Cyprus-Forum.com

[bill cobbett]

Seems very straightforward to me, the there was a friendly settlement with a compensation payment agreement of 1 million USD and an agreement by Turkey for a property transfer, that is beyond its power to fulfil.


“I, Michael Tymvios, the applicant, declare that I have reached agreement with the Government of Turkey according to the terms of a settlement dated 21 May 2007 which provides for the payment of one million United States dollars to the applicant and the exchange of property insofar as the exchange decision can be executed within the control and power of the authorities of the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus”.

[Pyrpolizer]

In my opinion Tymbios does not even understand what this means

takes note of the explanation given by the Government (of Turkey)concerning the conditional nature of the agreement insofar as it concerned a possible exchange of property.

or he is being fooled by his lawyers.

a)The court took note. Why did it took note? (answer for future developments)
b)possible exchange of property Why possible and not guaranteed or definite?

Furthermore imo he will also lose that US$ 1 million by the moment he declared Bankruptcy. The RoC will simply confiscate it as soon as it comes through the Banks. Poor man!!!

At this point the only thing he can do is sue the RoC at the ECHR bor refusing to transfer him deeds. He will lose for 100 reasons. Even Turkey tricked him by giving him EVKAF property. The EVKAF is a relegious institution and it's constitution is written in the treaties. Turkey has no right to take the property of EVKAF and exchange it. Neither does EFKAF have the right o give it to Turkey. It's like as if Greece would take the property of the Church of Cyprus to pay her foreign loans....

The case is a total mess.

NB. He is been waiting for 3 years now. What took him so long???? Shouldn't he hava taken action within possibly 1 year

[erolz3]

I think we are looking at the wrong ECHR ruling if we want to asses if the decisions made by the IPC and in particular the settlement of claims via exchange of property is considerd legaly valid by the ECHR and if that then places an obligation on the RoC to accept such exhanges under its national law or not. It seems to me that the most relevant ruling to date would be this one

http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view. ... 6DEA398649

I do not think that it answers the questions in a definative way and I think they will only be answered following subsequent cases brought to the ECHR against the RoC, which is what I believe Mr Tymvios is in the process of doing. My understanding is that it has taken him three years reach this decision because he has been trying in that period to neogiate a settlement with the RoC and has failed to do so, so now is pursuing action via the ECHR.

[Pyrpolizer]

I think we are looking at the wrong ECHR ruling if we want to asses if the decisions made by the IPC and in particular the settlement of claims via exchange of property is considerd legaly valid by the ECHR and if that then places an obligation on the RoC to accept such exhanges under its national law or not. It seems to me that the most relevant ruling to date would be this one

http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view. ... 6DEA398649

I do not think that it answers the questions in a definative way and I think they will only be answered following subsequent cases brought to the ECHR against the RoC, which is what I believe Mr Tymvios is in the process of doing. My understanding is that it has taken him three years reach this decision because he has been trying in that period to neogiate a settlement with the RoC and has failed to do so, so now is pursuing action via the ECHR.

Hold on for a second reh Erolz3.

You have to consider each ECHR decision for what it really is. The document you provided just says that those various Kypreos applications should first go through the IPC.

If you examine that decission closely you will see that it mostly deals with
a)If the general principles for justice of the IPC as an internal remedy of Turkey for restitution/compensation/property exchange/damages for loss of use could possibly be met
b) The problems that arose from the "trnc" laws and
c) The objections raised by the applicants.

In absolutely no way did approve anything as definite and legally valid.

Look at this paragraph for example which describes the laws of the "trnc" that restrict the functioning of the IPC:

"Immovable properties that are subject to a claim for restitution by the applicant, ownership or use of which has not been transferred to any natural or legal person other than the State, may be restituted by the decision of the Commission within a reasonable time period, provided that the restitution of such property, having regard to the location, and the physical condition of the property, shall not endanger national security and public order and that such property is not allocated for public interest reasons and that the immovable property is outside the military areas or military installations."

It is obvious that the ECHR just mentions the facts without accepting them as legally valid or not. It only cares whether there is still room left for the IPC to deliver justice.

As to the 4 elements on which the IPC is expected to deliver justice A)The restitution aspect always refers to property in the occupied. B)Compensation always refers to compensation by Turkey C)The same for loss of use D) exchange refers in most of the document as exchange at the occupied. Only in paragraph 53 there is a slight mention that exchange could of be with Kibrisli land in the RoC controlled area.

The main point here is that the ECHR DID NOT APPROVE ANYTHING IN ADVANCE. It just recognised the fact that there is room for the IPC to deliver justice.

As for the Tymbios case as such. Within one week after the ruling of the IPC the RoC attorney General appeared publicly saying categorically that "We will NOT transfer him any property. This is against National interest". I tell you that not only the man did not receive any official promises for settlement by the RoC-he was just hoping for it, but on the contrary the RoC punished him on top of that regarding some other property that he inherited (together with 3-4 other relatives of his) in the free areas. In short (according to what he himself has said in the media) he received only half the money he was entitled from it’s sale…

The only thing I agree with you is that Tymbios at this stahge will have to sue the RoC to the ECHR. It remains to be seen whether he will win or not. Because this time the RoC will be there with full arguments. Let aside the fact that the ECHR might need half a century to decide….

[Pyrpolizer]

Furthermore I insist that Turkey tricked this guy by offering him EVKAF land on exchange.
Even on the remote event that the RoC's arguments would fail, the argument for EVKAF property exchange been illegal, will not.
He was very stupid to send a letter to the ECHR dropping his case Vs Turkey. Now he has nothing....

[Pyrpolizer]

According to Cyprus Mail
" the Larnaca property (offered for exchange) contains two schools, residential homes and businesses."

Questions:
1)why the Cyprus Mail hides the fact that that land at Larnaca belongs to EVKAF?
2)wasn't that very same land offered some years ago "on exchange" to another Kypreos for his land on which the Eastern University was built on Famagusta?

[erolz3]

The ECHR said in the above linked ruling section 79

It was satisfied that the settlement (Tymvios v. Turkey) was based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols and that it was equitable within the meaning of Rule 75 § 4 of the Rules

It is hard to see, for me at least, how they could be satitisfied that the settlement was equitable if they believed that the exchange portion of the settlement would be of no practical benefit to the applicant ?
Anway sooner or later this will be resolved by the ECHR if not in regard to this specific case then via others like it. You might hope for that to take '50 years' but in reality it will probaly take 3-5 years from the point an application to ECHR is made. It is certainly possible that the RoC will wait until days before a final hearing is to be held in the ECHR and then settle in order to avoid a ruling in the ECHR, as they have done in cases regarding the 6 month rule, which would increase delay for others but this would also be a tacit acceptance that they can not defend such things in front of the ECHR and they know it.

On a side not if you think the RoC was 'not there with full legal arguments' in the case I linked to, I think you are very much mistaken. The RoC challenged the above ruling as "The intervening Government" as is clearly shown in the ruling where all its legal arguments are listed and addressed by the court.

[Pyrpolizer]

Erolz3,

This is the exact wording of the ECHR:

"15. The Court welcomes the agreement reached between the parties (Article 39 of the Convention) and takes note of the explanation given by the Government concerning the conditional nature of the agreement insofar as it concerned a possible exchange of property. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention and Rule 62 § 3 of the Rules of Court) and that it is equitable within the meaning of Rule 75 § 4 of the Rules. "

Why do you strike the first part of what the ECHR has said? Is that irrelevant in your opinion?
It is more than obvious that it is not, and furthermore it is obvious that the ECHR has not examined whether this decision can potentially violate the human rights to receive the same type of justice and exchange of property of the remaining Kypreos Refugees. The FACT IS that there are simply not enough Kibrisli properties around to satisfy full exchange of Kypreos properties in the occupied with Kibrisli properties in the RoC controlled areas. And THIS IS THE FULL LEGAL argument I am referring to that the RoC will use. Regardless of the fact that the ECHR already expressed it’s sastsfaction for the settlement it cannot ignore the fact that it affects negatively the Human rights remaining of the remaining Kypreos refugees.

Furthermore if you read the ruling that allowed the IPC to function, you will notice that what the ECHR was interested for, was not whether those counter arguments (coming from the RoC) were valid or not but whether (either be them valid or not) there was still room for the IPC to deliver justice. It was with this logic that the ECHR has also decided to ignore "trnc"laws about which properties are restituable and which not. This does not mean it accepted the "trnc’ laws as legal, it does not either mean that it accepted the RoC arguments as invalid. It simply bypassed them for it considered there was still room for the IPC to deliver justice.
Let’s not confuse the issues.

Then again I agree with you that it remains to be seen what will happen when the ECHR will have to examine the refusal of RoC to abide to transfering of tittle deeds.
I am willing to bet ANY amount that the RoC will win and the IPC will subsequently have no reason to exist.

[erolz3]

Why do you strike the first part of what the ECHR has said? Is that irrelevant in your opinion?

I took and quoted the section the deat explicitly with with Tymvios case, section 79 and quoted the part of that section that I thought germaine. There was no sinister motive in my selection that I quoted.

The FACT IS that there are simply not enough Kibrisli properties around to satisfy full exchange of Kypreos properties in the occupied with Kibrisli properties in the RoC controlled areas. And THIS IS THE FULL LEGAL argument I am referring to that the RoC will use.

The fact is true in size if not in actual values today. In any case I do not see why this would mean that the IPC can not offer such exchanges as ONE means of compensation along with others like resitituion and monetary compensation. The IPC can not offer resitituion for every GC with a claim, but that does not mean resitution is not a valid means of settling some claims. Why then do you think that becuase they can not offer exchange to every GC with a claim, it can not be used in any case ? Makes no sense to me. Also does not seem to be what is said here.

118. Thus, the Court maintains its view that it must leave the choice of implementation of redress for breaches of property rights to Contracting States, who are in the best position to assess the practicalities, priorities and conflicting interests on a domestic level even in a situation such as that pertaining in the northern part of Cyprus. No problem therefore arises as regards the impugned discretionary nature of the restitutionary power under the Law 67/2005.

Regardless of the fact that the ECHR already expressed it’s sastsfaction for the settlement it cannot ignore the fact that it affects negatively the Human rights remaining of the remaining Kypreos refugees.

How ? Are you saying because in one case they offered compensating land in the South, but they can not offer the same to all potential claimants, the first offer infringes the rights of the other potential claiminats ?

Furthermore if you read the ruling that allowed the IPC to function, you will notice that what the ECHR was interested for, was not whether those counter arguments (coming from the RoC) were valid or not but whether (either be them valid or not) there was still room for the IPC to deliver justice. It was with this logic that the ECHR has also decided to ignore "trnc"laws about which properties are restituable and which not. This does not mean it accepted the "trnc’ laws as legal, it does not either mean that it accepted the RoC arguments as invalid. It simply bypassed them for it considered there was still room for the IPC to deliver justice.
Let’s not confuse the issues.

Well this just seems like word play to me intended to confuse the issue. The case was to determine if the IPC was in fact a valid local remedy for the claimants listed. Both the claimants and the RoC gave their views as to why it was not. The court assed these views, dealt with them and dismissed them. If the points raised by the RoC or claiminats were valid they would not have dismissed them and would have found for the claimants?

Then again I agree with you that it remains to be seen what will happen when the ECHR will have to examine the refusal of RoC to abide to transfering of tittle deeds.

Indeed

I am willing to bet ANY amount that the RoC will win and the IPC will subsequently have no reason to exist.

If you are talking about the specfic instance of will the ECHR ever force the RoC to accept transfer of title as a result of IPC settlements then I would take you up on the bet for say 50 euros to be donated to charity should I win.

[Pyrpolizer]

Why do you strike the first part of what the ECHR has said? Is that irrelevant in your opinion?

I took and quoted the section the deat explicitly with with Tymvios case, section 79 and quoted the part of that section that I thought germaine. There was no sinister motive in my selection that I quoted.

OK no problem with that.

The FACT IS that there are simply not enough Kibrisli properties around to satisfy full exchange of Kypreos properties in the occupied with Kibrisli properties in the RoC controlled areas. And THIS IS THE FULL LEGAL argument I am referring to that the RoC will use.

The fact is true in size if not in actual values today. In any case I do not see why this would mean that the IPC can not offer such exchanges as ONE means of compensation along with others like resitituion and monetary compensation. The IPC can not offer resitituion for every GC with a claim, but that does not mean resitution is not a valid means of settling some claims. Why then do you think that becuase they can not offer exchange to every GC with a claim, it can not be used in any case ? Makes no sense to me. Also does not seem to be what is said here.

This is not what I said. The 4 types of remedy were very clear from the very begining when the ECHR allowed the IPC to function.I am specifically referring to exchanging of Kypreos properties in the occupied with Kibrisli properties in the RoC controlled areas. For every exchange that occurs there is less property to be exchanged for the applicants thereafter. And there will come a point there won’t be any Kibrisli land to exchange. In other words the number one preference for those Kypreos who apply to the IPC will one day be exhausted. You may say OK but there are still the other 3 options. Fair enough, I have no objection for the options of restitution or compensation for the loss of use. I do have objection however on the matter of compensating the Kypreos for the purpose of making them sign their properties away. And to WHOM?? To Turkey??? Is that within the limits of human rights as a citizen? Can you sign your propert away to a foreign nation??? The very basis on which the ECHR let the IPC function can be challenged as being against International law and I can’t wait for the day this guy Tymbios goes to the ECHR to sue the RoC .

118. Thus, the Court maintains its view that it must leave the choice of implementation of redress for breaches of property rights to Contracting States, who are in the best position to assess the practicalities, priorities and conflicting interests on a domestic level even in a situation such as that pertaining in the northern part of Cyprus. No problem therefore arises as regards the impugned discretionary nature of the restitutionary power under the Law 67/2005.

Regardless of the fact that the ECHR already expressed it’s sastsfaction for the settlement it cannot ignore the fact that it affects negatively the Human rights remaining of the remaining Kypreos refugees.

How ? Are you saying because in one case they offered compensating land in the South, but they can not offer the same to all potential claimants, the first offer infringes the rights of the other potential claiminats ?

As above

Furthermore if you read the ruling that allowed the IPC to function, you will notice that what the ECHR was interested for, was not whether those counter arguments (coming from the RoC) were valid or not but whether (either be them valid or not) there was still room for the IPC to deliver justice. It was with this logic that the ECHR has also decided to ignore "trnc"laws about which properties are restituable and which not. This does not mean it accepted the "trnc’ laws as legal, it does not either mean that it accepted the RoC arguments as invalid. It simply bypassed them for it considered there was still room for the IPC to deliver justice.
Let’s not confuse the issues.

Well this just seems like word play to me intended to confuse the issue. The case was to determine if the IPC was in fact a valid local remedy for the claimants listed. Both the claimants and the RoC gave their views as to why it was not. The court assed these views, dealt with them and dismissed them. If the points raised by the RoC or claiminats were valid they would not have dismissed them and would have found for the claimants?

Could you quote me the relevants extracts where it says it dealt with them and dismissed them? Or are you just assuming this because it let the IPC continue?

Then again I agree with you that it remains to be seen what will happen when the ECHR will have to examine the refusal of RoC to abide to transfering of tittle deeds.

Indeed

I am willing to bet ANY amount that the RoC will win and the IPC will subsequently have no reason to exist.

If you are talking about the specfic instance of will the ECHR ever force the RoC to accept transfer of title as a result of IPC settlements then I would take you up on the bet for say 50 euros to be donated to charity should I win.

Lets change that to word of honour and make it so that you give €50 to charity if you lose and me do the same if I lose

Let’s not forget another issue. The ECHR just let the IPC function and all it expects from it is any number of satisfied claimnants. In this respect the IPC reported that until 2009 have satisfied 70 cases with compensation. The ECHR never checked whether those 70 compensations were for the loss of use, or for just buying out their property rights. There is an issue here whether an individual has the human right to sell his property to whatever he likes! (In this case sell it to Turkey). There is also another issue that the RoC has not been provided with any information about this transaction of one of her citizens that do CONCERN HER as a STATE. Like I said I can’t wait for the time that the RoC will be sued to the ECHR to defend her case that what the ECHR has done with the IPC contradicts with international law.