Cyprus-Forum.com

[bill cobbett]

I also read i believein politis yesterday that another important part of this ruling is that the echr also thru out the turkish/tc thesis that varosia was evkaf land ruling that it is not

Good point mate... cos Lordos is a major land-owner in Occupied Varosi and the Illegal Regime would have tried the Evkaf rubbish defence. Must have a look at the case a bit more closely.

[Paphitis]

Two cases have been decided so far and the story goes like this:

The ECHR ruled and Turkey did not pay up until a final settlement was agreed with the ipc. In other words, what was agreed was for the ipc to compensate for the properties and then the money was dished out. Loss of use provides paper money to the claimants, unless they settle things with the ipc and kiss their properties forever good bye. This is because loss of use cannot be paid repeatedly. On top, the ipc has taken the cue from the ECHR which has accepted the Turkish estimates for the pre-1974 values and negotiates only on these estimates.

Is this something to be jubilant about? Anyone?

Absolute nonsense!

The ECHR made no such ruling that the compensation must be agreed with the IPC. In fact, Turkey's motion that the Plaintiff had not exhausted 'local remedies' was rejected.

This ECHR is binding on Turkey, just like the Loizou and Apostolides cases among others.

Also, the rulings are for Article 1 and Article 8, and the plaintiff retains legal ownership and that can't be circumvented by anyone let alone Turkey or the IPC.

Lordos, having got his ECHR judgement will not be going to the IPC. He has achieved what he has set out to achieve and what most of the rest of us are still battling to achieve. Unfortunately for the rest, in order to get to the ECHR, we must first go through the IPC, something Lordos was lucky to avoid.

Also, Turkey's motion that the Plaintiff's land be awarded to the EVKAF Foundation was also rejected. Legal ownership was retained, and I believe this is a fundamental objective for most of us, even those before the IPC. €400,000 will not convince most applicants to sign over their property rights when most can be awarded far more and still retain legal ownership fully franked and endorsed by the ECHR.

Any jubilation expressed by any person is for the Lordos family, if they are happy with the verdict. Bearing in mind that the Lordos Family had claims for 69 parcels of land in the Varosha area. Why can't you just be relieved for this poor family?

Now, please explain more clearly exactly where your problem lies....

[bill cobbett]

Thank you Boulio for bringing this Evkaf rubbish to our attention.

Indeed the "tnrc" did bring it up as a defence in two of the cases. They claimed that land belonging to two of the successful applicants, applicants no.9 and no.13 "was" Evkaf land.

This is what the "tcrn" had to say ...

54.  No calculation had been made for applicants nos. 9 and 13 as all the plots claimed by them were properties belonging to a religious trust (vakif).

The ECHR took a very contrary view and sided with the Official Kochans as held by the Republic, and put its trust in legal experts representing the claimants in deciding ownership, in that not only did it make no further reference to this Evkaf rubbish but went on to award the following to applicants 9 and 13, which also gives us an indication of the huge failure in terms of these long lists of real land and property in the "trcn" in pushing the Evkaf conspiracy, which has blown up in their faces massively...

Applicant no. 9 ... All this land/property was claimed to be Evkaf by the "trnc/ipc"....

32. The heirs of applicant no. 9 (Mr Panayiotis Sergis) sought CYP 3,940,800 (approximately EUR 6,733,250). The sum claimed for the loss of use was CYP 2,200,033, while the interest amounted to CYP 1,740,767.
33. The properties belonging to applicant no. 9 in respect of which a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 was found in the principal judgment can be described as follows (see paragraph 23 of the principal judgment):
(1) Famagusta, Trikomo, Kotsines, Registration No. 6447, Plot Nos. 292/6, 283/1/2, Sheet/Plan: 15/43.E.II, Area: 518 sq. m, Use: Building site for sale or development, Share: whole; 1974 value according to the applicants’ heirs: EUR 7,407;
(2) Famagusta, Trikomo, Kotsines, Karpasias Road, Registration No. 6449, Plot Nos. 283/1/4, 291/1, 292/8 (619), Sheet/Plan: 15/43.E.II, Area: 566 sq. m, Use: Building site for sale or development, Share: whole; 1974 value according to the applicants’ heirs: EUR 7,698;
(3) Famagusta, Trikomo, Kotsines, Karpasias Road, Registration No. 6456, Plot No. 283/1/5 (620), Sheet/Plan: 15/43.E.II, Area: 674 sq. m, Use: Building site for sale or development, Share: whole; 1974 value according to the applicants’ heirs: EUR 8,358;
(4) Famagusta, Trikomo, Kotsines, Karpasias Road, Registration No. 6457, Plot No. 283/1/6 (621), Sheet/Plan: 15/43.E.II, Area: 667 sq. m, Use: Building site for sale or development, Share: whole; 1974 value according to the applicants’ heirs: EUR 8,271;
(5) Famagusta, Trikomo, Kotsines, Karpasias Road, Registration No. 6458, Plot No. 283/1/7 (622), Sheet/Plan: 15/43.E.II, Area: 673 sq. m, Use: Building site for sale or development, Share: whole; 1974 value according to the applicants’ heirs: EUR 8,345;
(6) Famagusta, Trikomo, Kotsines, Karpasias Road, Registration No. 6452, Plot Nos. 283/1/8, 291/4 (623), Sheet/Plan: 15/43.E.II, Area: 553 sq. m, Use: Building site for sale or development, Share: whole; 1974 value according to the applicants’ heirs: EUR 7,521;
(7) Famagusta, Trikomo, Kotsines, Karpasias Road, Registration No. 6453, Plot Nos. 283/1/9, 291/5 (624), Sheet/Plan: 15/43.E.II, Area: 559 sq. m, Use: Building site for sale or development, Share: whole; 1974 value according to the applicants’ heirs: EUR 7,994;
(8) Famagusta, Trikomo, Kotsines, Karpasias Road, Registration No. 6459, Plot No. 283/1/10 (625), Sheet/Plan: 15/43.E.II, Area: 686 sq. m, Use: Building site for sale or development, Share: whole; 1974 value according to the applicants’ heirs: EUR 8,506;
(9) Famagusta, Trikomo, Kotsines, Karpasias Road, Registration No. 6460, Plot No. 283/1/11 (626), Sheet/Plan: 15/43.E.II, Area: 700 sq. m, Use: Building site for sale or development, Share: whole; 1974 value according to the applicants’ heirs: EUR 10,010;
(10) Famagusta, Trikomo, Kotsines, Karpasias Road, Registration No. 6461, Plot No. 283/2/1 (627), Sheet/Plan: 15/43.E.II, Area: 573 sq. m, Use: Building site for sale or development, Share: whole; 1974 value according to the applicants’ heirs: EUR 7,793;
(11) Famagusta, Trikomo, Kotsines, Karpasias Road, Registration No. 6462, Plot No. 283/2/2 (628), Sheet/Plan: 15/43.E.II, Area: 583 sq. m, Use: Building site for sale or development, Share: whole; 1974 value according to the applicants’ heirs: EUR 7,929;
(12) Famagusta, Trikomo, Kotsines, Karpasias Road, Registration No. 6463, Plot No. 283/2/3 (629), Sheet/Plan: 15/43.E.II, Area: 580 sq. m, Use: Building site for sale or development, Share: whole; 1974 value according to the applicants’ heirs: EUR 7,888;
(13) Famagusta, Trikomo, Kotsines, Karpasias Road, Registration No. 6464, Plot No. 283/2/4 (630), Sheet/Plan: 15/43.E.II, Area: 553 sq. m, Use: Building site for sale or development, Share: whole; 1974 value according to the applicants’ heirs: EUR 7,521;
(14) Famagusta, Trikomo, Kotsines, Karpasias Road, Registration No. 6465, Plot Nos. 283/2/5, 291/8 (631), Sheet/Plan: 15/43.E.II, Area: 554 sq. m, Use: Building site for sale or development, Share: whole; 1974 value according to the applicants’ heirs: EUR 7,534;
(15) Famagusta, Trikomo, Kotsines, Karpasias Road, Registration No. 6466, Plot Nos. 283/2/6, 290/1, 291/9 (632), Sheet/Plan: 15/43.E.II, Area: 597 sq. m, Use: Building site for sale or development, Share: whole; 1974 value according to the applicants’ heirs: EUR 8,119;
(16) Famagusta, Trikomo, Kotsines, Karpasias Road, Registration No. 6467, Plot Nos. 290/2, 291/10 (636), Sheet/Plan: 15/43.E.II, Area: 535 sq. m, Use: Building site for sale or development, Share: whole; 1974 value according to the applicants’ heirs: EUR 7,651;
(17) Famagusta, Trikomo, Kotsines, Karpasias Road, Registration No. 6468, Plot No. 291/6 (639), Sheet/Plan: 15/43.E.II, Area: 549 sq. m, Use: Building site for sale or development, Share: whole; 1974 value according to the applicants’ heirs: EUR 7,407;
(18) Famagusta, Trikomo, Kotsines, Karpasias Road, Registration No. 6454, Plot No. 291/7 (640), Sheet/Plan: 15/43.E.II, Area: 518 sq. m, Use: Building site for sale or development, Share: whole; 1974 value according to the applicants’ heirs: EUR 7,851;
(19) Famagusta, Trikomo, Kotsines, Karpasias Road, Registration No. 6442, Plot Nos. 292/1, 305.3/2 (641), Sheet/Plan: 15/43.E.II, Area: 604 sq. m, Use: Building site for sale or development, Share: whole; 1974 value according to the applicants’ heirs: EUR 8,214;
(20) Famagusta, Trikomo, Kotsines, Karpasias Road, Registration No. 6443, Plot Nos. 292/2, 305.3/3 (642), Sheet/Plan: 15/43.E.II, Area: 632 sq. m, Use: Building site for sale or development, Share: whole; 1974 value according to the applicants’ heirs: EUR 7,837;
(21) Famagusta, Trikomo, Kotsines, Karpasias Road, Registration No. 6444, Plot Nos. 292/3, 305.3/4 (643), Sheet/Plan: 15/43.E.II, Area: 707 sq. m, Use: Building site for sale or development, Share: whole; 1974 value according to the applicants’ heirs: EUR 9,615;
(22) Famagusta, Trikomo, Kotsines, Karpasias Road, Registration No. 6445, Plot No. 292/4 (644), Sheet/Plan: 15/43.E.II, Area: 569 sq. m, Use: Building site for sale or development, Share: whole; 1974 value according to the applicants’ heirs: EUR 8,137; and
(23) Famagusta, Trikomo, Kotsines, Karpasias Road, Registration No. 6441, Plot No. 305.3/1 (649), Sheet/Plan: 15/43.E.II, Area: 627 sq. m, Use: Building site for sale or development, Share: whole; 1974 value according to the applicants’ heirs: EUR 7,775.
Thus, according to the expert appointed by the heirs of applicant no. 9, in 1974 the total open-market value of the properties described above was EUR 185,381.
34. On 30 September 2011 the heirs of applicant no. 9 produced an updated valuation report, which, essentially on the basis of the calculation method adopted in the previous report, was stated to cover the loss of use suffered until December 2011. The expert concluded that the total sum due to the heirs of Mr Sergis was EUR 4,860,736.

For applicant no. 13 ... and again ... All this land/property was claimed to be Evkaf by the "trnc/ipc"....

38. Applicant no. 13 (Mr Stelios Mandrides) sought CYP 13,107,598 (approximately EUR 22,395,641). The sum claimed for the loss of use was CYP 6,781,725, while the interest amounted to CYP 6,325,873.
39. Applicant no. 13 is the owner of the following property, which, according to the expert appointed by him, in 1974 had a rental value of CYP 1,440 (approximately EUR 2,460 – see paragraph 26 of the principal judgment):
(1) Famagusta, Chrysi Akti, Plot No. 28, Sheet/Plan: 33/21.2.3, Block C, Area: Unknown, Use: Apartment, residence (2 flats, Nos. 26 and 27), Share: whole; 1974 value according to the applicant: EUR 35,026.
40. Applicant no. 13 moreover owns 51% of two companies, Mandrides Properties Ltd and Famagusta Hotels Ltd (the remaining 49% share belonging to his sister Athina Mandrides). These two companies are the owners of the following properties (see paragraph 27 of the principal judgment):
(1) Famagusta, Ayios Nicolaos, Registration No. 4186, Plot No. 97, Sheet/Plan: 33/13.4.1, Block E, Area: 507 sq. m, Use: Hotel apartments for rent (16 holiday flats) and a cafeteria on the ground floor; 1974 value according to the applicant: EUR 333,177;
(2) Famagusta, Ayios Nicolaos, Registration No. 3253, Plot No. 112, Sheet/Plan: 33/12.6.2, Block E, Area: 848 sq. m, Use: Hotel apartments for rent (35 holiday flats) and two lower ground storeys used for under ground parking; 1974 value according to the applicant: EUR 495,494;
(3) Famagusta, Ayios Ioannis, Plot No. 165, Sheet/Plan: 33/13.1.4, Block C, Area: 825 sq. m, Use: Beach hotel (2 star with 23 rooms); 1974 value according to the applicant: EUR 281,919;
(4) Famagusta, Ayios Nicolaos, Plot No. 1185, Sheet/Plan: 33/12.6.2, Block D, Area: 446 sq. m, Use: Building consisting of ground floor shops, offices and apartments, investment income property; 1974 value according to the applicant: EUR 85,430 (according to the last certificate of ownership of Turkish-occupied immovable property of 6 June 2011, supplied on 30 September 2011, this property was registered with a half share being held in the name of the applicant himself);
(5) Famagusta, Ayios Memnon, Plot No. 330, Sheet/Plan: 33/29.3.4, Block E, Area: 2,774 sq. m, Use: Plot of land on the Famagusta Beach designated for a hotel; 1974 value according to the applicant: EUR 568,964.

http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int

[bill cobbett]

... and further on this Evkaf nonsense...

The "tncr" claimed...

that almost all the property located in the Maraş area of Famagusta belonged to a religious trust known as Vakif. Once the latter had acquired ownership, its real estate could not be alienated, transferred or inherited. The applicants had not produced their original title deeds in respect of the Maraş area, but simple “certificates of ownership” obtained from the Greek-Cypriot Department of Lands and Surveys, which were not reproductions of the relevant page of the land records. These documents could not be considered authentic and exclusive proof of ownership in respect of Vakif properties, and expert evidence was needed in order to determine whether the titles had been “acquired” (or usurped) contrary to the principles relating to this kind of property. In particular, the applicants should have produced not only the relevant original land records, but also the “vakfiye” or “deed of endowment”. The Government submitted that the issues raised relating to Vakif should be left to the domestic courts and that the European Court of Human Rights should not deliver judgments which might prejudice the rights of the Cyprus Evkaf Administration (which had jurisdiction over Vakif properties) and those of the beneficiaries.

The ECHR threw this claim out by saying in the judgment...

2. The Court's assessment

116. The Court first notes that the Government's submission that doubts might arise as to the applicants' title of ownership in respect of the properties at issue (in particular, by reason of the applicability of the “vakif” principles – see paragraphs 103-08 above) is, in substance, an objection of incompatibility ratione materiae with the provisions of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Such an objection should have been raised before the application was declared admissible or, at the latest, in the context of the parties' observations on the merits. In this connection, the Court observes that in the final decision on the admissibility of the application it noted that the respondent Government had not challenged any of the titles regarding the immovable properties claimed by the applicants (see paragraph 29 above). In any event, the Court cannot but confirm its finding that the properties for which applicants nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 12 and 13 produced written prima facie evidence of ownership, which were registered in their names and mentioned in the decision on admissibility (see paragraphs 54-57 above – see also Kyriakou v. Turkey (merits), no. 18407/91, §§ 48 and 56, 27 January 2009) constitute their “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

[Viewpoint]

And whos gonna pay?

[CBBB]

And whos gonna pay?

The booming Turkish economy.

[Viewpoint]

And whos gonna pay?

The booming Turkish economy.

Dont hold your breath.

[repulsewarrior]

...if Turkey has any integrity, they will pay; they have already admitted their responsibility in this regard.

[Viewpoint]

...if Turkey has any integrity, they will pay; they have already admitted their responsibility in this regard.

Link?

[humanist]

If Turkey had any integrity she would encourage a solution of reunification based on democratic values and principles and leave another country's sovereignty alone.