Cyprus-Forum.com

[CopperLine]

We will have to wait until Monday afternoon to see if the ECHR decides the address the question of illegal settlers when it determines "just satisfaction" in Cyprus v Turkey. The Greek Cypriots are expected to accept compensation for their legitimate losses via the IPC, it would not be unreasonable to expect the settlers to return to the mainland in return for compensation paid by Turkey for their illegitimate loss.

Brilliant Jerry,

This is Cyprus vs Turkey.

Can you clarify if this question is just for compensation? I do not think it will include forfeiting right to property, private or otherwise.

Turkey before the ECHR is about the property question. Cypriots who lost property or not 'enjoyed their rights' of property could and should be compensated or have it restored (although the latter is not on the cards for political reasons). The ECourtHR is not being asked to adjudicate on the status of or treatment of Turkish settlers who have occupied GC properties. What is under scrutiny by the ECourtHR is the legality of the policy of the Turkish state (including by proxy of TRNC) in terms of each Article/item of the EConvHR and not the actions of individual settlers who have occupied GC property. In turn any judgment and compensation/remedy is against the Turkish state, not against settlers.

Not just property but missing persons and the circumstances of the Greek Cypriots in Karpas. Turkey encouraged/allowed the settlers to make the move, it has the ability to return them to the mainland, if they are as poor as you say I'm sure most would accept a little finical encouragement and leave.

Yes, this case is not just about property. But to be clear, the application and the judgment refers to the denial of GC access to and enjoyment of property in the north. It does not refer at all to settlers. In other words the case is that the respondent (Turkey) violated or allowed to be violated or failed to remedy violations of GCs. It is not a case alleging that it was settlers who carried out those violations. In that respect what Turkey does with settlers, in law, is an entirely separate matter.

It might be, as suggested by you and Bill, that a little inducement might help the settlers return to Turkey and elsewhere. The Cypriot headache grows for Turkey and it is still not going away.

[Maximus]

You and CL may be right Jerry. A little enticement may help.

... but listen, it is a Saturday Night, so can we all agree on something before we hit the bottle, please...???

That the CarperBaggers have to go...!!!

Is that a big and resounding YES we're hearing from everyone...???

well Bill, this includes nearly all of them.

[Jerry]

We will have to wait until Monday afternoon to see if the ECHR decides the address the question of illegal settlers when it determines "just satisfaction" in Cyprus v Turkey. The Greek Cypriots are expected to accept compensation for their legitimate losses via the IPC, it would not be unreasonable to expect the settlers to return to the mainland in return for compensation paid by Turkey for their illegitimate loss.

Brilliant Jerry,

This is Cyprus vs Turkey.

Can you clarify if this question is just for compensation? I do not think it will include forfeiting right to property, private or otherwise.

Turkey before the ECHR is about the property question. Cypriots who lost property or not 'enjoyed their rights' of property could and should be compensated or have it restored (although the latter is not on the cards for political reasons). The ECourtHR is not being asked to adjudicate on the status of or treatment of Turkish settlers who have occupied GC properties. What is under scrutiny by the ECourtHR is the legality of the policy of the Turkish state (including by proxy of TRNC) in terms of each Article/item of the EConvHR and not the actions of individual settlers who have occupied GC property. In turn any judgment and compensation/remedy is against the Turkish state, not against settlers.

Not just property but missing persons and the circumstances of the Greek Cypriots in Karpas. Turkey encouraged/allowed the settlers to make the move, it has the ability to return them to the mainland, if they are as poor as you say I'm sure most would accept a little finical encouragement and leave.

Yes, this case is not just about property. But to be clear, the application and the judgment refers to the denial of GC access to and enjoyment of property in the north. It does not refer at all to settlers. In other words the case is that the respondent (Turkey) violated or allowed to be violated or failed to remedy violations of GCs. It is not a case alleging that it was settlers who carried out those violations. In that respect what Turkey does with settlers, in law, is an entirely separate matter.

It might be, as suggested by you and Bill, that a little inducement might help the settlers return to Turkey and elsewhere. The Cypriot headache grows for Turkey and it is still not going away.

I did read somewhere recently (forgot where) that many Turkish Cypriots would be only too pleased to see the settlers leave and would rather share the island with Greek Cypriots than the illegals from the mainland.

With regard to Turkey's headaches and in the hope of "just satisfaction" being a large sum what will be the consequences for the respondent's refusal to pay up?

[CopperLine]

The Monday announcement is a just satisfaction announcement (on a judgment that was made in 2001). Article 41 of the Convention gives the meaning of just satisfaction :

“Just satisfaction: If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”

Just satisfaction falls into one or more of three categories :
a) pecuniary damage;
b) non-pecuniary damage; and
c) costs and expenses.

You'll notice that it doesn't say "get your property back" in other words there's no explicit provision for restitution. I think most of us would want restitution to be the priority of all reparations, of all just satisfaction. Unfortunately it is often at the bottom of the list and, in the case of a long running case - forty years, in the case of Cyprus - restitution seems almost impossible. As far as remedies go, non-repetition might be the best that we can get i.e, non-repetition, non-continuation of the violations.

The key difference this time, in such a big case, is that in 2010 Protocol 14 of the ECHR came in to force which is an attempt to toughen up 'compliance'. Don't hold you breathe, though. Basically “f the nature of the breach allows of [i]restitutio in integrum, it is for the respondent State to effect it, the Court having neither the power nor the practical possibility of doing so itself.” It is left to Turkey, in this case, to implement remedies and/or restitution and/or reparations/compensation. Effectively just satisfaction means just not satisfied.

[Maximus]

This is typical of Turkey.

She will not fully ratify the readmission agreement with the European commission either. Which basically regulates the return of illegal immigrants (read settlers) coming into the EU where Turkey was the country of entry or origin. She signs but makes a note that she does not recognize Cyprus, the republic, or the GC administrations authority on the island.

Turkey knows that if she formally ratifies it, it would mean that she would have to take back all the settlers in the "TRNC".

[Lordo]

last time sener levent supporters stood for election in the north they got less than 2 percent of the vote. you would think gcs would use this fact to their advantage.
1. elect a tc which is disliked by 98 percent of the tc population and is seen as a gc and a traitor
2. they can show the world that a tc can get elected with gc votes to show there is no racism.

but will you be able to even consider such a thing, ugly chance as the new saying goes. as ugly as the charluis on here.

[Maximus]

last time sener levent supporters stood for election in the north they got less than 2 percent of the vote. you would think gcs would use this fact to their advantage.
1. elect a tc which is disliked by 98 percent of the tc population and is seen as a gc and a traitor
2. they can show the world that a tc can get elected with gc votes to show there is no racism.

but will you be able to even consider such a thing, ugly chance as the new saying goes. as ugly as the charluis on here.

More is said about the TC's if they do not turn out to vote for him.

[bill cobbett]

last time sener levent supporters stood for election in the north they got less than 2 percent of the vote. you would think gcs would use this fact to their advantage.
1. elect a tc which is disliked by 98 percent of the tc population and is seen as a gc and a traitor
2. they can show the world that a tc can get elected with gc votes to show there is no racism.

but will you be able to even consider such a thing, ugly chance as the new saying goes. as ugly as the charluis on here.

More is said about the TC's if they do not turn out to vote for him.

Ah Blobbo, there you are.

Did you wander down to the barricades to vote in Eurovision last night...???

[Lordo]

i am sure levent will appreciate you reducing the thread about him to the level of your arse where your brains are you thick and ugly charlui.

[bill cobbett]

Yes, you're right Bordo...

... perhaps you could get us back on thread by telling us why you're attracted to voting for Sener Levent.