Cyprus-Forum.com

[Sotos]

A COURT hearing early in January could decide whether Limassol-based Arif Mustafa will be the first Turkish Cypriot allowed to reclaim his property in the government-controlled areas of Cyprus since Greek and Turkish Cypriots were divided along ethnic lines in 1974.

Mustafa won, through a Supreme Court ruling in September 2004, the right to return to his 4-donum property in Episkopi. However, in the immediate wake of the ruling the Attorney-general succeeded in imposing an interim order pending the hearing of an appeal by the government and the Greek Cypriot refugee occupants of his lands. On January 12 that appeal will be heard, and whichever way the ruling goes, it will have far-reaching implications for Cyprus’ protracted refugee property dispute.

Yesterday, Mustafa told the Cyprus Mail he believed he had a good chance of winning the case, and that if he did win other Turkish Cypriots could follow suit in seeking restitution of the properties they abandoned in 1974.

Mustafa, like around 200,000 Cypriots, became a refugee in 1974. He and his family fled to Zodhia in the Turkish Cypriot-controlled north, but three years ago returned to the south to live close to his former home in Episkopi.

As the law stands, Turkish Cypriots who have lived in the south for more than six months can reclaim the properties they abandoned after the war. Knowing this to be the case, Mustafa applied and won reinstatement to the home he had not lived in for 30 years. The government, however, intervened on the grounds that those living in Mustafa’s house also had rights.

The government may also have been concerned that Mustafa’s return could open the floodgates for around 40,000 Turkish Cypriot refugees to demand reinstatement of their properties in the south.

Some now believe the Cypriot government will find itself on difficult ground whichever way the ruling goes on the Mustafa case.

As Mustafa himself says, “If the government lose the appeal, the precedent could be set for many other Turkish Cypriots to return. If it wins the appeal, the government will not look good in Europe.”

Professor of International Law at the Eastern Mediterranean University (EMU) Kutred Ozersay agrees the government is in a dilemma over whether an upholding of the Attorney-generals’ appeal will be beneficial in the long run.

“The only thing the government can do if it wants to keep the property on the grounds of public interest, ie. for the benefit of the refugees living on it, is to expropriate it. But of course there are procedures for this, and of course they cannot expropriate all Turkish Cypriot properties,” Ozersay told the Mail.

He adds that the guardian law, under which abandoned Turkish Cypriot properties in the south are held, could also come under question now that Turkish Cypriots have access to the south.

“If the Greek Cypriots insist they need to hold on to Turkish Cypriot properties until a solution to the Cyprus problem is found, it will be seen as justifiable for the north to say the same thing about Greek Cypriot properties under its jurisdiction.”

Likewise, however, if the Attorney-general and the current users of Mustafa’s property lose their appeal and Mustafa is granted ownership of his property, preventing the true owners from enjoying their properties both north and south of the Green Line could become more difficult to justify.

“Mustafa’s winning back his property rights could also set a precedent for the Turkish Cypriot north,” he says.

Peace Research Institute of Oslo (PRIO) researcher Ayla Gurel agrees with Ozersay that the case has implications for the overall property issue in Cyprus, bearing similarities to that of Titina Loizidou, who won compensation and reinstatement rights from Turkey at the ECHR.

“If the Cypriot government wins the case, it will put the government in a similar situation to that of the Turkish Cypriot side,” she says.

Loizidou was paid compensation by Turkey for not being allowed access to her Kyrenia property for 30 years. However, restitution of her property rights was put on hold until the end of 2005 pending a solution to the Cyprus problem. Gurel believes the Cypriot government is asking the courts for the same factor to be taken into account in the Mustafa case as Turkey asked for in the Lozidou case.

“If you look at this case in that light, it seems strange for the Cyprus government to say it wants to wait for a solution”.

Gurel added, however, that the primary difference between Mustafa’s and Loizidou’s cases was that Mustafa’s property was now inhabited by Greek Cypriot refugees, whereas this is not the case with Loizidou’s property. But acknowledgement of this as a factor could also create problems for the Cypriot government.

“If the Cypriot government’s appeal is upheld taking into account the rights of the current users, there will again be implications, because it has always been the Cypriot government’s stated policy that the rights of owners are paramount.”

“Ultimately,” Gurel says, “the government has to protect the interests of the people it represents, and there is a parallel situation in the north.”

[bg_turk]

It is quite a dilemma for the Papadoupolos government, and I am very interested to see how they will solve it.

Either they restore the properties of TCs in the South and prove their commitment to citizens of turkish origin, or they don't and get sued in the ECHR.

Shouting full return to legality at the top of your voice is easy, but much harder to implement I guess. Lets how comitted to legality the RoC really is. I am following this case with interest.

[Svetlana]

Hi bg_tk

I would welcome this if it is the first step towards restoration of deprived property; the problem that will face the RoC Government is a practical one. Where will they put the GC 'evacuees' who are now living on TC land? Furthermore, how will compensation be made for TC land which cannot be returned ie now under a motorway or Larnaca Airport.

Equally, you understand I feel the same about GC in the North.

Lana

[bg_turk]

Hi Lana,

I would welcome this if it is the first step towards restoration of deprived property; the problem that will face the RoC Government is a practical one. Where will they put the GC 'evacuees' who are now living on TC land?

As much as I feel sad for GC refugees, I do not think it is morally right to make citizens of Turkish origin refugees in order to accomodate the GC refugees. Besides as the article says the RoC government has always stated that the legal rights and interests of the owners of the properties are above everything else.

Furthermore, how will compensation be made for TC land which cannot be returned ie now under a motorway or Larnaca Airport.

I guess it should compensate TCs in the same way it does for GC properties used for the public benefit.

Equally, you understand I feel the same about GC in the North.

As the inernationally recognized government on the island, the RoC government is obliged to respect the rights of its citizens regardless of ethnic origin, and as I said above it should not deprive some citizens of their properties for the benefit of others just because of ethnic origin. This is illegal expropriation of property (although temporary) and is also a form of discrimination. The RoC government simply does not stand a chance if some TCypriot challenges its attitude in the ECHR.

[Svetlana]

Hi bg_tc

I was not suggesting that the RoC Government should not honour its obligations, merely that there was a practical problem in doing so.
The same problem - or maybe a rather more complex one - will occur when reciprication takes place in the north.

Lana

[bg_turk]

Lana,

I agree, and that is why I think it would be an excellent test to check how comitted to legality the RoC government really is.

[zan]

This case is exactly the reason that I am for a two-republic solution. This is a clash between legality and morality. In the RoC both apply as in, it is legally TC property, morally however I don’t think it is right to uproot a family that has been living there for thirty years for the sake of politics. It is of coarse
not right to keep them there for political reasons either. The attempt at trying to resettle into land and property that they claim is theirs will turn into a complete farce. I say claim not to be controversial but because I believe (I have no proof) that many deeds will suddenly appear for the same piece of land and many claims and counter claims will break many hearts. The poorest of the bunch will suffer the most. The courts will be busy for decades to come and this one factor will be enough to drive a bigger wedge than that that already exists between the two cultures. It is after years of wrangling that all those that are screaming for a return to their properties now will wish they had stayed where they were. Again not trying to sound controversial, the legal side of things cannot be implemented in a state that is not recognised. The rest as above applies.

[zan]

By the way my family will lose forty six acres with my solution because it is in the middle of the Green line

[Piratis]

You miss the most important point: Who is responsible for all this.

The one who is responsible is Turkey and their puppets in Cyprus. They are the ones who insist on illegality. If they accepted legality then both GCs and TCs could return to their homes.

This illegality by Turkey of course affects negatively most Cypriots, including many TCs. The demand by some TCs that the Greek Cypriots should be the only ones to have consequences from this illegal situation that is forced on us by Turkey (with the help of TCs) is to say the least unfair.

According to them, a TC can choose whether to take his property in the free areas or to take stolen GC property in the occupied areas (or both?) while the GC refugee should stay with nothing sleeping in the street!

Lets not forget that the 18% of TCs is illegally occupying the 36% of the land. So now they want a share in the remaining 64% without giving back what they illegally keep. So that 18% should control 45%+ of the land???

The question is: Who wants this illegality and unfairness for Cypriots to end? The ones that want this should declare clearly that they do not support the illegal "TRNC" and the illegal turkish occupation and they want legality to return for everybody.

Those that want legality and fairness only for TCs, while they support the illegality and the violation of human rights of GCs are nothing more than racist hypocrites.

Maybe RoC is forced to make some things that are unfair for TCs due to the illegality forced by Turkey and the TC leadership. However lets not forget that at the same time RoC forgets most of the responsibilities of TCs. If they didn't do that, then most TCs would have to be prosecuted for the many law violations they committed all these years.

I believe such cases should be judged on a case by case basis. The TCs that didn't violate any of the laws of RoC should receive all their rights, or receive their rights after they served the penalty for their law violations. The ones that have been in violation of RoC laws and do not want to face the consequences should know that their rights will be limited also.

This case is exactly the reason that I am for a two-republic solution.

And surely you are for a two-republic "solution" where the 18% of TCs keeps a much larger share of land on the expense of GCs, right?

[zan]

Piratis

Do you ever read what anybody else has written.