Cyprus-Forum.com

[bg_turk]

The ECHR thinks exactly like me. I guess you missed the decisions proved once again the illegality of the turkish occupation and the right of GCs to return to their homes (+ compensation for the last 30 years)

This is when Denktash was in power. Now you have a completely reformed TRNC. The TRNC courts will be offering exactly those things that you will be demanding from the ECHRs: compensation and return of unfairly confiscated properties.

There is just one kind of justice in this case: All refugees have the right to return.

Exactly, all those refugees that seek their rights in the TRNC courts will be allowed to return, and if they are denied justice they will be able to apply to the ECHRs.

[Kifeas]

The title of the thread is wrong. Actually the Turks are looking for ways to avoid the ECHR so they will not have to give back anything from what they stole.

Nothing of the sort at all.

If the local court is deemed unfair then the claims can alway be forwarded to the ECHR as all internal means of remedy will have been exhausted.

Besides TRNC courts, unlike the ECHR, will be able enforce their own decisions and to provide effective remedy by returning the properties of those who apply. I welcome this development, and I believe it will be a good step towards providing justice to those GCs who have been unfairly displaced.

Of course it remains to be seen how the RoC government will react to such a development. Will it allow GCs to apply to TRNC courts? Ow will it block the democratic right of its own citizens to seek justice, under the pretext that a "pseudo" state cannot dispense justice?

Bg_Turk, let’s not waste our and your time with nonsense! The ECHR cannot accept as an internal remedy, any mechanism that comes under the “TRNC” “jurisdiction.” The reason is very simple. The “TRNC” doesn’t exist as a subject of international law and therefore none of its so-called institutions, be it “courts,” “compensation” committees, etc. Any GC refugee that is not satisfied with the outcome of an internal remedy decision should be able to take the case further up to the ECHR against the Country that is supposed to administrate the internal remedy. In the case of the “TRNC” compensation committee and should the GC property owner is not satisfied with the verdict of such a committee, which country will he take action against, in front of the ECHR? Against the “TRNC”, a non-recognized by the UN and a non-member country of the Council of Europe? Therefore, any internal remedy mechanism, in order to possibly be regarded as such by the ECHR and the Council of Europe, can only be functioning under the direct jurisdiction of the Turkish government. These recent plans of the “TRNC” and presumably Turkey on this issue can only described by one simple word, which is “alchemies.”

[bg_turk]

Any GC refugee that is not satisfied with the outcome of an internal remedy decision should be able to take the case further up to the ECHR against the Country that is supposed to administrate the internal remedy. In the case of the “TRNC” compensation committee and should the GC property owner is not satisfied with the verdict of such a committee, which country will he take action against, in front of the ECHR?
Against the “TRNC”, a non-recognized by the UN and a non-member country of the Council of Europe?
Therefore, any internal remedy mechanism, in order to possibly be regarded as such by the ECHR and the Council of Europe, can only be functioning under the direct jurisdiction of the Turkish government. These recent plans of the “TRNC” and presumably Turkey on this issue can only described by one simple word, which is “alchemies.”

A similar problem exists with the UNMIK (United Nations Mission in Kosovo), which legally is part of the Serbia and Montenegro, but S&M has no control over the territory. Here is a proposal by the Council of Europe on how to remedy the situation and subject the province under the ECHR, without the political implications of recognizing the province as a seperate state.
I believe a similar scheme can be applied to the TRNC, recognizing the temporary nature of the authorities pending a final settlement. Individual human rights cannot be held hostage to the politics of working out a solution.
If there are GCs who would like to return to their properties before a solution is found, and are willing to live in the jurisdiction of the TRNC, until a final solution is find, I believe these people should be provided with the means to do that.

http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/Worki ... C10393.htm

Kosovo is part of the territory of Serbia and Montenegro, a member state of the Council of Europe. As a result of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 (1999), however, for over five years Kosovo has been administered by the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) and its security guaranteed by KFOR. Whilst both bodies have made extensive commitments to protect human rights in Kosovo and achieved positive results in their extremely difficult roles, serious deficiencies remain. In particular, inhabitants of Kosovo do not have recourse to judicial remedies against these bodies and do not enjoy the right of individual petition to the European Court of Human Rights.

The report therefore proposes a series of essential reforms to the human rights protection system in Kosovo. In particular, it recommends the creation of a Human Rights Court for Kosovo, with jurisdiction over UNMIK and KFOR, and of a human rights Advisory Panel within UNMIK; establishment of the foreseen Special Chamber of the Supreme Court on Constitutional Framework Matters, with jurisdiction over the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government; and the commencement of work towards interim extension of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights to Kosovo.

i. Legal situation of UNMIK/UN and KFOR/NATO and its member States with respect to the ECHR [47]

33. Firstly, clarification should be made concerning the legal personality and status of the interim international authorities in Kosovo.

i. UNMIK is a UN-mandated mission under the control of the SRSG. Having exclusive jurisdiction in Kosovo, it bears both the negative and positive obligations of human rights protection. This exclusive jurisdiction also implies that ratification of conventions, including the ECHR, by Serbia and Montenegro is not relevant to the legal obligations of UNMIK.[48] Whatever its precise status as a subject of international law, UNMIK has been able to engage in relations and sign agreements with various actors, including the Council of Europe. For the purposes of this report, therefore, the Rapporteur concludes that it is sufficient to talk of “UNMIK” without also mentioning either its pillars or the UN as a whole.

ii. KFOR is of a different nature, being a military operation conducted by NATO. Analysis of KFOR is further complicated by the division of operational control between the KFOR Commander and the commanders of the various national contingents. Depending on particular circumstances, therefore, human rights violations in certain cases might be attributable to NATO, whilst in others (and probably more often) to a particular NATO member State (or States); in some cases, attribution may be shared or difficult to determine. Since, however, it is KFOR which has the UN mandate and thus bears overall responsibility for the international security presence in Kosovo, most proposals on enhancing human rights protection mechanisms would best be addressed also to NATO.

38. Whilst the Rapporteur remains of the view that extension of the jurisdiction of the Court to include acts and omissions of UNMIK and KFOR/NATO remains an important eventual aim, subject to the duration of the international authorities’ presence in Kosovo, therefore, immediate attention should be given instead to mechanisms which can be established in the shorter term.

[bg_turk]

Here are some clauses in the Interim Agreement for Peace and Self-Government In Kosovo that describe how ECHR cases are dealt with in that case:

Chapter 6

The Ombudsman

Article I: General

1. There shall be an Ombudsman, who shall monitor the realization of the rights of members of national communities and the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms in Kosovo. The Ombudsman shall have unimpeded access to any person or place and shall have the right to appear and intervene before any domestic, Federal, or (consistent with the rules of such bodies) international authority upon his or her request. No person, institution, or entity of the Parties may interfere with the functions of the Ombudsman.

2. The Ombudsman shall be an eminent person of high moral standing who possesses a demonstrated commitment to human rights and the rights of members of national communities. He or she shall be nominated by the President of Kosovo and shall be elected by the Assembly from a list of candidates prepared by the President of the European Court of Human Rights for a non-renewable three-year term. The Ombudsman shall not be a citizen of any State or entity that was a part of the former Yugoslavia, or of any neighboring State. Pending the election of the President and the Assembly, the CIM shall designate a person to serve as Ombudsman on an interim basis who shall be succeeded by a person selected pursuant to the procedure set forth in this paragraph.

3. The Ombudsman shall be independently responsible for choosing his or her own staff. He or she shall have two Deputies. The Deputies shall each be drawn from different national communities.

(a) The salaries and expenses of the Ombudsman and his or her staff shall be determined and paid by the Kosovo Assembly. The salaries and expenses shall be fully adequate to implement the Ombudsman's mandate.

(b) The Ombudsman and members of his or her staff shall not be held criminally or civilly liable for any acts carried out within the scope of their duties.



Article II: Jurisdiction

The Ombudsman shall consider:

(a) alleged or apparent violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms in Kosovo, as provided in the Constitutions of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Republic of Serbia, and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the Protocols thereto; and (b) alleged or apparent violations of the rights of members of national communities specified in this Agreement.

2. All persons in Kosovo shall have the right to submit complaints to the Ombudsman. The Parties agree not to take any measures to punish persons who intend to submit or who have submitted such allegations, or in any other way to deter the exercise of this right.

[cypezokyli]

i dont think that the gcs will do it.
firtsly is not about compensation is about returning home. and no court in the north could allow all refugees to return. the problem of the refugees can only be solved by a solution.

second...it makes no sense for the north to make such courts. the north believes that it is a state. no state would accept that it is built on stolen land. all states believe that they were liberated from someone , not that they stole.
it is the same for the gcs but on the opposite direction. if one recognizes the trnc courts that means it recognises the state and its laws - which laws claim that the people in the north have legal documents of land.

only the free-capitalist market in the north recognises that. the adds on land say : "with tc legal title". 100% legal. in the north land which used to belong to a tc costs double as much, as land that used to belong to gc... i guess that was the invinsible hand adam used to talk about.

[Svetlana]

I am confused, because I understood this was about compensation not repatriation:


A DRAFT law that would provide the possibility of compensation to Greek Cypriot for immovable properties in the TRNC has been prepared and ratified by the Council of Ministers and is due to be published for consultation in the Official Gazette after procedural discussions in Parliament, President Mehmet Ali Talat revealed this week to Cyprus Today.
The government's aim is to bring the draft back before MPs for final approval — after the statutory 10-day public consultation period — before the start of budget discussions.
The President, speaking in the wake of a statement in London by Prime Minister Ferdi Sabit Soyer, who spoke of "changes in Article 159 of the Constitution" which also concerns properties, said: "What must be done has to be done if one is to avoid legal obstacles. But without reference to changing the Constitution, the draft law for compensation has been prepared."
Mr Talat repeated his satisfaction over his recent trip to Washington and New York, which he said had presented him with the opportunity to express the Turkish Cypriot side s position face to face with top US and UN officials.
He reiterated that the Turkish Cypriot side was ready to enter a new negotiation process on the basis of the Annan plan. Mr Talat said he was now expecting an invitation — probably in January — to similar high-level contacts in London, and confirmed that expectations from such a visit would be much greater than from any other country because Britain was a guarantor power. Topping the list of Turkish Cypriot hopes was the introduction of direct non-stop flights. This would mean much more than direct flights from any other country, he said, because air traffic between the UK and the TRNC was busy and the benefit would therefore be proportionally biggest.

[Nikiforos]

When justice is outlawed, only outlaws will be able to serve it.

The Turkish invasion and occupation outlawed justice in occupied northern Cyprus and now only the outlaws (Turks) will be able to serve it in kangaroo courts?

[bg_turk]

firtsly is not about compensation is about returning home. and no court in the north could allow all refugees to return. the problem of the refugees can only be solved by a solution.

Well, I think it will be an excaggeration to claim that all refugees will all of a sudden rush to TRNC courts to claim their properties. Clearly not all will want to or be able to return but some of them will, and they will not have to wait until a solution is found to be able to get back to their ancestral homes, as long as they respect the status quo and the laws of the TRNC. I think it will be good from a humanitarian perspective.

second...it makes no sense for the north to make such courts. the north believes that it is a state. no state would accept that it is built on stolen land. all states believe that they were liberated from someone , not that they stole.

It makes sense precisely because the TRNC is a state, and as a democratic state it should provide its citizens and non-citizens alike with an effective means of remedy for crimes comitted against them regardless of ethnic origin.

it is the same for the gcs but on the opposite direction. if one recognizes the trnc courts that means it recognises the state and its laws - which laws claim that the people in the north have legal documents of land.

I think it is wrong to mix state policies and individual rights here. The RoC will continue its policy of non-recognition, but ordinary citizens will have the means to pursue their individual rights in courts that have the means to inforce their own decisions. I guess it will be a conundrum for GC refugees, whether they should apply to a court, which their government considers illegal, many will probably not, but some will and I do not think we should obstruct the democratic rights of these people to seek justice just to appease the GC governments policies of strict non-recognition of the northern state. If the RoC chooses to block its own citizens from applying to TRNC courts, then it will be a completely different matter.

This is of course assuming that the TRNC will be able to provide justice effectively, and to ensure that there should be some monitoring mechanism from the ECHR like in the case of Kosovo.

To be frank I am bewidered by the attitude of some GCs here. It is your properties that you have been seeking all along, and just when the TRNC is offering some means of repropriation and compensations, you are all jumping against that. This just reinfoces my belief that you do not look at the property issue in a strictly humanitarian manner, but exploit it to support your political arguments.

I do not believe it makes a difference to GC refugees who are deeply attached to their lands and homes whtether they are under the jurisdiction of the TRNC or RoC. The proposed ammendments will be especially good for the older people who may wish to spend their final days in their homeland, and be buried where they have been born.

I believe this is an excellent development, and I really do hope the TRNC makes the necessary ammendments to its constitution and laws. It will make a real difference to the lives of those refugees, who are completely detached from politics and just want to get along with their lives in their homeland.

[cypezokyli]

hey bg_turk u make it sound so aggel made

there is still this old story with titina loizidou vs turkey (and not the "trnc"). if i am not mistaken she got compensation at some point, but the the ECHR also asked for return of land.. which didnt happen by the way.
what makes you think it will happen now?
the non-recognition of the "trnc" is the only thing we have, being the weak power. it is not that simple for us to start calling it state.
moreover if a gc is not satisfied where can he appeal? to the ECHR? he wouldnt then be able to sue the trnc simply because on the papers of the ECHR it does not exist.
i am not going to start a discussion with you concerning the trnc. ofcource there are people living there, ofcource there is a goverment, ofcource ofcource...try to understand our side for a while. we have to deal with a bigger state, a trditional ally of the US and the legality is the only thing we have left.
besides what is the possibility do you think that land will be returned. what i am asking now is what do you expect to be more return or compensations ?


if u were a gc wanting compensation what would your rational choise be: sueing turky on the ECHR or take a chance at the trnc court? and the same way u argue, the question can be reversed. what is the problem if a gc chooses first to go to the ECHR? it is still a court. it is still human rights. it is still a solution of a humanitarian problem. if our aim is justice why would there be a difference? they are both courts after all.
the same way one can ask a gc: why do you go to ECHR when u can go to the trnc and get your land back? one can ask what is the difference if a gc chooses first to go to europe?
the difference is: politics. pure and dirty all the way.

moreover it is also a matter of trust. i cannot imagine a gc trusting a trnc court for obvious reasons. ofcource one can view the positive side of it, but to mention that it is done for humanitarian reasons or how was it ?

and as a democratic state it should provide its citizens and non-citizens alike with an effective means of remedy for crimes comitted against them regardless of ethnic origin.

hey bg_turk there are a number of missing persons for years now. and lets accept that before it was denktash fault. now it is talat. our goverment is also equally to blame for that unsolved problem. its a clear humanitarian problem which if solved there will not be any political "losses" from any of the two sides, irrespective of who starts first. so, just for that allow me to doubt the "humanitarian cause". it is clearly a political decision, hope you agree on that.

It is your properties that you have been seeking all along, and just when the TRNC is offering some means of repropriation and compensations, you are all jumping against that. This just reinfoces my belief that you do not look at the property issue in a strictly humanitarian manner, but exploit it to support your political arguments

the cyprus problem is political. all the way. for the people who lost land or relatives it is also psycological.
everything is a political argument bg_turk. when u say to me, u killed tcs in the 1960s and as a concequence there is no trust and the solution should be soandso... isnt it the same? isnt it the same when the generations to live in a united cyprus are both clean of blood? isnt it a psycological/humanitarian argument used for political reasons?

everything is interconnected bg_turk. it is not just land. my grandfathers land would have been returned and yet he voted against AP.

as plato said is the whole that matters. the cyprus problem will either be solved completely or never be solved (dont ask for my prediction on this one ) and in a solution i dont have any illusion that all refuggees will return bc this will disturb the bizonality-bicomunality. and if that is disturbed then the tc will not be happy.

[bg_turk]

what makes you think it will happen now?
the non-recognition of the "trnc" is the only thing we have, being the weak power. it is not that simple for us to start calling it state.
moreover if a gc is not satisfied where can he appeal? to the ECHR? he wouldnt then be able to sue the trnc simply because on the papers of the ECHR it does not exist.

I already explained that a similar statute to that of Kosovo could be attributed to the TRNC. Human rights should be respected on european soil regarless of whether the state is recognized or not, and that is what the ECHR should be there for. Besides I do not see what the problem really is. Are you afraid that the TCs courts will be fair, and the ECHR will not accept GCs cases because there is already an effective means of remedy?If the TRNC courts are unfair then of course the ECHR will accept your applicaitons.

i am not going to start a discussion with you concerning the trnc. ofcource there are people living there, ofcource there is a goverment, ofcource ofcource...try to understand our side for a while. we have to deal with a bigger state, a trditional ally of the US and the legality is the only thing we have left.

I do understand the reasons why you do not want such a decision to be implemented, since it would spoil the aura of illgeality in which you are painting the TRNC. You want to have a monopoly over legality, and you do not like the the idea of TRNC contesting this role.

if u were a gc wanting compensation what would your rational choise be: sueing turky on the ECHR or take a chance at the trnc court? and the same way u argue, the question can be reversed. what is the problem if a gc chooses first to go to the ECHR? it is still a court. it is still human rights. it is still a solution of a humanitarian problem. if our aim is justice why would there be a difference? they are both courts after all.

the same way one can ask a gc: why do you go to ECHR when u can go to the trnc and get your land back? one can ask what is the difference if a gc chooses first to go to europe?
the difference is: politics. pure and dirty all the way.

You can use any court you like but it is up to the ECHR to decide whether you have exhausted all internal remedy mechanisms.
Besides if a refugee is interested in returning to his home, it is only the TRNC courts that can let him do that. Of course ideally GCs would like to return and simultaneosu restore the "roc" control over the territories in the north, but currently this is not possible, since those territories are under the control of the TRNC, and the only way of for GCs to return is under the jurisdiction of the TRNC.

moreover it is also a matter of trust. i cannot imagine a gc trusting a trnc court for obvious reasons. ofcource one can view the positive side of it, but to mention that it is done for humanitarian reasons or how was it ?

Well, if the TRNC courts act fairly, I think trust can be rebuilt and seeing GC and TC live peacefully in the TRNC may eventually contribute to unification.
I too believe that a comprehensive solution is the only way, but as long as such a solution cannot be found the TRNC should stay firm, respect human rights as much as it can and try to establish good relations with GCs so as to facilitate the solution process.