there is evidence that the ECHR does consider the voluantary transfer of legaly owned proprties of TC in the south to the TRNC as legaly valid, in that I understand such transfered properties have been offered as compensation by the IPC. Maybe it means they are leagly valid transactions in 'Turkey', with the TRNC as just an admistrative body of Turkey or some other legal 'means' that makes them valid. It seems to me , if such properties had been offered as compensation by the IPC, and the transfer that changed their ownership from the individual to the TRNC (or maybe Turkey ) was itself illegal, they (ECHR) could not possibly deem the IPC to be valid local remedy.

Again this is I am afraid positing possibilites. I do NOT know that this is the case, I am just pointing out why I think it might be.

PS the bits of your post I do not quote, I agree with you so have just left them out.

[CopperLine]

A link that might be of relevance an interest to those with an interest

http://books.google.com/books?id=e9PFcj ... &q&f=false

then again maybe its of no relevance, I am not an expert etc etc

The reference is a very interesting one not least because it shows that recognition varies from state to state and that there is no international standard or legal criteria for recognition (or non-recognition). Thus a least a couple of the case law examples show how UK courts (not the state or government) dealt with the matter, and cites one example from US (re soviet Russia) and one from UK (re Ciskei) which 'refuse to deny effect to acts of unrecognised governments when this would fly in the face of reality."

[Sotos]

There is no such thing as "trnc", that is why when this term is used it is used in quotes. The UN resolution 541 is very clear when it says that the attempt to create a "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus", is invalid. Please note how the UN resolution uses the quotes to describe what they Turks attempted to create but which was never really created since this attempt was legally invalid. So how can something which is legally invalid itself issue anything which is legally valid? It can not.

[Sotos]

he reference is a very interesting one not least because it shows that recognition varies from state to state and that there is no international standard or legal criteria for recognition (or non-recognition).

How many other attempts to create states on land occupied with a foreign invasion were deemed legally invalid with a UN resolution. Do you know?

[erolz3]

So how can something which is legally invalid itself issue anything which is legally valid? It can not.

Do you really believe 'it can not' based on an honest review of what has been posted, or simply because it is what you want to believe ?