Cyprus-Forum.com

[Maximus]

So why has the Cyprus problem not been resolved already through the ECHR? why are these illegal settlers not Cypriot citizens already?

why dont they file their case at the ECHR?

[CopperLine]

Let's look at the proposal like this : divide up all those who might make a claim to citizenship into different categories. Different people on this forum will have tolerance or intolerance for different categories and that will give shape to the particular kind of settlement possible and acceptable to different groups.

Category A* : all those people, born before 1974, who were born in Cyprus AND who were born to parents who were both also citizens of Cyprus, AND have been resident in Cyprus throughout their lives.

Category B* : all those people, born before 1974, who were born in Cyprus AND who were born to parents who were BOTH also citizens of Cyprus, AND have been resident in Cyprus for at least five** years.

Category C* : all those people, born before 1974, who were born in Cyprus AND who were born to parents ONE of whom was also citizen of Cyprus, AND have been resident in Cyprus for at least the last five** years.

* Where Cyprus refers to pre-1974
** Different durations would yield different implications.


Category D^ : all those people, born post-1974, who were born in Cyprus AND who were born to parents who were both also citizens of Cyprus, AND have been resident in Cyprus throughout their lives.

Category E^ : all those people, born post-1974, who were born in Cyprus AND who were born to parents who were both also citizens of Cyprus, AND have been resident in Cyprus for the majority of their lives.

Category F^ : all those people, born post-1974, who were born in Cyprus AND who were born to parents who were both also citizens of Cyprus, AND have been resident in Cyprus for at least the last five** years.

Category G^ : all those people, born post-1974, who were born in Cyprus AND who were born to parents ONE of whom was also a citizen of Cyprus, AND have been resident in Cyprus for at least the last five** years.

^ Where Cyprus refers to both south/RoC and north
** Different durations would yield different implications.


Category H : all those people, regardless of age, who were born outside of Cyprus AND both of whose parents was born in Cyprus before 1974.

Category I : all those people, regardless of age, who were born outside of Cyprus AND ONE of whose parents was born in Cyprus before 1974.

Category J : all those people, regardless of age, who were born outside of Cyprus and NEITHER of whose parents was born in Cyprus AND have CITIZENSHIP in Cyprus^^ for at least five** years.

Category K : all those people, regardless of age, who were born outside of Cyprus and NEITHER of whose parents was born in Cyprus AND have been RESIDENT in Cyprus for at least five** years.

^^ Cyprus meaning here both south/RoC and north.
** Different durations would yield different implications.


Basically maximalists will not likely accept any category other than Category A and D (possibly Category H), but many wouldn't accept even these categories for Turkish Cypriots. By contrast those keenest for a settlement will more likely accept more categories for citizenship down the list, even categories J and K which are essentially what people refer to as 'settlers'. By the way categories J and K would also cover the thousands of British and other European or Russian, etc, who have retired to or otherwise settled in Cyprus, as well as covering the usual Turkish settlers.

With a bit of research once could put numbers to these eleven categories. Thus I suspect that categories F, G, H, and I might be the largest categories - covering all those London Cypriots and Sydney/Melbourne Cypriots - i.e, the second/third generation Cypriot diaspora. Also each of these categories could be subdivided further, producing different and possibly significant nuances. For me, I'd consider everything up to and including Category K because I think a settlement based on unification is essential for all Cypriots, and better an imperfect settlement than another forty/fifty years of idiocy.

A useful contribution to debate.

... but just to add a trifle, that those of us in the Diaspora are not necessarily citizens of the Republic, indeed very, very few are and naturally most people are settled comfortably overseas with no interest in CY citizenship.

Anyone who left CY before a cut-off date (from memory in the late 50s), during the period of highest emigration from CY and their descendants are not regarded as CY citizens.

Those who want to be citizens have to make due and successful application, in much the same way as anyone else. So, suggest, we mark downwards numbers associated with the Diaspora.

Thank you Bill and Paphitis for the welcome back, and to Maximus for the obtuseness which I'd forgotten about on Cyprus Forum.

My background purpose for setting out those categories was to see not only which categories of people would be affected by any settlement based on some kind of reunification (but not separation/partition), but also to see where different laws would/should/could apply. As several posters have mentioned already there's RoC law, EU law, international law including both laws of war and peace, occupation law, human rights law and even remnants of UK colonial law and possibly Turkish law which might have bearing on each of those categories. I'm not posting this to try and persuade anyone for any particular solution, any particular law or to favour any particular category, but to try to see the whole picture.


One can broadly match different kinds of law onto those different categories. Basically RoC law has its own legal criteria for citizenship which is going to match mainly onto the Categories A to maybe G; whilst EU law might extend from category A into categories H and I; and in turn various kinds of humanitarian law might go the full range from A to K. For example, whilst RoC law - as far as I'm aware - would not entertain citizenship for categories J and K, European Law or ECHR law could well do so. Or take the example of, say, the daughter of Turkish/Russian/British/foreign born Cypriot who was born in Cyprus and had resided all her life in Cyprus. (i) What category would she be in ? (ii) What category here parents (?) What if she was in a different category to her parents in which laws determined the daughter can stay in Cyprus but not her parents ? In such a case non-Cyprus human rights law might come in to prevent the break up of the family (ECHR Article .

It should be possible, in order to see the implications of Sener Levent's proposal, to estimate the scale of the issue for each of these different categories of people.

[Maximus]

How have I been obtuse to you? setting you straight is being obtuse?

[bill cobbett]

Boys, boys, boys... and Blobbo.

Let's be polite to another

The relevant laws are the 1967 CY Citizenship Law (which insisted, amongst other things, on a CY lineage through a parent), as modified by the ECHR Articles, now part of CY law, as ratified by the CY Parliament.

Of these ECHR Articles, the Right to Home and the Right to Private Life and Right to Family Life, both as limited by the rarely applied Abuse of Rights Article, apply.

There is no distinct Right to Citizenship but, but, but recent case-law at the ECHR have developed the Right to Private and Family Life to include it in legal arguments by saying ... "nationality is part of a person's identity and, therefore, potentially their private life..."

There is, by the way, No Right to a Free Home, cos the Property Article will respect the kochans of the Republic, so a lot of people who have had free homes or who have made over money for dodgy kochans will have to come to deals with the owners or make other arrangements or of course the owner will be faced with a choice.

[Maximus]

This thread is becoming delirious,

some off you have started to sound like Blobbo and his alter egos.

[CopperLine]

Look Paphitis,

If you want to further your argument and convince me, present your case clearly and get to the point. Please pick out your law for me.

Do it from the ECHR if you can.

Furthermore, the Geneva convention is an applicable international law, which exists but you choose to disregard it now. Why?

The Geneva Convention does not apply to individuals born in Cyprus or to those that have married a Cy Citizen.

You cannot deny the basic Human Rights of these individuals, particularly those born in Cyprus, and there is not a single International Law or Convention (which by the way is not International Law) that will allow the deprivation of these Human Rights!

I'm not sure which Geneva Convention you're referring to (there are hundreds) but if, following comments made earlier in this thread you're talking about (one of the ones) referring to war (mainly 1949 and 1977) then two critical things obtain. The Geneva Conventions are laws of war not laws of peace, so they only apply if there is a recognised status of war. Second insofar as the Geneva Convention is a law of war it applies to all signatories and, indeed has become part of customary law and so applies to even non-signatories. In any case, probably the most important point, the Geneva Convention and Protocols say absolutely nothing about citizenship or nationality. Rather, why they may be interesting for the Cyprus question is in relation to the treatment of civilian populations eg temporary or permanent transfer, movement, re-settlement. But the Geneva Convention and Protocols do not say anything about citizenship/nationality status : they cannot do so, because they are not laws of peace.

[Paphitis]

So why has the Cyprus problem not been resolved already through the ECHR? why are these illegal settlers not Cypriot citizens already?

why dont they file their case at the ECHR?

You have lost the plot Max.

In a comprehensive solution, the status of those born in Cyprus will be clear and since they will stay under the auspices of the RoC, they will apply for citizenship unless they choose not to.

[Maximus]

Look Paphitis,

If you want to further your argument and convince me, present your case clearly and get to the point. Please pick out your law for me.

Do it from the ECHR if you can.

Furthermore, the Geneva convention is an applicable international law, which exists but you choose to disregard it now. Why?

The Geneva Convention does not apply to individuals born in Cyprus or to those that have married a Cy Citizen.

You cannot deny the basic Human Rights of these individuals, particularly those born in Cyprus, and there is not a single International Law or Convention (which by the way is not International Law) that will allow the deprivation of these Human Rights!

I'm not sure which Geneva Convention you're referring to (there are hundreds) but if, following comments made earlier in this thread you're talking about (one of the ones) referring to war (mainly 1949 and 1977) then two critical things obtain. The Geneva Conventions are laws of war not laws of peace, so they only apply if there is a recognised status of war.

There is a recognized status of war, there is only a cease fire.

Second insofar as the Geneva Convention is a law of war it applies to all signatories and, indeed has become part of customary law and so applies to even non-signatories. In any case, probably the most important point, the Geneva Convention and Protocols say absolutely nothing about citizenship or nationality. Rather, why they may be interesting for the Cyprus question is in relation to the treatment of civilian populations eg temporary or permanent transfer, movement, re-settlement. But the Geneva Convention and Protocols do not say anything about citizenship/nationality status : they cannot do so, because they are not laws of peace.

Why have the settlers not gone to the ECHR and filed the case for their children's citizenship and their rights to stay?

[Maximus]

So why has the Cyprus problem not been resolved already through the ECHR? why are these illegal settlers not Cypriot citizens already?

why dont they file their case at the ECHR?

You have lost the plot Max.

In a comprehensive solution, the status of those born in Cyprus will be clear and since they will stay under the auspices of the RoC, they will apply for citizenship unless they choose not to.

They should go to the ECHR and file their case. They don't need a comprehensive solution.

[CopperLine]

Paphitis, why or how is my suggestion going to cost the RoC trillions in compensation.

So what you are saying is the children of illegal settlers, born in occupied territory are entitled to citizenship in the country their country occupies and their parents not?

This is getting delirious.

Maximus, citizenship/nationality law is a matter of domestic law not international law. The only set of occasions when it comes up against international law is (a) must be compliant with the Refugee Convention which outlaws the rendering of citizens stateless and (b) in questions of occupation and settlement resulting from war and (c) when, in the European system, national law violates European or human rights law. In the latter circumstances cases would have to come before the ECJ or ECHR to show the alleged violation and compensation may arise on a case by case basis.