Cyprus-Forum.com

[Pyrpolizer]

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.

No they do not have any rights in the south of Denktash, or the south of Turkey. They have rights in the Republic of Cyprus, anywhere.
Does anyone have any rights in the south of your ass lordo?

[B25]

Does anyone have any rights in the south of your ass lordo?

Yes, VP does

[erolz66]

--> 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.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree but I remain amazed that you can continue to believe that Bill simply made a "minor unintentional mistake in expression" given his replies and there is no intent on his part to create a misleading impression that in the cases he cites the ECHR made a judgment as to if the RoC was violating the plaintiffs rights or not and decided they were not - which is just untrue.

-->No I don't see any contradiction.

You say there is absolutely no way to know if there is double dipping or not and then you cite a case where you claim it was proven that double dipping happened and you see no contradiction ?

Do your search in English CY papers, and if you can't find anything i will gladly help.

Any help on how / where / by whom it was proven the TC had 'double dipped' would be most welcome.

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.

The law could easily read that a court or a special tribunal make the decision as to whether to lift the Guardianship on a given case should be lifted or not. If a TC goes to the minister , or court or tribunal and he feels their decision is in violation of his rights then he can go to the ECHR.

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.

No the RoC does not have to accept the legitimacy of the TRNC papers to be able to use them as evidence that the claimant lied about not having occupied GC property in the North, they just have to accept the existence of them.

I am sorry but all I see are 'excuses' as to why the RoC has to violate the rights of TC re their property in the South not reasons.

[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.

No they do not have any rights in the south of Denktash, or the south of Turkey. They have rights in the Republic of Cyprus, anywhere.
Does anyone have any rights in the south of your ass lordo?

pyrobulluimu you must descend from uranus, it makes your brain go mush.

[Pyrpolizer]

I am sorry but all I see are 'excuses' as to why the RoC has to violate the rights of TC re their property in the South not reasons.

First of all by calling the Republic of Cyprus 'south" puts you on the same side with those criminals in the occupied who profit on other people's loss. You could be charged for treason at any time.Those Tcs who think they are so clever to disrespect the Republic and abide by the laws of an entity that lives from stealth are guilty of the crime of treason against the Republic, and they should first pay for their crimes before claiming their rights on their properties.

Obviously Lordo was one f those "clever" guys and he learned his lesson. You just joined the queue

[erolz66]

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.

The case against the RoC taken to the ECHR was

"The applicant complained that she was denied access to and enjoyment of her immovable property in Cyprus, which disclosed a continuing violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions), a continuing violation of Article 8 (right to respect for home) in that one of the properties had been their home, a violation of Article 14 (prohibition against discrimination in enjoyment of Convention rights) in that she had been discriminated against as a Turkish Cypriot and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy for Convention complaints)."

one DAY before the ECHR was to rule on if the RoC have been violation of her rights under those articles the RoC came to a 'friendly settlement' - basically admitting that they HAD been violating her rights and awarding her 1/2 a million euors as compensation for those historic violations of her rights (as well as stopping on going violations by giving her vacant possession of her property).

I, Mr Petros Clerides, declare that the Government of Cyprus express their sincere regret for the inconvenience suffered to Mrs Nezire Ahmet Adnan Sofi (hereinafter “the applicant”) due to the fact that she was deprived of the use and control of her property for the period of time to which her complaint relates.

The RoC ADMITS that it is a FACT that she was deprived of the use and control of her property for the period of time to which her complaint relates. The monetary damages are compensation for the violation of her rights, if there had been no violation then there would be no need to compensate for having violated them

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?

What this case shows is that the RoC DID violate this persons rights to their property. It shows that they only way the plaintiffs were able to force the RoC to stop doing so and to compensate them for said violations was to bring the case to the ECHR. That the RoC itself, one day before the ECHR was due to rule, decided to admit itself that it had been violating her rights and come to a 'friendly settlement' just shows how cynical their behaviour is in cases like these. The ONLY reason they settled in this case is that they KNEW if they did not then the ECHR would rule the following day that they had violated this persons rights and then the ECHR would be in control not just of the amount of damages awarded but much more importantly the ECHR would also decide what parts of law 1991 had to be amended so that future violations were prevented.

The RoC also knew that by settling this case and making changes to the law as a result of it , it could then argue in the ECHR that the many similar cases pending against it at the ECHR had not exhausted local remedies because of this law change, and all those pending cases (including the ones Bill cited btw) would have to go back to the RoC before thbey could be heard in the ECHR.

[Sotos]

I am sorry but all I see are 'excuses' as to why the RoC has to violate the rights of TC re their property in the South not reasons.

The reason is that you illegally occupy what belongs to the Republic of Cyprus and you support illegal acts in several different ways. Remember, in a country you don't only have rights but you also have liabilities. If you want the law applied to the letter for you as it is applied to all other Cypriots citizens then you would also have to spend several years in jail for your unlawful acts.

[erolz66]

I am sorry but all I see are 'excuses' as to why the RoC has to violate the rights of TC re their property in the South not reasons.

First of all by calling the Republic of Cyprus 'south" puts you on the same side with those criminals in the occupied who profit on other people's loss. You could be charged for treason at any time.Those Tcs who think they are so clever to disrespect the Republic and abide by the laws of an entity that lives from stealth are guilty of the crime of treason against the Republic, and they should first pay for their crimes before claiming their rights on their properties.

OK I am clearly wasting my time here.

If you want to believe that Bill had no intent to create an untrue impression re the cases he cited, so be it.

If you want to believe that the RoC has not violated the rights of TC re their property in the south, so be it.

If you want to believe that I have committing treason for saying 'south' in reference to where TC properties are, so be it.

It would seem that facts and evidence are of little importance to you, as so many others here, in the face of what you simply WANT to believe.

[erolz66]

The reason is that you illegally occupy what belongs to the Republic of Cyprus and you support illegal acts in several different ways. Remember, in a country you don't only have rights but you also have liabilities. If you want the law applied to the letter for you as it is applied to all other Cypriots citizens then you would also have to spend several years in jail for your unlawful acts.

You may believe that the very existence of the TRNC means the RoC can violate the rights of TC with regards top their properties in the south but the RoC itself knows it can not get away with such behaviour indefinitely in the face of ECHR ultimate jurisdiction. It knows it can delay, prevaricate and seek to make it as hard and as long as possible before it has to stop violating these TC rights and compensate them for such violations and that is exactly what it has and continues to do to this day, but it KNOWS that the argument you put above would never stand up to the scrutiny of an independent court like the ECHR.

[Pyrpolizer]

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.

The case against the RoC taken to the ECHR was

"The applicant complained that she was denied access to and enjoyment of her immovable property in Cyprus, which disclosed a continuing violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions), a continuing violation of Article 8 (right to respect for home) in that one of the properties had been their home, a violation of Article 14 (prohibition against discrimination in enjoyment of Convention rights) in that she had been discriminated against as a Turkish Cypriot and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy for Convention complaints)."

one DAY before the ECHR was to rule on if the RoC have been violation of her rights under those articles the RoC came to a 'friendly settlement' - basically admitting that they HAD been violating her rights and awarding her 1/2 a million euors as compensation for those historic violations of her rights (as well as stopping on going violations by giving her vacant possession of her property).

I, Mr Petros Clerides, declare that the Government of Cyprus express their sincere regret for the inconvenience suffered to Mrs Nezire Ahmet Adnan Sofi (hereinafter “the applicant”) due to the fact that she was deprived of the use and control of her property for the period of time to which her complaint relates.

The RoC ADMITS that it is a FACT that she was deprived of the use and control of her property for the period of time to which her complaint relates. The monetary damages are compensation for the violation of her rights, if there had been no violation then there would be no need to compensate for having violated them

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?

What this case shows is that the RoC DID violate this persons rights to their property. It shows that they only way the plaintiffs were able to force the RoC to stop doing so and to compensate them for said violations was to bring the case to the ECHR. That the RoC itself, one day before the ECHR was due to rule, decided to admit itself that it had been violating her rights and come to a 'friendly settlement' just shows how cynical their behaviour is in cases like these. The ONLY reason they settled in this case is that they KNEW if they did not then the ECHR would rule the following day that they had violated this persons rights and then the ECHR would be in control not just of the amount of damages awarded but much more importantly the ECHR would also decide what parts of law 1991 had to be amended so that future violations were prevented.

The RoC also knew that by settling this case and making changes to the law as a result of it , it could then argue in the ECHR that the many similar cases pending against it at the ECHR had not exhausted local remedies because of this law change, and all those pending cases (including the ones Bill cited btw) would have to go back to the RoC before thbey could be heard in the ECHR.

The Republic never disputed their rights, in fact it offered them an alternative solution right from the start. However it had both legal and moral obligation to protect the rights of refugees living in that property. The Republic under normal circumstances could of have cleared their property and return it to them with absolutely no consequences.
If you think is that easy to satisfy the rights of one citizen while at the same time you allow for the violation of another then you must not be serious.
The Republic did everything it could, and it knew that satisfying both parties would cost her. They were always prepared to pay the costs and I really doubt it would cost them less had the applicants accepted an alternative solution right from the start. The apologies of the attorney General to the applicants should be viewed in this way and not in the way that that the Republic acted in a discriminatory manner for the sole purpose of depriving them their rights.

Furthermore if you think that by settling the matter just one day before the ECHR would take over the case was such a tricky move to avoid any precedent, then is like telling us that your own side are the most stupid people on earth by accepting the deal and closing the case.
Do I once again spot your initial insinuation that my Community are the most evil and cunning distorters of everything and the cause of all your Community's misfortunes due to the expert ability of manipulating everything?
Damn it just look at them they just managed to get away one day before, damn,it damn it...