Cyprus-Forum.com

[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.

[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.

[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.

[erolz3]

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.

[kurupetos]

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.

Regime mate, regime!

[erolz3]

If you gonna pull me up on spelling you gonna hacve a long long haul ahead of you As long as you can understand what I mean I am happy and clearly you did in this case as far as reggeieme goes.

[kurupetos]

If you gonna pull me up on spelling you gonna hacve a long long haul ahead of you As long as you can understand what I mean I am happy and clearly you did in this case as far as reggeieme goes.

If you can't spell then you're talking BS.

[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).

[ttoli]

"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

[bill cobbett]

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.

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.

As to the legality of people "selling" post-74 land which is "exchange" land, would continue to maintain that it has no legal basis. We saw this confirmed in the matter of Apostolides v Orams a year or so ago, when we saw the matter considered by the ECJ and also argued before the GB Appeal Court, the view of both was that Mr Apostolides was, and is, the only owner (of land which was the subject of "exchange") despite the claims by the Orams and the BRS to recognise the Illegal Regime's "exchange" system and a subsequent transaction, so what more is there to be said on the legality or otherwise of "kochans" issued by the Illegal Regime?

As to the IPC would remind all that the ECHR sees the IPC as an effective local remedy, not of the "trnc" but of the Occupation Power, Turkey, so the ECHR is not giving direct legal weight to anything associated with the Regime and further seem to recall that it assured us that its work was subject to review.