Cyprus-Forum.com

[Alexios]

I want to hear it from the horse,s mouth:)

It is true that I take a passing interest in these legal matters. But despite my clandestine work for the Turkish motherland I am also interested in seeing a fair compromise in this whole matter...and you will probably say now that you don't believe me...

OK..so what do you think is a fair compromise?

[Anglo]

1.Lets say things are as you describe them.Whats wrong with that??
2.I also have my doubt as to the outcome of the case, but what do you think will happen if actually Apostolides wins the case?
3.You havent said what your interests are in this case.

Are you saying "What's wrong with a government leaning on a judge to secure a decision in a particular direction?". Well, it isn't democratic.

If Apostollides wins then the construction and real estate sector in the north will be dead and so will the TRNC's economy.

My interests are in seeing an overall settlement in Cyprus along the lines of the A-plan.

[Anglo]

I want to hear it from the horse,s mouth:)

It is true that I take a passing interest in these legal matters. But despite my clandestine work for the Turkish motherland I am also interested in seeing a fair compromise in this whole matter...and you will probably say now that you don't believe me...

OK..so what do you think is a fair compromise?

Sorry, I'm talking about a 'globally' fair compromise - it would still involve some neagtives for some people. E.g. the A-Plan

[Alexios]

No no..thats not what i meant and i am sure there is no such involment.I meant that if the government thinks that people have a chance in winning their properties back then there is nothing wrong in supporting them to persue legal means.As to leaning on judges.had they done so, the usage ot Tympou airport and the case of Mr Mustafa in Limassol would have been the opposite.You follow legal matters so i am certain you know both cases.
If your fears are sound then i hope a settlement is found before the British courts decide on the case.
I hope you are sincere about your interests,Thats the best i can do.

[Kifeas]

Well, let's say that the evidence is circumstantial but who could really believe that the RoC government does not have its fingerprints all over these lawsuits - after all it is the 'national problem' which the government has total ownership of. To think that it would allow a few loose cannons to fire off all over the place with potentially huges repurcussions would be somewhat naive. Everything is carefully co-ordinated from the highest levels.

One example is the blatant mishandling of the Oram's case by the GC judge in the Nicoisa court. If that wasn't a political decision then I do not know what is. Procedural norms were cast aside so that the 'right' decision could be arrived at.

Secondly, the government altered the law on trespass so that the punishment was increased to two years - this was so that the offence could in theory be included under crimes subject to European Arrest Warrants. A move designed to assist in the prosecution of foreign buyers in the north.

1. The government doesn’t have absolute ownership of the entire issue that is called “the national problem.” The property issue is also an individual right’s problem (violation) and each property owner is allowed and perfectly entitled to the right to take any individual legal action in order to protect his interests. This is also the position of the ECHR on this matter, besides being a RoC constitutional right.
2. There was absolutely no misleading of any judge on the issue. If you are talking about the way Oram’s were served the orders to appear in court and whether Mr. Oram was served or not, whatever happened was perfectly within the acceptable norms and status regarding this matter. Mrs. Oram, when asked (after she was served her call) where her husband was, she said, in front of two witnesses that he is inside sleeping. When they asked her to escort them to give the court’s call to him she said she didn’t want to wake him up. when they said that they will come back later, she voluntarily said that there was no need and she could do it when he wakes up. They then entrusted Mr. Oram’s call on his wife and left. Mrs. Orams lawyer came to the court and claimed that Mr. Oram was not served because he traveled the previous day of the serving to the UK, while there were two witnesses testifying that his wife said he was at home sleeping, besides not providing any evidence or witness that he was indeed in the UK since the previous day.
3. Yes, the law was amended (increase of the imprisonment sentence from one year to two,) afterwards, due to pressure from the Refugee property owners associations.

[Anglo]

No no..thats not what i meant and i am sure there is no such involment.I meant that if the government thinks that people have a chance in winning their properties back then there is nothing wrong in supporting them to persue legal means.As to leaning on judges.had they done so, the usage ot Tympou airport and the case of Mr Mustafa in Limassol would have been the opposite.You follow legal matters so i am certain you know both cases.
If your fears are sound then i hope a settlement is found before the British courts decide on the case.
I hope you are sincere about your interests,Thats the best i can do.

Yes, there is nothing wrong with the government doing what it wants/can to support individual cases but the assertion was that they have no hand in these cases which is clearly not true imo.

The UK courts will throw this out, I am fairly certain. And then there will be an upsurge in interest in property in the north - demand has been on hold to an extent, pending this case. In my opinion the RoC should have made noisy threats about possible legal action instead of bringing an actual case that will in the end achieve the opposite of the desired objective.

[Alexios]

we will just all have to wait and see

[Anglo]

Well, let's say that the evidence is circumstantial but who could really believe that the RoC government does not have its fingerprints all over these lawsuits - after all it is the 'national problem' which the government has total ownership of. To think that it would allow a few loose cannons to fire off all over the place with potentially huges repurcussions would be somewhat naive. Everything is carefully co-ordinated from the highest levels.

One example is the blatant mishandling of the Oram's case by the GC judge in the Nicoisa court. If that wasn't a political decision then I do not know what is. Procedural norms were cast aside so that the 'right' decision could be arrived at.

Secondly, the government altered the law on trespass so that the punishment was increased to two years - this was so that the offence could in theory be included under crimes subject to European Arrest Warrants. A move designed to assist in the prosecution of foreign buyers in the north.

1. The government doesn’t have absolute ownership of the entire issue that is called “the national problem.” The property issue is also an individual right’s problem (violation) and each property owner is allowed and perfectly entitled to the right to take any individual legal action in order to protect his interests. This is also the position of the ECHR on this matter, besides being a RoC constitutional right.
2. There was absolutely no misleading of any judge on the issue. If you are talking about the way Oram’s were served the orders to appear in court and whether Mr. Oram was served or not, whatever happened was perfectly within the acceptable norms and status regarding this matter. Mrs. Oram, when asked (after she was served her call) where her husband was, she said, in front of two witnesses that he is inside sleeping. When they asked her to escort them to give the court’s call to him she said she didn’t want to wake him up. when they said that they will come back later, she voluntarily said that there was no need and she could do it when he wakes up. They then entrusted Mr. Oram’s call on his wife and left. Mrs. Orams lawyer came to the court and claimed that Mr. Oram was not served because he traveled the previous day of the serving to the UK, while there were two witnesses testifying that his wife said he was at home sleeping, besides not providing any evidence or witness that he was indeed in the UK since the previous day.
3. Yes, the law was amended (increase of the imprisonment sentence from one year to two,) afterwards, due to pressure from the Refugee property owners associations.

It all seems a bit fishy to me. But the procedural gaffe will not be the point that sinks the case.

[Kifeas]

And what is the point that will do?

[Anglo]

Check out this link and concentrate on Article 22 & 34. Haven't we had this conversation before?

http://www.eupro.co.uk/docs%20pdf/EU%20 ... cement.pdf