Cyprus-Forum.com

[bill cobbett]

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.

OK things are clearer now, cos up to a new ECHR ruling, at some time in the future, there is nothing binding on the Republic in which case (leave the national interest aside for now) there is one very good reason that would justify the Republic refusing to recognise Tymvos's new-found property, and that is the provenance of the land.

Who owns this property? ... and more importantly is ownership in dispute???

If ownership of the property is, say, in dispute, then the Republic is very much justified in not registering a change of ownership.

So ask again who owns this land, Do they agree to transfer it to Tymvos? Or is ownership in dispute?

[Pyrpolizer]

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.

Believe me there are lawyers around that have less common sense than you or me or anyone. And I rather suspect the RoC has not yet used any legal experts to advice her what to do regarding the consequences arising from whatever the IPC decides and the ECHR does not even look at..

[Pyrpolizer]

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.

Actually it wouldn't just be Tymbios rights on his property but also whether the EVKAF has such rights to transfer his land ownership to Tymbios.
Question:Does the EVKAF have human rights?

[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?

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.

There was no Tymbios case before the ECHR as such. The only thing the ECHR did for the Tymbios case and other 7 cases was to decide whether to send it to the IPC. In that decission taking process the RoC was a party.

The RoC was certainly NOT a party at the friendly agreement with the IPC

[Pyrpolizer]

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.

OK things are clearer now, cos up to a new ECHR ruling, at some time in the future, there is nothing binding on the Republic in which case (leave the national interest aside for now) there is one very good reason that would justify the Republic refusing to recognise Tymvos's new-found property, and that is the provenance of the land.

Who owns this property? ... and more importantly is ownership in dispute???

If ownership of the property is, say, in dispute, then the Republic is very much justified in not registering a change of ownership.

So ask again who owns this land, Do they agree to transfer it to Tymvos? Or is ownership in dispute?

Tymbios was given EVKAF property. EVKAF obviously agrees to transfer it.
Notice the EVKAF is a relegious institution and it's own constitution is included in the 1960 treaties. Unlike the Church which is allowed to sell it's land, i think the constitution of EVKAF does not allow it to do the same.

[bill cobbett]

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.

Actually it wouldn't just be Tymbios rights on his property but also whether the EVKAF has such rights to transfer his land ownership to Tymbios.
Question:Does the EVKAF have human rights?

Yes, from Page 2 of this thread Pyr, you say that the land in question is Evkav land... and whenever we hear the phrase EVkaf land, the alarm bells should start ringing.

Fortunately the Larnaca District Land Reg records are still extant. It is those records and no others that the ECHR will want to see.

At the mo, unless Erol or others can bring new info to the thread, am of the mind to say that the "ipc" have sold Mr Tymvos a cross between a red herring and a can of worms.

(To answer your new question, suspect Evkaf does have human rights, loads of institutions, companies and even the CY Orthodox Church have taken cases before the ECHR)

[Pyrpolizer]

Bill there is no question about the ownership of the land given to Tymbios. Let;s put the matter of belonging to EVKAF aside.
Could you please tell us your opinion whether the RoC is obliged or not to transfer ownership.

[bill cobbett]

Bill there is no question about the ownership of the land given to Tymbios. Let;s put the matter of belonging to EVKAF aside.
Could you please tell us your opinion whether the RoC is obliged or not to transfer ownership.

naughty, naughty Pyr... putting me on the spot... at this time of night.

Ok putting aside the Evkaf/Provenance of the land for the sake of discussion...

My answer has to be an unsurprising NO TO TRANSFER!

My justification must at this late hour be a bit of a work in progress, but it would prob revolve around an imbalance between the rights of Sovereign Nations and Individual Human Rights leading to an interference in the Sovereignty of the Republic that the ECHR has allowed to the Occupation Power, Turkey.

Would also argue that the "ipc" is under scrutiny by the ECHR, and contains within its constitution at least two articles, the ones which limit situations where restitution can be awarded (eg. military areas); and also conducts its business in a language other than that of the claimants... that I would like the ECHR to look at again, so yes CY is doing the right thing to to assert its Sovereignty and refuse to transfer, cos would love to see Tymvos take CY to the ECHR cos it will be a chance for the ECHR to re-examine and review the constitution and work in practise of this "ipc"

[SKI-preo]

I read that there wasonly one single matter where the remedy of restitution was granted. But that was in 2009. Has anybody esle been granted restitution? From my very clumsy understanding of the ECHR judgment the IPC is obliged to grant restitution in a number of cases. One case of restitution is hardly enough to validate the IPC and the media has been silent about who this single Greek Cypriot is who is living in the katechomena by himself.Does anyone know who it is? Maybe that Bananiot character?

[erolz3]

.... there is nothing binding on the Republic ...

To be clear there is nothing binding on the RoC from rulings where the RoC is not a contracting party. However the ECHR charters on the rights of indivduals are binding on the RoC as member state of the CoE.

If ownership of the property is, say, in dispute, then the Republic is very much justified in not registering a change of ownership.

If ownership of the land that is the basis of an indivduals claim to the ECHR based on their right to property is disputed then you can not take the case to the ECHR. You must legaly own property to be able to claim a breach of your right to enjoy that property.

So ask again who owns this land, Do they agree to transfer it to Tymvos? Or is ownership in dispute?

I do not know the answer to these questions. I do find strange however the idea that the ECHR could of found the IPC a valid local remedy , having looked at the Tymvos as one case in determining this, if it believed that the land given by the IPC as part compensation was not legaly theors to give.

At the mo, unless Erol or others can bring new info to the thread, am of the mind to say that the "ipc" have sold Mr Tymvos a cross between a red herring and a can of worms.

That may be the case bill, time will tell. However as above the IPC looked explicitly at the Tymvos case when it was deciding is the IPC a valid local remedy or not. How it found it to be a valid local remedy if it was offering compensation that was a cross between a red herring and a can of worms I do not know.

..the ones which limit situations where restitution can be awarded (eg. military areas); and also conducts its business in a language other than that of the claimants...

Bill these issue have already been ruled on by the ECHR in a ruling that is final and not subject to any appeal. They have become case law now.

I read that there wasonly one single matter where the remedy of restitution was granted. But that was in 2009. Has anybody esle been granted restitution? From my very clumsy understanding of the ECHR judgment the IPC is obliged to grant restitution in a number of cases. One case of restitution is hardly enough to validate the IPC and the media has been silent about who this single Greek Cypriot is who is living in the katechomena by himself.Does anyone know who it is? Maybe that Bananiot character?

The IPC had top be able to offer resitution for it to be valid. The first version of the IPC could not offer resitution, so was deemed by the ECHR as not a valid local remedy becuase of this. It was changed so that it could. There is no explicit defined % of resitution that it needs to achieve.

Anyway latest cases settled by the IPC can be seen on their website here.
http://www.kuzeykibristmk.org/english/index.html

goto documents / statistics / list of finalised. THis seems to show from a quick scan 6 cases where restitution has been granted from 260 odd finalised cases.