Cyprus-Forum.com

[halil]

Property remains the main outstanding issue for displaced people.......

copy/paste from http://www.internal-displacement.org/80 ... pInfoFiles)/94CBD5921CA280ECC12573B50039AF47/$file/Cyprus%20-December%202007.pdf

Property remains the main outstanding issue for displaced people
Property is one of the most complicated aspects of the Cyprus problem. Almost half the population of the island lost property as a result of violence or military action between 1963 and 1974 (UN, 1 April 2003). Information on those who lost their property as a result of violence following the constitutional crisis in 1963 is scarce, although more is available on the situation of people displaced after the 1974 Turkish military intervention.
Greek Cypriots left an estimated 1,810 square kilometres of property in the north, while Turkish Cypriots left about 535 square kilometres of property in the south, though there is no consensus on these figures (PRIO, 7 March 2006). Following the de facto partition of the island after 1974, the Turkish Cypriot administration distributed property in the north, while property in the south has since been managed by the Government of the Republic of Cyprus. Turkish Cypriots also lost property as a result of inter-communal violence after the constitutional crisis in 1963.
The Turkish Cypriot property policy was designed to anchor the displaced in their new homes in the north, while the policy of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus has been to maintain the possibility for displaced people to return to their original homes (Scott, 1998 p.142). Turkish Cypriots displaced to the north received points for their land and property in the south and with these points could apply for a newly created “TRNC” deed for the abandoned Greek Cypriot property allocated to them. In gaining a title for their new property in the north, Turkish Cypriots forfeited their claim to their land and property in the south to the Turkish Cypriot administration (Scott, 1998 p.142; ECHR, 10 May 2001; Cyprus Mail, 8 March 2007). Greek Cypriots displaced to the south, on the other hand, received use and possession of abandoned Turkish Cypriot property, the title for which remains with the original owner (Republic of Cyprus, 1 July 1991; US DoS, 6 March 2007).
Prevented from returning to and repossessing their property and land, displaced Cypriots on both sides have applied to domestic and international courts to assert their rights. Over 30 years after de facto partition, many displaced owners have died with the land titles still registered in their name. The first step in many cases for many Turkish Cypriots making claims on property in the south is to demonstrate that they have legally inherited the property title. The entire process can last several years, and may not be successful. Many documents for bequeathing land are only in Greek, including those for administering a will, conducting a land search or transferring a title deed, as well as the certificates of land search and title deed (Vroisha Yagmurulan Association, 6 December 2007). Most of the cases that Turkish Cypriots have lodged with courts in the south have been resolved out of court through “friendly settlements”. Turkish Cypriots who opted to push their cases through the court system in the south have encountered obstacles, including processing delays that can sometimes last years, and the fact that all applications must be submitted in Greek and all court hearings are conducted in Greek (Turkish Cypriot Human Rights Foundation, 25 October 2007). As a result, only a few cases have been decided, nearly all against Turkish Cypriots. Having exhausted local remedies, some of these Turkish Cypriots have applied to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) seeking restitution and compensation of their property from the Republic of Cyprus (Turkish Daily News, 4 January 2007; Turkish Cypriot Human Rights Foundation, 25 October 2007; Vroisha Yagmurulan Association, 6 December 2007).
Greek Cypriots have also applied to the ECHR demanding restitution of their property and compensation from Turkey for blocking their access to their properties in north Cyprus. After issuing landmark decisions in 1996 and 2001, the ECHR ruled in 2005 that there had been a continuing violation of a Greek Cypriot’s right to access and enjoy her home and property in the north, and held that she was still the legal owner of her home and property in the north (ECHR, 7 December 2006). The Court ordered Turkey to compensate the applicant for these violations.
In the same 2005 judgment, the ECHR ordered Turkey to introduce a remedy for the protection of property and possessions in the area under Turkish Cypriot administration. In response, the Turkish Cypriot authorities enacted the “Law for the Compensation, Exchange and Restitution of Immovable Properties,” under which the Immovable Property Commission began its work in March 2006 (ECHR, 7 December 2006; Cyprus Mail, 23 March 2006). In late 2006, the ECHR noted that “…the new compensation and restitution mechanism, in principle, has taken care of the requirements of the decision of the Court on admissibility of 14 March 2005 and the judgment on the merits of 22 December 2005” (CoE, 7 April 2007; ECHR, 7 December 2006). The ECHR continued, however, that it has not yet examined the effectiveness and adequacy of this Commission and the applicant should not be required at this stage of proceedings to apply to it for reparation.
To date, some 300 applications have been lodged at the Commission and 22 cases have been decided (Permanent Mission of Turkey to the United Nations, 25 October 2007; Turkish Cypriot Human Rights Foundation, 25 October 2007). Compensation was paid to 18 applicants, who in return lost their right to use the property (The Observer, 8 June 2007). In two cases Greek Cypriots agreed to exchange their properties in the north with properties of comparable value belonging to Turkish Cypriots in the south. However, these exchanges are currently on hold as the ECHR is examining their voluntariness (PRIO, 13 November 2007; Turkish Cypriot Human Rights Foundation, 25 October 2007; Journal of Turkish Weekly, 24 September 2007). Restitution was afforded in three cases, though it remains to be tested whether these owners could take up residence on their land in the north (Turkish Cypriot Human Rights Foundation, 25 October 2007; PRIO, 13 November 2007).
More than thirty years after having been displaced, there is little prospect for most displaced people to return without a political settlement. While some of the people displaced may not want to return to their original homes and land, the UN reports that an increasing number of Maronites and Greek Cypriots have expressed an interest in returning permanently to their villages in the north to care for their parents who stayed behind in 1974 (Cyprus Mail, 19 February 2006; UN, 4 June 2007). Similarly, former residents of Famagusta, which is under Turkish Cypriot control, have initiated a campaign demanding that they be allowed to return and have collected some 30,000 signatures in support of this appeal (Cypriot Young Scientists Organisation, May 2007; Financial Mirror, 20 April 2007).
The development of property in both the north and south has only complicated property matters further. Uninhabited Greek Cypriot houses in the north have been demolished without the owner’s consent, in addition to cultural and religious heritage items (UN, 4 June 2007; UN, 3 December 2007; Republic of Cyprus, 26 September 2007). Construction work on Greek Cypriot land in the north for housing, tourism and commercial development is also ongoing (Republic of Cyprus, 31 August 2005; UN, 4 June 2007; ICG, 8 March 2006; Financial Mirror, 8 June 2007; Embargo!, 14 July 2006). In 2006, the Republic of Cyprus passed a law making the purchase, rent and sale of property owned by Greek Cypriots without the consent of the registered owner a crime. A Russian couple found with a contract for the purchase of Greek Cypriot property in the north were charged under this law and their trial was ongoing in 2007 (US DoS, 6 March 2007).
Development on Turkish Cypriot land in the south is also occurring (Embargo!, 14 July 2006). Compensation for this development should be paid to the property custodian, but according to a Turkish Cypriot NGO this is not always done (Turkish Cypriot Human Rights Foundation, 25 October 2007). However, the Government of the Republic of Cyprus repairs Turkish Cypriot religious and cultural property as well as Turkish Cypriot houses within its area of control, spending $6 million dollars annually on the maintenance of Turkish Cypriot houses (CoE, 27 October 2006).