Cyprus-Forum.com

[B25]

May I also remind you that no foreigner is allowed to purchase more that 4014m2 and thats for the purpose to build a single dwelling.

So immediately, Turkey is infringing the ROC land laws, since the 'IPC' is Turkey and not 'trnc'.

So are you now saying (Elroz) the ECHR can overide internal laws????

Hmmm, I doubt it some how.

[erolz3]

May I also remind you that no foreigner is allowed to purchase more that 4014m2 and thats for the purpose to build a single dwelling.

What foreigners ? The claimants going to the IPC are all GC.

So are you now saying (Elroz) the ECHR can overide internal laws????

Hmmm, I doubt it some how.

In those areas where it has jursidiction, that is issues of indivdual human rights and violations of such by member states, yes ECHR rulings cand and do override national laws and if necessary the ECHR can and does force member states to change it's national laws. Seriously just do some basdic reading about what the ECHR is, what it does and what powers it has.

[B25]

May I also remind you that no foreigner is allowed to purchase more that 4014m2 and thats for the purpose to build a single dwelling.

What foreigners ? The claimants going to the IPC are all GC.

Turkey is 'purchasing' this land with 'compensation'

So are you now saying (Elroz) the ECHR can overide internal laws????

Hmmm, I doubt it some how.

In those areas where it has jursidiction, that is issues of indivdual human rights and violations of such by member states, yes ECHR rulings cand and do override national laws and if necessary the ECHR can and does force member states to change it's national laws. Seriously just do some basdic reading about what the ECHR is, what it does and what powers it has.

This is nothing to do with HR, why are you playing with words, this is straight forward laws of the land that Turkey is violating. The ECHR has no juristiction here and can change nothing, much to your disappointment. Time will tell, how much the ECHR can influence the RoC. Seems it has done naff all to Turkey!!!!!
.

[Pyrpolizer]

May I also remind you that no foreigner is allowed to purchase more that 4014m2 and thats for the purpose to build a single dwelling.

What foreigners ? The claimants going to the IPC are all GC.

So are you now saying (Elroz) the ECHR can overide internal laws????

Hmmm, I doubt it some how.

In those areas where it has jursidiction, that is issues of indivdual human rights and violations of such by member states, yes ECHR rulings cand and do override national laws and if necessary the ECHR can and does force member states to change it's national laws. Seriously just do some basdic reading about what the ECHR is, what it does and what powers it has.

There is no doubt the ECHR has juristiction on human rights issues, and can override national laws if those rights are violated.Of course the matter of land ownership is one of them. But in my opinion this human right has limitations, in the sense that it cannot be excercised in a way that goes against national interests or national security.

The question that spins in my mind is whether the ECHR can enforce decisions on human rights that go beyond the limitations set for National interests, or national security. If you find something supporting such an issue could you please pass it in this forum?

[ZoC]

The question that spins in my mind is whether the ECHR can enforce decisions on human rights that go beyond the limitations set for National interests, or national security.

like u and erolz, i'm no legal expert... but the question that spins in my mind is why a sophisticated democrat like erolz - an advocate of preventing powerless lambs (like, say, cyprus) from being gobbled up by politically mighty wolves (like, say, turkey) - would even want to make a case that it should.

[erolz3]

There is no doubt the ECHR has juristiction on human rights issues, and can override national laws if those rights are violated.Of course the matter of land ownership is one of them. But in my opinion this human right has limitations, in the sense that it cannot be excercised in a way that goes against national interests or national security.

The question that spins in my mind is whether the ECHR can enforce decisions on human rights that go beyond the limitations set for National interests, or national security. If you find something supporting such an issue could you please pass it in this forum?

http://echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/975642 ... 102007.pdf

Interference
As already stated, the right to protection of property is, however,
not absolute. It is subject to restrictions clearly prescribed in
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Interference with the right to peaceful
enjoyment of possessions shall be allowed only if:
 it is prescribed by law,
 it is in the public interest, and
 it is necessary in a democratic society.
All three conditions must be fulfilled cumulatively. Should only
one of them not be met, there will have been a violation of the
Convention.

I am not sure how the ECHR would view an argument that depriving indivduals of their right to property in cases where they have gained such property from settlements via the IPC is in the 'public interest'. Normaly it would mean compulsory purchase to build a road or school or hopsital or the like or issues of national security. I really do not know what it would think abut the argument that accepting such exchanges would be against the public interest. I do not think we will know until it is tested in the ECHR.

[erolz3]

The question that spins in my mind is whether the ECHR can enforce decisions on human rights that go beyond the limitations set for National interests, or national security.

like u and erolz, i'm no legal expert... but the question that spins in my mind is why a sophisticated democrat like erolz - an advocate of preventing powerless lambs (like, say, cyprus) from being gobbled up by politically mighty wolves (like, say, turkey) - would even want to make a case that it should.

I am confused you quorte Pyrploizer and then question me ?

In any case I am a big fan of the ECHR. I welcome its powers to impose its will on member states. I think this is a good thing. Even in cases like in the UK, where the population is overwhealming against a ECHR rulings (there can be no blanket removal of convicted criminals rights to vote whilst serving their sentances). No one voted for the ECHR, yet it can and does override the will of the people and I think this is good. Eventualy the UK will be forced, against the will of its own parliament and by extension its own people, to change its national laws to meet the requirments of ECHR. I think this a good and progressive thing, despite its clear clash with 'democracy'. I believe in democracy but also recongise it limits, which is why I support insitutions like the ECHR. I think my view on democracy is entirely consistent.

[bill cobbett]

May I also remind you that no foreigner is allowed to purchase more that 4014m2 and thats for the purpose to build a single dwelling.

What foreigners ? The claimants going to the IPC are all GC.

So are you now saying (Elroz) the ECHR can overide internal laws????

Hmmm, I doubt it some how.

In those areas where it has jursidiction, that is issues of indivdual human rights and violations of such by member states, yes ECHR rulings cand and do override national laws and if necessary the ECHR can and does force member states to change it's national laws. Seriously just do some basdic reading about what the ECHR is, what it does and what powers it has.

There is no doubt the ECHR has juristiction on human rights issues, and can override national laws if those rights are violated.Of course the matter of land ownership is one of them. But in my opinion this human right has limitations, in the sense that it cannot be excercised in a way that goes against national interests or national security.

The question that spins in my mind is whether the ECHR can enforce decisions on human rights that go beyond the limitations set for National interests, or national security. If you find something supporting such an issue could you please pass it in this forum?

The Convention allows derogations on grounds of national interest in some of the Articles, including Article 1 of the First Protocol (the Property Article) but there may be no need to go that far...

Question... Was CY a party in the Tymvos case before the ECHR or in the friendly agreement????

Article 46 is the article that binds all High Contracting Parties (member states of the CoE) to abide by all ECHR rulings to which they are a party.

Suspect CY was not a party, in which case Article 46 does not apply.

[erolz3]

This is nothing to do with HR, why are you playing with words, this is straight forward laws of the land that Turkey is violating. The ECHR has no juristiction here and can change nothing, much to your disappointment. Time will tell, how much the ECHR can influence the RoC. Seems it has done naff all to Turkey!!!!!

The ECHR is only concerned with HR. It was GC that took turkey to the ECHR for depreiving them of their right to property , amongst other things. The IPC was created under orders from the ECHR. Without the ECHR Turkey would have maintained is position prior to the ECHR rulings. Also the opening of the borders from North to South was a result of a ECHR rulings. It is just not correct to say that ECHR has done naff all to Turkey. It does not rule on what turkey did in 74 in and off itself, that is not its remit or jurisdiction. It does rule on violations of individulas human rights by member states andf what is more unlike Un resolutions it has a real and effective means to force states to submitt to its rulings.

[erolz3]

The Convention allows derogations on grounds of national interest in some of the Articles, including Article 1 of the First Protocol (the Property Article) but there may be no need to go that far...

Question... Was CY a party in the Tymvos case before the ECHR or in the friendly agreement????

Article 46 is the article that binds all High Contracting Parties (member states of the CoE) to abide by all ECHR rulings to which they are a party.

Suspect CY was not a party, in which case Article 46 does not apply.

If Tymvos takes the RoC to the ECHR on the basis that the RoC, by refusing to recognise his ownership of the land in the south granted to him via an IPC settlement, is infringing his right to property. THis is what it is reported he is now doing.

In this case the RoC will be a contracting party. The RoC will no doubt argue that their refusal to recongise his ownership is in the 'public interest' (not national btw, but public, I think the differences is subtle but relevant). No doubt they will make other arguments as well. The ECHR will decide if this is a valid reason to deny him his rights to this property or not. If they do decide it is not, then the RoC will be required to change national law so no one elses rights are vilated in a similar way.