Cyprus-Forum.com

[Pyrpolizer]

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.

Yeah just push the Republic to the limit and make her declare all of you living in the occupied profiting from stolen properties guilty of treason AS IT HAS ALREADY BEEN SUGGESTED in the Parliament and see what happens.
If you are totally unable to understand that you do not only have rights, you also have obligations to this State, and other people here have rights as well which you so blatantly and collectively violate, then just do as you wish and watch to see what happens.

[Sotos]

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.

You are very wrong. The courts of the Republic of Cyprus have every right to convict anybody in Cyprus for unlawful acts and the ECHR would never oppose this. The state doesn't do this with TCs because of the peace process. But look at the Orams case and you will see that living in the occupied part of Cyprus does not give you the right to act illegally. A TC that has land in the south part of Cyprus is very likely that he is also trespassing on the land of a Greek Cypriot, which is a crime.

[CopperLine]

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' ?

There's a very simple explanation as to why the ECHR did not find against GCs and TCs as individuals and why it did not find against RoC.
(i) The case was Cyprus v Turkey, regarding a large number of Article violations by the Turkish state (and its local administration, the TRNC). It was not about violations by or against individuals.
(ii) Insofar as the case was Cyprus v Turkey before the ECourtHR then RoC is hardly going (and is not allowed anyway) to take action against itself ! There's no doubt that TCs have also had theire human rights violated by during and as a consequence of the Turkish invasion, including the setting up of the TRNC, and/or from the actions of the RoC. The answer is for TCs to take cases against TRNC, Turkey and RoC as relevant. So far they haven't done so. That's not the fault of GCs or RoC.

In any case erolz you've completely misunderstood the issue of admissability.

[Pyrpolizer]

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' ?

There's a very simple explanation as to why the ECHR did not find against GCs and TCs as individuals and why it did not find against RoC.
(i) The case was Cyprus v Turkey, regarding a large number of Article violations by the Turkish state (and its local administration, the TRNC). It was not about violations by or against individuals.
(ii) Insofar as the case was Cyprus v Turkey before the ECourtHR then RoC is hardly going (and is not allowed anyway) to take action against itself ! There's no doubt that TCs have also had theire human rights violated by during and as a consequence of the Turkish invasion, including the setting up of the TRNC, and/or from the actions of the RoC. The answer is for TCs to take cases against TRNC, Turkey and RoC as relevant. So far they haven't done so. That's not the fault of GCs or RoC.

In any case erolz you've completely misunderstood the issue of admissability.

At last a voice of reason.

[CopperLine]

A ruling of 'no violation' from the ECHR means they have considered the merits of the case, considered it admissible and made a decision that there was not a violation by the RoC.

A ruling of 'not admissible' means the court has not made any judgment on the case at all beyond that currently it is not admissible for them to make a judgment on.

That you seek to present the second of these scenarios as the same as the first just shows you wilful intent to distort. The first example 'vindicates' the RoC of wrong doing, the second means the court has not (yet) made a judgment at all on if the RoC has violated the ECHR charter.

This is the rough sequence of ECHR cases

Exhaustion of local remedy --> Application --> Listing/Allocation --> Admissability --> Merits --> Judgment --> Just satisfaction

Sometimes consideration of admissability might be undertaken at the same time as merits. The Court rules and procedure allows for example, for rejection of admissability at different moments. For example, effectively applications are assessed by the Registry after application during the process of listing, and the Registrar basically concludes that the application is procedurally or substantively problematic. Most applications to ECHR have failed to get past this stage. A very small minority get as far as judgment. Of course a single application might have several points of law being contested so you might list a case on 5 issues but not on two others. Equally there may be issues of admissability which only come to light at the merit stage or whilst considering merits, so again one case in which two items a ruled inadmissable whilst one continues forward. The further to the right of the above sequence the severly less likely is it that a case (or part of case) would be ruled inadmissable (not least because for a case to get that far without the Court having noticed some basic error or omission in law is no good reflection on the reliability of the Court).

[CopperLine]

I wrote this earlier.

The answer is for TCs to take cases against TRNC, Turkey and RoC as relevant. So far they haven't done so. That's not the fault of GCs or RoC.

This is not strictly accurate. I should have written "So far they've hardly done so against RoC. And still have not done so against TRNC/Turkey."

[erolz66]

There's a very simple explanation as to why the ECHR did not find against GCs and TCs as individuals and why it did not find against RoC.
(i) The case was Cyprus v Turkey, regarding a large number of Article violations by the Turkish state (and its local administration, the TRNC). It was not about violations by or against individuals.
(ii) Insofar as the case was Cyprus v Turkey before the ECourtHR then RoC is hardly going (and is not allowed anyway) to take action against itself ! There's no doubt that TCs have also had theire human rights violated by during and as a consequence of the Turkish invasion, including the setting up of the TRNC, and/or from the actions of the RoC. The answer is for TCs to take cases against TRNC, Turkey and RoC as relevant. So far they haven't done so. That's not the fault of GCs or RoC.

In any case erolz you've completely misunderstood the issue of admissability.

Copperline go back and read Bill's post (number 6 on page 10 of this thread). He sites this case ECHR in 2008. Case No 49247/08 (Not the case of Cyprus vs turkey) which can be seen here

http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pag ... 001-109812

He cites this case and then in bold 150 point text he says "The ECHR found No Violations against CY and declared the case Inadmisable."

My assertion is that this claim above is an attempt to misrepresent the truth (with intent). That he seeks to create an impression that in THIS case the ECHR look at the evidence of alleged violation by the RoC of TC rights re property and decided they the RoC had committed 'no violations', which is just not true in THIS case.

So with all due respect I suggest it is you who is misunderstanding here. I am NOT talking about the case of Cyprus vs Turkey, that recently was ruled on re 'just satisfaction. I am talking about the case that Bill C referred to and how he has sought to distort the truth (that the ECHT made no judgement as to if the ECHR had violated peoples rights or not in this case, because of inadmissibility) and present it as if they had made such a judgment and found the RoC 'not guilty' of violations.

[erolz66]

At last a voice of reason.

Copperline mistakenly thinks I am talking about the case of Cyprus vs Turkey , when in fact I am talking about the case Bill referred too (ECHR in 2008. Case No 49247/08) and you see this as a 'voice of reason' ?

[erolz66]

This is the rough sequence of ECHR cases

Exhaustion of local remedy --> Application --> Listing/Allocation --> Admissability --> Merits --> Judgment --> Just satisfaction

Copperline can we start by both talking about the same case. The case I am talking about is the one Bill C referred to originally (post 6 page 10 on this thread) which can bee seen here

http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pag ... 001-109812

In this case (actually a joining of several cases) there was application - listing - admissibility at which point it was deemed to be 'not admissible' because 'local remedies' that were not in place when the claim was lodged have now come into force and the court has decided these need to be exhausted first , where as the plaintiffs argued that they had exhausted all local remedies available when they made the application to the ECHR

Bill presented this result as being ""The ECHR found No Violations against CY and declared the case Inadmisable." and I contend he does so with the intent of trying to create an impression that the ECHR looked at the merits of the claim and having done so decided that RoC had not violated these peoples rights - which is simply not true.

These plaintiffs can (and indeed some are) now returning to the RoC local remedies. If the amended local remedies provide them with results they are happy with then the cases end. If these amended (from when they originally filed their cases at ECHR) local remedies still in their opinion violate their rights they can (and almost certainly will) start the process of going to the ECHR all over again.

[erolz66]

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.

(for benefit of copperline this discussion refers to this case at ECHR http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pag ... =001-96984 )

The claimants asked for their property back from the RoC on 23 April 2003. On 25 July 2003 the RoC offered to "undertake the necessary arrangements to provide the applicant with another residence". The claimant did not accept this offer. On 6 April 2004 the RoC informed here they were 'examining her case'. On 21 April 2004 the claimant lodge an application with the ECHR against the RoC.

On the On 8 January 2010, one day before the ECHR was due to make a ruling on the case the RoC admitted as fact "that she was deprived of the use and control of her property (by RoC) for the period of time to which her complaint relates." what is more they awarded her damages of just short of 1/2 a million euros as compensation for her being denied her property by the RoC from 23rd Aril 2003.

These are the facts of the case. It is a fact that the RoC infringed her rights with regard to use of this property. It is a fact they admitted this and awarded her substantial damages for having denied her her rights in this period. It is a fact they did this one day before the ECHR was due to rule on the case and seven years after she formally request the return and free use of her property from the RoC.

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...

I think 'my side' HAS behaved in essence no different in spirit to how the RoC has behaved in this case, namely to seek to delay and prevaricate and avoid for as long as possible be forced to change as a result of the ECHR cases. The exact details of how they have done this are different as the situations are different but the intent and purpose of both is identical.