Cyprus-Forum.com

[Maximus]

This is how you redeem yourself, this is what Bill is asking from you.

Post in bold these articles where we can find these ruling and that the ECHR has deemed that Turkey is not in violation of (these) peoples human rights.

Are you so stupid or so blinded by partisan ship that you can not see or admit Bills manipulation here ?

You post, in any font strength you like, where the ECHR has ruled no violation against the RoC in the cases cited by Bill in regards to their claim over property in the South. The fact is you can not because as far as their claim re property goes the ruling is 'not admissible'. That Bill then seeks to present this as being a ruling of 'no violation' is the most blatant and shameless manipulation of the facts that you are now complicit it.

I will try and make it as simple for you as possible.

A ruling of 'no violation' means the court has considered the merits of the case and judged that the defending party did not violate the rights of the complaining party.

A ruling of 'not admissible' means the court has made no judgment as to if the defending party has violated the rights of the complaining party.

In the case Bill sites - you can see it for yourself here - http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pag ... 001-109812

the ruling was

For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible.

Bill then portrays this , in 150 point type and bold as "The ECHR found No Violations against CY and declared the case Inadmisable."

He actively and with intent tries to make out that the actual ruling 'declared the case Inadmisable' is the same as a ruling of 'no violation'. He tries to do first because in the conclusions to the ruling in regard to other violations the claimants made additional claims (against the UK and the Greece - NOT the RoC) and in regard to these and ONLY these 'additional claims' the court noted "In the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds no appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols arising from these complaints. (the additional ones against the UK and Greece)". He then further tries to justify his shameless and blatant manipulation of the facts with the 'defence' of - show me where the ECHR says the RoC committed a violation and if you can not then it proves that they made a ruling of 'no violation' - which is just plain false logic, again cynically used to try and distort and mislead. Even a seven year old could understand that a finding of 'no violation' is not the same as the court has made no judgment yet.

This is so simple, so clear and so black and white. Please do continue to try and defend such shameless and blatant manipulations and distortions because by doing so you just show the extent to which you will manipulate the truth for your own propaganda purposes or defend such manipulation.

This is even simpler.

You have to admit, the "TRNC" is an illegal entity and an ethnic cleansing land grab. It is a manipulation that violates peoples human rights and is being defended with shameless and blatant hypocrisy, lies as well as despicable attempts to circumvent or ignore the law.

Please do continue to try and defend it and show us the extent you are willing to go to mislead and manipulate the truth to not solve the Cyprus problem.

[Pyrpolizer]

As I am interested in your view re if presenting a ruling of 'not admissible' by the ECHR is the same as it ruling 'no violation' is a blatant and shameless distortion of fact ? Anyway

Although you are right in pointing out that inadmissible does not necessarily mean there has been no violation, you are also wrong in assuming that it has been a violation. Simply put, unless the court decides, you cannot assume that RoC is guilty of anything. And more simply put everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
And I certainly don’t consider Bill’s statement as a "blatant and shameless distortion of fact". A minor unintentional mistake in expression yes, but not anything like what you describe.

Can you accept that the amendment of law 1991 as a result of the Sofi case removes the violations by the RoC of some TC rights to property vs the original version of this law ? Can you further accept that as a result of this amendment there has not been a flood of cases of double dipping ? So that clearly the law can be amended to not infring TC property rights as much and still avoid double dipping ? If you can accept these things then that is a start.

No I cannot accept that because there is absolutely no way to know if there is double dipping or not. A "flood" of double dipping cases is not the criterion here. Even 1% of those been double dipping would be areal problem. And I would estimate at least 50% will be so. The fact is the latest huge scandal concerns a TC property in Dromoloxia, where the guy got millions, and finally proved he was double dipping. Yet the scandal did not concentrate on him but on other issues, be it commissions bribery to party officials government employees, police members etc. As far as I know the TC was not even called on court, because presumably the police investigation was for other issues of the crime.

Over all I think that the argument that the RoC violating the rights of TC over their property in the south is necessary to prevent double dipping deeply spurious. The first and foremost mechanism for preventing double dipping is that to do so would involve a criminal act of fraud. The simplest way of the RoC preventing such frauds would be co operation with the TRNC over this issue as they have every incentive to not allow individuals to get away with double dipping. However lets accept that this is something the RoC can not countenance.

No way.

The next means, as with any potential fraud, would be investigation. The land registry records in the North are public domain information and easily available to RoC investigators. Further Cyprus is a small place where everyone knows everyone else's business. Finally there is the 'setting an example' of those who may try and commit such a fraud and who get caught, with maximum punishment under the law and the widest possible media coverage of such examples. At the end of the day I am not an expert in fraud investigation but as I say I find this whole argument that it is necessary to violate the rights of TC over property to avoid double dipping highly spurious.

Interesting point. However….RoC has to abide by laws. Double dipping (and punishments thereof) cannot pass ANY law without first having the RoC accepting as LEGAL act what the administration in the occupied did. And this is just for starters. I could go on endlessly….there are a million legal issues in this approach.

[erolz66]

Although you are right in pointing out that inadmissible does not necessarily mean there has been no violation, you are also wrong in assuming that it has been a violation. Simply put, unless the court decides, you cannot assume that RoC is guilty of anything. And more simply put everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
And I certainly don’t consider Bill’s statement as a "blatant and shameless distortion of fact". A minor unintentional mistake in expression yes, but not anything like what you describe.

Really ? He posts in bold and 150 point text that in a case that the ECHR ruled as 'not admissible' that "The ECHR found No Violations against CY and declared the case Inadmisable." and you really believe their was no intent to create an impression that the ECHR had looked at these cases , considered their merits and having done so exonerate the RoC of violating these people rights with a ruling of 'no violation' , even though this is patently not the case ? You think it was just a minor unintentional mistake even when I point out the misleading nature of his claims, rather than saying 'oh yes you are right, the court did not explicitly rule the RoC had not violated these peoples rights and I did not mean to imply that was the cases he actually tries to defend his assertion as not misleading with spurious false logic and you still chose to believe it was 'just an unintentional mistake' ? Can you really say in all honesty if a TC here had done the same thing as Bill here in regard to the claims of GC against Turkey that now have to exhaust the domestic remedy of the IPC before they can be admissible in the ECHR, in the way he did it (150 point bold text) and then subsequently defended such in the way Bill has done here, you would also consider that to have just been an unintentional mistake in expression and not done with an intent to create a false impression that the ECHR had decided that Turkey had committed no violations in these cases ? Really ?

No I cannot accept that because there is absolutely no way to know if there is double dipping or not.

Presumably if you really believe that then you also believe there is no way to know if there is double dipping or not if a TC first resides in the RoC for six months ?

The fact is the latest huge scandal concerns a TC property in Dromoloxia, where the guy got millions, and finally proved he was double dipping. Yet the scandal did not concentrate on him but on other issues, be it commissions bribery to party officials government employees, police members etc. As far as I know the TC was not even called on court, because presumably the police investigation was for other issues of the crime.

Can you see the contradiction in claiming 'there is absolutely no way to know if there is double dipping or not' and the claim 'it was finally proven he was double dipping' ? I do not know of this case but would like to know more about it. Are you saying it has been proven that a TC who sought return of their land in the RoC , got that from the RoC and it has now been proven that he also got exchange land in the North against that same land returned to him by the RoC ? Like I say I would really like to know more aboputr this case. If all you say is true then it seems to me that it is entirely possible to prove double dipping ?

Interesting point. However….RoC has to abide by laws. Double dipping (and punishments thereof) cannot pass ANY law without first having the RoC accepting as LEGAL act what the administration in the occupied did. And this is just for starters. I could go on endlessly….there are a million legal issues in this approach.

The RoC law already deals with this. Law 139/1991 as ammended 7 May 2010 (my emphasis)

“Provided that in the exercise of his above authority to administer Turkish-Cypriot properties during the abnormal situation the Minister also has the power as custodian, to lift by duly reasoned decision and under terms which are in his judgment appropriate the custodianship concerning particular Turkish-Cypriot property or part of it, after taking into account in connection with the administration the situation and circumstances of each case and weighing all factors relevant to this matter, including whether the Turkish-Cypriot owner of the property or his heirs or successors in title, as the case may be, occupy property belonging to a Greek-Cypriot in the areas not under the Republic’s control

As part of the process for a TC top reclaim his land in the South the RoC asks, do you occupy or have you occupied in the past land belonging to a Greek Cypriot in the areas not under the RoC's control and if the TC answer 'no' and is lying they are committing fraud. No legal issues there ?

[bill cobbett]

Are you still prattling on Erol...???

You were told several times yesterday that the ECHR found no violations against the Republic in the two cases that made it all the way to a judgment.

For the umpteenth time, if the ECHR did find violations, give us a citation with the Articles of the Convention which were violated by the Republic.

Now put up or shut up.

[erolz66]

Are you still prattling on Erol...???

You were told several times yesterday that the ECHR found no violations against the Republic in the two cases that made it all the way to a judgment.

For the umpteenth time, if the ECHR did find violations, give us a citation with the Articles of the Convention which were violated by the Republic.

Now put up or shut up.

Still your distortions. The ECHR did not find 'no violation' by the RoC in these cases. They found 'not admissible'. If they had found 'no violations' that would have exonerated the RoC of wrong doing in these cases. What they found was 'not admissible' meaning they have not even considered if the RoC has or has not violated the rights of the plaintiffs in these cases. As they have not considered if the cases involved violations against the plaintiffs or not, then obviously there is no judgment against the RoC saying they have violated the plaintiffs rights. To make out the ECHR RULED that the RoC committed 'no violations' in these cases, when in fact they made no judgment at all on this, is blatant shameless distortion of fact.

Shall I play your false logic game Bill ? If the ECHR found no violations by the RoC in these cases then show me where it says this in these judgments ? Come on Bill show me where it says 'no violation by the RoC'. You can not because no where in these judgments does it say there is no violation by the RoC, so does that mean there was a violation ?

So Bill stop pussy footing around and YOU put up. Admit that in the cases you cited the ECHR have NOT said they considered the case, came to a judgment and decided that the RoC had not violated the plaintiffs rights. Admit this and we can stop this right now. Continue to insist that the ECHR have said this, when plainly they have not and I will continue to denounce your distortions of fact for what they are.

I am sent to court accused of a crime. The court makes a judgment that it is not the correct court to hear the case and it should be heard in a lower court. I post (in 150 point bold type) 'the court made a judgment and found me not guilty', or if I am being slightly more sophisticated in my shameless effort to distort the truth I claim 'the court made a judgment and did not find me guilty'. When someone dares to suggest that claiming the court judged me to be not guilty is a distortion of the facts, I respond by saying - show me where it says it found me guilty, come on show me where, as if there were only two possible outcomes - guilty or not guilty and if you can not show one that says guilty it must mean not guilty.

This is EXACTLY what you have done here Bill. It is pathetic. It is shameless. It is distortion of the truth with intent.

@Pyrpolizer - are you STILL of the view that Bill simply made a 'minor unintentional mistake in expression' ?

[boulio]

If the tc think the have valid cases they should take the roc to court plain and simple.If not move on.

[erolz66]

If the tc think the have valid cases they should take the roc to court plain and simple.If not move on.

They have and they are. Here is one for you

http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pag ... =001-96984

Bill will probably tell us in this case the ECHR found 'no violation' by the RoC against the claimant.

[Pyrpolizer]

Although you are right in pointing out that inadmissible does not necessarily mean there has been no violation, you are also wrong in assuming that it has been a violation. Simply put, unless the court decides, you cannot assume that RoC is guilty of anything. And more simply put everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
And I certainly don’t consider Bill’s statement as a "blatant and shameless distortion of fact". A minor unintentional mistake in expression yes, but not anything like what you describe.

Really ? He posts in bold and 150 point text that in a case that the ECHR ruled as 'not admissible' that "The ECHR found No Violations against CY and declared the case Inadmisable." and you really believe their was no intent to create an impression that the ECHR had looked at these cases , considered their merits and having done so exonerate the RoC of violating these people rights with a ruling of 'no violation' , even though this is patently not the case ? You think it was just a minor unintentional mistake even when I point out the misleading nature of his claims, rather than saying 'oh yes you are right, the court did not explicitly rule the RoC had not violated these peoples rights and I did not mean to imply that was the cases he actually tries to defend his assertion as not misleading with spurious false logic and you still chose to believe it was 'just an unintentional mistake' ? Can you really say in all honesty if a TC here had done the same thing as Bill here in regard to the claims of GC against Turkey that now have to exhaust the domestic remedy of the IPC before they can be admissible in the ECHR, in the way he did it (150 point bold text) and then subsequently defended such in the way Bill has done here, you would also consider that to have just been an unintentional mistake in expression and not done with an intent to create a false impression that the ECHR had decided that Turkey had committed no violations in these cases ? Really ?
1

No I cannot accept that because there is absolutely no way to know if there is double dipping or not.

Presumably if you really believe that then you also believe there is no way to know if there is double dipping or not if a TC first resides in the RoC for six months ?
2

The fact is the latest huge scandal concerns a TC property in Dromoloxia, where the guy got millions, and finally proved he was double dipping. Yet the scandal did not concentrate on him but on other issues, be it commissions bribery to party officials government employees, police members etc. As far as I know the TC was not even called on court, because presumably the police investigation was for other issues of the crime.

Can you see the contradiction in claiming 'there is absolutely no way to know if there is double dipping or not' and the claim 'it was finally proven he was double dipping' ? I do not know of this case but would like to know more about it. Are you saying it has been proven that a TC who sought return of their land in the RoC , got that from the RoC and it has now been proven that he also got exchange land in the North against that same land returned to him by the RoC ? Like I say I would really like to know more aboputr this case. If all you say is true then it seems to me that it is entirely possible to prove double dipping ?

3

Interesting point. However….RoC has to abide by laws. Double dipping (and punishments thereof) cannot pass ANY law without first having the RoC accepting as LEGAL act what the administration in the occupied did. And this is just for starters. I could go on endlessly….there are a million legal issues in this approach.

The RoC law already deals with this. Law 139/1991 as ammended 7 May 2010 (my emphasis)

4

“Provided that in the exercise of his above authority to administer Turkish-Cypriot properties during the abnormal situation the Minister also has the power as custodian, to lift by duly reasoned decision and under terms which are in his judgment appropriate the custodianship concerning particular Turkish-Cypriot property or part of it, after taking into account in connection with the administration the situation and circumstances of each case and weighing all factors relevant to this matter, including whether the Turkish-Cypriot owner of the property or his heirs or successors in title, as the case may be, occupy property belonging to a Greek-Cypriot in the areas not under the Republic’s control

5
As part of the process for a TC top reclaim his land in the South the RoC asks, do you occupy or have you occupied in the past land belonging to a Greek Cypriot in the areas not under the RoC's control and if the TC answer 'no' and is lying they are committing fraud. No legal issues there ?

1--> You are simply over reacting. And yes I would defend a Kibrisli if he is right ,just recently I defended Viewpoint Vs Maximus. Maximus participates in this topic and he can confirm that to you.
2-->Yes.
3-->No I don't see any contradiction. The law for the 6 months does not take into account if there is double dipping or not. And i suspect this is the reason the TC in question was never charged. The case concerns an Investment done on behalf of the the pension fund of the employees of CYTA (Cyprus Telecommunications Authority) on a TC land in the village of Dromoloxia-Larnaca. From what I remember 2 police officers were charged because (presumably were bribed not by the TC himself but by the GC contractor) of filling false report that the TC was actually living in the free areas whereas he was not. It was also found the TC was double dipping but they were not charged for hiding this part. Do your search in English CY papers, and if you can't find anything i will gladly help.
4--> Law 139/1991 as ammended 7 May 2010 is NOT a law that gives authority to courts to judge cases. It is a law that gives the Minister some kind of "judge" powers. As you can see one of his criteria would be information from CID on whether the TC in question is double dipping or not. Therefore your original suggestion that I found interesting was in fact a good suggestion, the only difference been that it cannot be turned into an official law for use by courts. Notice also the Minister has no obligation to account to anyone for his decision. Also these special powers assigned to the Minister assume that the Minister would have to deal with a few cases per year not 10s or 100s or 1000s.

5-->The question is how could the Republic prove it??? There is only one way:Accepting the pseudo state papers as truely legal papers that can stand up in courts!!The only good part of this suggestion could be of serving as simple "fear" factor. However at the same time verybody could chose to tell lies knowing that nothing could happen to him legally, and eventually have the Republic ridiculed.

[Pyrpolizer]

If the tc think the have valid cases they should take the roc to court plain and simple.If not move on.

They have and they are. Here is one for you

http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pag ... =001-96984

Bill will probably tell us in this case the ECHR found 'no violation' by the RoC against the claimant.

The original claim was to get back their properties vacant and clean by 15 July 2003. There was absolutely no claim for damages concerning any violation of any human rights.
The Republic never disputed the owners rights, and finally came to a friendly agreement with them to settle the matter.
I don't see how this case make the Republic guilty of anything.

If this case is just to demonstrate that the TCs do have rights over their properties in the free areas then fine. Is there anyone who questions that?
The only thing that is constantly question are the rights of the GCs regarding their properties in the pseudo state their massive sale to carpetbaggers the actual stealing organized by Turkey and the TC leadership that accounts for 5 times as many properties compared to the TC properties.
.

[Lordo]

say that again, i did not get that. what you are saying is tcs have their rights over their properties in the south right.
either you are def, blind, dumb, thick, idiotic, retarded, from planet uranus, a plant or some being as yet undiscovered.