Cyprus-Forum.com

[Pyrpolizer]

Pres A has issued a statement with clarifications as to how he sees the Joint Declaration.

Very lengthy at... http://www.cyprusexpat.co.uk/blog/read/ ... blem-talks

That was his speech last night on TV Bill. The only misprint, is that he did not actually say "compatriots". He said "Ellinides-Ellines". This guy is very naive sometimes... After a journalist pointed it out he corrected it by closing his TV interview with "Dear compatriots GreekCypriots- TurkishCypriots"...

[kurupetos]

Pres A has issued a statement with clarifications as to how he sees the Joint Declaration.

Very lengthy at... http://www.cyprusexpat.co.uk/blog/read/ ... blem-talks

That was his speech last night on TV Bill. The only misprint, is that he did not actually say "compatriots". He said "Ellinides-Ellines". This guy is very naive sometimes... After a journalist pointed it out he corrected it by closing his TV interview with "Dear compatriots GreekCypriots- TurkishCypriots"...

If I were a Turkish Cypriot I wouldn't trust him. IMO, this could be useful.

[Pyrpolizer]

i am the least frustrated person on earth. you said they can decide what to do. i agree with you in that very few people will wish to return, which means there is no problem. those who do should be allowed to. the point i was making the original owner does not have the right to decide every time. home and house has been clarified in an eu court of law.

I think we agree to a large extend.

[Pyrpolizer]

I think the Yanks have decided that Turkey is no longer to be "trnc"s patron.

There's an interesting report here http://www.prio.no/Global/upload/Cyprus ... inking.pdf
about the population of the north and some comparisons with the ROC. According to the report there are not as many settlers in the north as we thought. Not sure who Mete Hatay is, a Turkish Cypriot possibly.

Thanks Jerry I 've read it a long time ago. He is a Turkish Cypriot alright, I think he cooperated with Greek Cypriots for other PRIO projects as well. I too got the impression the settlers were not as many as we thought they were when i read it, but then again who knows? When I hear Kibrisli teachers saying the settlers children in their classes outnumber the Kibrisli ones by 4:1, i don't know what to think of anymore

[Kikapu]

then kiss the agreement goodbye now. few weeks back he was asked if everyone will go back to their properties and he said it was not practical. he will not even be asking for that. unless you mean compensation rather then right to return and then we are in business.

Do you know what right of ownership is?
it is I WHO OWN something who will decide what to do with it, not YOU who holds it illegally because someone gave you points at a Denktashes supermarket, and you believed him.
And by the way be prepared for Turkey to kiss you goodbye, because SHE DOESN"T WANT TO BE YOUR PATRON ANYMORE.

again too late. you will find decision at eu level was made. house belongs to you and you can sell it. unless you were older than 14 years old when you last lived there it is not your home and has no automatic return right.


you must have heard the decisions made by echr. bloody hell.

That was not exactly the ECHR decision, but let's not make this more complicated for you Lordo.
I specifically tallked for the RIGHT OF OWNERSHIP didn't I? Do you think I am that stupid to talk for the right of returning back HOME? Do you think I am that inhuman to say that my RIGHT of ownership gives me the right to knock out any inhabitants? Certainly not!
But it gives me the RIGHT to ask for rent, to sell it, to exchange it, to invest on it (assuming it its not inhabited) etc etc.
Did I ever say anything different? Why do you get so frustrated?

i am the least frustrated person on earth. you said they can decide what to do. i agree with you in that very few people will wish to return, which means there is no problem. those who do should be allowed to. the point i was making the original owner does not have the right to decide every time. home and house has been clarified in an eu court of law.

Lordo, what's going to happen to those who are now living on GCs properties in the north rent free, and then comes the GC owners who may not be able to move the occupants out, but asks for rent that the occupants can't pay? The occupants will move out on their own and the property will return to the GC owners. The same will happen to the properties belonging to the TCs in the south of course.

[Lordo]

If a TC has property in the south which is now under the control of the trnc, the issue is very simple. there will be exchange and they should not get any compensation as they have had the use of a gc property.

what i want to know is what will be the level of compensation for those who lost property to the other side but refused to accept other peoples property and did not exchange.

[bill cobbett]

i am the least frustrated person on earth. you said they can decide what to do. i agree with you in that very few people will wish to return, which means there is no problem. those who do should be allowed to. the point i was making the original owner does not have the right to decide every time. home and house has been clarified in an eu court of law.

I think we agree to a large extend.

Boys, boys... boys....

Things are rarely as simple as bar-room lawyers think they are.

If you look up Article 17 of the ECHR you'll find that things get complicated by what is called the Abuse of Rights Article.

Put simply Rights can't that easily be acquired when they might impact the Rights of others.

In the CY context, best not to bet any money that the Illegal Settlers and the CarpetBaggers have acquired Rights in cases where their "rights" conflict with the pre-existing Rights of others.

[Pyrpolizer]

i am the least frustrated person on earth. you said they can decide what to do. i agree with you in that very few people will wish to return, which means there is no problem. those who do should be allowed to. the point i was making the original owner does not have the right to decide every time. home and house has been clarified in an eu court of law.

I think we agree to a large extend.

Boys, boys... boys....

Things are rarely as simple as bar-room lawyers think they are.

If you look up Article 17 of the ECHR you'll find that things get complicated by what is called the Abuse of Rights Article.

Put simply Rights can't that easily be acquired when they might impact the Rights of others.

In the CY context, best not to bet any money that the Illegal Settlers and the CarpetBaggers have acquired Rights in cases where their "rights" conflict with the pre-existing Rights of others.

I am not a lawyer but in my opinion

a)The Abuse of rights article is for normal conditions within a normally functioning state
b)The right for home is different from the right of ownership even under current RoC law. Simply put you cannot throw anyone out of a house if for example he accepts to pay rent.
c)There is the law of necessity, in other words some people had to use "illegally properties that don't belong to them out of necessity.
This covers fully (100%) the Kibrisli and the Kypreoi. It doesn't cover the carpetbaggers and the settlers. Those people did not act on grounds of necessity. The carpetbaggers and the settlers will most certainly lose it all.

[bill cobbett]

i am the least frustrated person on earth. you said they can decide what to do. i agree with you in that very few people will wish to return, which means there is no problem. those who do should be allowed to. the point i was making the original owner does not have the right to decide every time. home and house has been clarified in an eu court of law.

I think we agree to a large extend.

Boys, boys... boys....

Things are rarely as simple as bar-room lawyers think they are.

If you look up Article 17 of the ECHR you'll find that things get complicated by what is called the Abuse of Rights Article.

Put simply Rights can't that easily be acquired when they might impact the Rights of others.

In the CY context, best not to bet any money that the Illegal Settlers and the CarpetBaggers have acquired Rights in cases where their "rights" conflict with the pre-existing Rights of others.

I am not a lawyer but in my opinion

a)The Abuse of rights article is for normal conditions within a normally functioning state
b)The right for home is different from the right of ownership even under current RoC law. Simply put you cannot throw anyone out of a house if for example he accepts to pay rent.
c)There is the law of necessity, in other words some people had to use "illegally properties that don't belong to them out of necessity.
This covers fully (100%) the Kibrisli and the Kypreoi. It doesn't cover the carpetbaggers and the settlers. Those people did not act on grounds of necessity. The carpetbaggers and the settlers will most certainly lose it all.

BillC agrees with you file... we're not human rights lawyers...

[Viewpoint]

Time will give us more information about how it will be resolved and then we can all evaluate the pros and cons otherwise we are just making things up as we go along. I hear that Güzelyurt will not be given to the GC state as was the case in the AP.