Cyprus-Forum.com

[Sotos]

Because that is how it is. Try presenting any kind of paper issued by the "trnc" in a Republic of Cyprus court and lets see if it will be admissible.

The question is not if the national courts of the RoC would accept them as legal, but if having not been accepted as legal by RoC courts and then challenged in the ECHR would it find them legal or not.

That is are they cosidered legal under INTERNATIONAL law, not national law of the RoC.

If those TCs have a right for a transaction then RoC will ask them to follow the legal procedures to legally do the transaction. What are those TCs going to complain to the ECHR about? That they want a transaction made by some "trnc" to be recognized by RoC because following the legal procedures is a violation of their human rights?

[Sotos]

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 ?

Because that is how it is. Try presenting any kind of paper issued by the "trnc" in a Republic of Cyprus court and lets see if it will be admissible.

Try presenting a any kind of paper [sic] issued by Russia in a Republic of France court and let's see if it will be admissible [sic]. Answer : No. Why Sotos ?

Are you saying in France they will not accept Rubles in their banks?

Are you saying that banks in the RoC don't accept Turkish Lira ? Funny that, 'cos tens, if not hundreds, of millions of Turkish Lira pass through RoC banks every day.

Turkish liras are issued by Turkey which is a real state and not by the pseudo state.

[erolz3]

They haven't!
What they offered was EVKAF property.
There is a reason for that, which contradicts your assumption that an individual can transfer ownership rights to "trnc".
Besides the RoC refused to transfer ownership and the matter halted.

That may be so and if so then you are right it would not be the evidence suggested.

As for the RoC refusing to transfer ownership, that is where the matter currently is halted, until such time as that refusal by RoC is challenged in the ECHR,when it will start again. The question has always been about in international law, not RoC law.

[CopperLine]

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 ?

Because that is how it is. Try presenting any kind of paper issued by the "trnc" in a Republic of Cyprus court and lets see if it will be admissible.

Try presenting a any kind of paper [sic] issued by Russia in a Republic of France court and let's see if it will be admissible [sic]. Answer : No. Why Sotos ?

Are you saying in France they will not accept Rubles in their banks?

Are you saying that banks in the RoC don't accept Turkish Lira ? Funny that, 'cos tens, if not hundreds, of millions of Turkish Lira pass through RoC banks every day.

Turkish liras are issued by Turkey which is a real state and not by the pseudo state.

Exactly. TRNC doesn't issue its own currency ? (Neither does RoC now, along with 16 other European states) So what ? What's your point ?

[erolz3]

If those TCs have a right for a transaction then RoC will ask them to follow the legal procedures to legally do the transaction. What are those TCs going to complain to the ECHR about? That they want a transaction made by some "trnc" to be recognized by RoC because following the legal procedures is a violation of their human rights?

I present my TRNC issued marriage certificate to the RoC as proof of my marriage (or birth certifcate as proof of birth). The RoC refuse to accept my marriage certificate and says it will only recognise my marriage if I marry again within the RoC, or my birth certifcate if I am born again in the RoC. I go to the ECHR and ask can the RoC refuse to accept the validlty of my TRNC marriage certificate or birth certificate.

[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.

Very perilous to under-estimate the power and universality of UN Res 541, which tells member states to do nothing to recognise tnucland, which puts the regime in a diff ball-park from the other examples raised.

Do you know any other attempts to create states that were declared legally invalid by the UN? CopperLine doesn't know. I mean "unrecognized state" is none thing. "Legally invalid attempt to create a state" is a whole another thing!

[bill cobbett]

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.

Very perilous to under-estimate the power and universality of UN Res 541, which tells member states to do nothing to recognise tnucland, which puts the regime in a diff ball-park from the other examples raised.

Do you know any other attempts to create states that were declared legally invalid by the UN? CopperLine doesn't know. I mean "unrecognized state" is none thing. "Legally invalid attempt to create a state" is a whole another thing!

Res 541 is soooooooo important mate.

[Sotos]

If those TCs have a right for a transaction then RoC will ask them to follow the legal procedures to legally do the transaction. What are those TCs going to complain to the ECHR about? That they want a transaction made by some "trnc" to be recognized by RoC because following the legal procedures is a violation of their human rights?

I present my TRNC issued marriage certificate to the RoC as proof of my marriage (or birth certifcate as proof of birth). The RoC refuse to accept my marriage certificate and says it will only recognise my marriage if I marry again within the RoC, or my birth certifcate if I am born again in the RoC. I go to the ECHR and ask can the RoC refuse to accept the validlty of my TRNC marriage certificate or birth certificate.

So if RoC says that it does not recognize the paper and asks from you to go to a municipality and sign a few papers to make your marriage legal you will refuse and go to the ECHR saying that asking from you to go to a municipality to fill some forms was a violation of your human rights?

[bill cobbett]

Res 541 is soooooo good... have to post it again...

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).

[Pyrpolizer]

They haven't!
What they offered was EVKAF property.
There is a reason for that, which contradicts your assumption that an individual can transfer ownership rights to "trnc".
Besides the RoC refused to transfer ownership and the matter halted.

That may be so and if so then you are right it would not be the evidence suggested.

As for the RoC refusing to transfer ownership, that is where the matter currently is halted, until such time as that refusal by RoC is challenged in the ECHR,when it will start again. The question has always been about in international law, not RoC law.

Which of course remains to be seen. In the meantime you could of search whether EVKAF had the right to do so according to it's OWN foundation law.