Cyprus-Forum.com

[paaul12]

Nothing to say? I thought this would have been given a bit of "air time


http://www.cyprus-mail.com/cyprus/echr- ... s/20130504

[Viewpoint]

Wow such a big issue and the GCs are silent.....any comments???

[Get Real!]

This stance is old news from another case 1 or 2 years ago.

But if you (or they) think that refugees are just gonna forget their properties because an EU body says so you’ve got another thing coming!

Nothing short of the TOTAL LIBERATION of enslaved Cypriot territory will satisfy Cypriots today, in 20 years time, or 100 years time if it gets to that because our goal is unchanged, our determination is unchanged, and our vigor is unchanged.

[Kikapu]

Nothing to say? I thought this would have been given a bit of "air time


http://www.cyprus-mail.com/cyprus/echr- ... s/20130504

Aren't you stretching the truth a little (actually a lot) Paaul 12? Of course, you got illiterate VP taking the bait and falls into your trap.

Where is the actual ECHR ruling on this? According to the article, the case was dismissed on technicality reasons. What's new? All the rest of the article are the supposition of the claimant (Meleagrou) and not the facts of the ruling by the ECHR. Personally, even if this ruling was made on the grounds that a property belonging to a company cannot be transferred to an individual to make the claim for the land on their own behalf, this has nothing to do with property belonging to individuals in 1974 or their heirs which must be 99% of all the cases.

[bill cobbett]

Nothing to say? I thought this would have been given a bit of "air time


http://www.cyprus-mail.com/cyprus/echr- ... s/20130504

Aren't you stretching the truth a little (actually a lot) Paaul 12? Of course, you got illiterate VP taking the bait and falls into your trap.

Where is the actual ECHR ruling on this? According to the article, the case was dismissed on technicality reasons. What's new? All the rest of the article are the supposition of the claimant (Meleagrou) and not the facts of the ruling by the ECHR. Personally, even if this ruling was made on the grounds that a property belonging to a company cannot be transferred to an individual to make the claim for the land on their own behalf, this has nothing to do with property belonging to individuals in 1974 or their heirs which must be 99% of all the cases.

Yep... nothing to worry about... a very poor oversight led to the plaintiff claiming the properties as theirs when it was in reality in the ownership of a company they owned.

Tells us two things of value; it is important to get these technicalities right in cases being taken to the ECHR and secondly always refer back to the original ECHR source of the judgment.

[Lordo]

no body said they will forget their properties, they will claim loss of use and sell their property to the current owner. in most cases as most of the land in the south is owned by trnc then it is the trnc which will exchange. as far as the company is concerned it is also the same for people who are not on the original deeds and were younger than 14 in 1974. you know very well this is has never been a a legal issue and will never be.

wake up boys the time to be able to do that will come to an end. 4000 people have already applied. you know it makes sense.

[Kikapu]

no body said they will forget their properties, they will claim loss of use and sell their property to the current owner. in most cases as most of the land in the south is owned by trnc then it is the trnc which will exchange. as far as the company is concerned it is also the same for people who are not on the original deeds and were younger than 14 in 1974. you know very well this is has never been a a legal issue and will never be.

wake up boys the time to be able to do that will come to an end. 4000 people have already applied. you know it makes sense.

Less than 10% resolved!

[Viewpoint]

This stance is old news from another case 1 or 2 years ago.

But if you (or they) think that refugees are just gonna forget their properties because an EU body says so you’ve got another thing coming!

Nothing short of the TOTAL LIBERATION of enslaved Cypriot territory will satisfy Cypriots today, in 20 years time, or 100 years time if it gets to that because our goal is unchanged, our determination is unchanged, and our vigor is unchanged.

Is it like the Constantinople Istanbul thing

[Viewpoint]

Nothing to say? I thought this would have been given a bit of "air time


http://www.cyprus-mail.com/cyprus/echr- ... s/20130504

Aren't you stretching the truth a little (actually a lot) Paaul 12? Of course, you got illiterate VP taking the bait and falls into your trap.

Where is the actual ECHR ruling on this? According to the article, the case was dismissed on technicality reasons. What's new? All the rest of the article are the supposition of the claimant (Meleagrou) and not the facts of the ruling by the ECHR. Personally, even if this ruling was made on the grounds that a property belonging to a company cannot be transferred to an individual to make the claim for the land on their own behalf, this has nothing to do with property belonging to individuals in 1974 or their heirs which must be 99% of all the cases.

First stop is the IPC TRNC.

[Jerry]

no body said they will forget their properties, they will claim loss of use and sell their property to the current owner. in most cases as most of the land in the south is owned by trnc then it is the trnc which will exchange. as far as the company is concerned it is also the same for people who are not on the original deeds and were younger than 14 in 1974. you know very well this is has never been a a legal issue and will never be.

wake up boys the time to be able to do that will come to an end. 4000 people have already applied. you know it makes sense.

Less than 10% resolved!

And 10% has taken 7 years, so how long will applicant number 4001 have to wait?