Cyprus-Forum.com

[CopperLine]

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.

Fair enough erolz. I hope that I can be forgiven for thinking, without reviewing 14 pages of posts and 4, 5 or 6 comments per page, that in a thread on "ECHR's decision of Monday" the discussion was most likely on the subject of the ECHR's decision on Monday ?
Just as you might forgive me for that and not assume it was a wilful misunderstanding on my part, and with a view to the agreed importance of evidence, perhaps you could explain why you interpret BillC's commentary on your posts as deliberate distortion of the truth. How do you know it is deliberate ? How do you know what his or any of our intentions are ? Why are you so sure it is not a simple mistake or misunderstanding ?

The trouble with the Cyprus problem is that so many people or so fucking sure about what the other's intentions are supposed to be. Never a thought that actually there could be good reasons for misunderstandings, mistakes or unjustified caution or fear. Instead we jump to unwarranted but uncompromising conclusions. Unless that attitude changes, nothing else will change.

[Lordo]

copperline if you knew the charlui you would no his intentions. i suspect you dont know him that well.

[CopperLine]

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.

Thanks erolz. This looks like a good example of the ECHR working (albeit always slowly), and in this case to the benefit of TCs. I didn't know about this decision. I hope many more TCs pursue such actions.

[Pyrpolizer]

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' ?

Come on Erolz, not everything and everyone revolves around you in this forum.
Yes I liked that specific part from copperline's post, I made absolutely no remarks on his comments concerning yourself, and called him voice of reason because his argument was solid and logical.

NB. By the way I ALWAYS highlight the parts from ones quote that i refer to.

[erolz66]

Fair enough erolz. I hope that I can be forgiven for thinking, without reviewing 14 pages of posts and 4, 5 or 6 comments per page, that in a thread on "ECHR's decision of Monday" the discussion was most likely on the subject of the ECHR's decision on Monday ?

Absolutely.

Just as you might forgive me for that and not assume it was a wilful misunderstanding on my part,

I in no way think you misunderstanding was 'willful'. It was as you point out entirely 'natural' mistake to make and I welcome your calm response to me pointing it out, something that seem to be rare here in general.

and with a view to the agreed importance of evidence, perhaps you could explain why you interpret BillC's commentary on your posts as deliberate distortion of the truth. How do you know it is deliberate ? How do you know what his or any of our intentions are ? Why are you so sure it is not a simple mistake or misunderstanding ?

I do not know it was done with an intent to create a false impression as absolute fact. It is a judgment call on my part based on my perception of Bills posting in the past, how he 'formatted' the original post and most of all how he has responded to date to my pointing out his distortion of fact. If it was a simple misunderstanding it should have started and ended as quickly as ours above did. That it has not makes me of the opinion that it was his intent to created a distorted impression of the truth in the first place and he intends to keep trying to defend that distortion and deny it is a distortion. Really if you can find the time please do read back from his post my initial reply and how it went forward from there. I would be very interested in your opinion on if you think he is doing this with intent ?

The trouble with the Cyprus problem is that so many people or so fucking sure about what the other's intentions are supposed to be. Never a thought that actually there could be good reasons for misunderstandings, mistakes or unjustified caution or fear. Instead we jump to unwarranted but uncompromising conclusions. Unless that attitude changes, nothing else will change.

If there had been even the slightest suggestion from Bill that he understood that a ruling of 'no violation' was not the same thing as one of 'not admissable' , then I would be more than willing to countenance that this was down to 'misunderstanding'. That he has not makes it hard for me to believe anything other than an intent to distort in this case.

[erolz66]

and called him voice of reason because his argument was solid and logical.

Certainly on the part you highlighted alone "The answer is for TCs to take cases against TRNC, Turkey and RoC as relevant" that is solid and logical and it is what is happening already. It is just it was not particularly germaine to the discussion re the cases Bill cited or the one I cited which were both cases of TC doing that very thing that he suggests.

For the record I think copperline is a 'voice of reason' on these forums in general terms and we could use more like him.

[erolz66]

Thanks erolz. This looks like a good example of the ECHR working (albeit always slowly), and in this case to the benefit of TCs. I didn't know about this decision. I hope many more TCs pursue such actions.

There are more pursuing such things. The case that Bill cited ( http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pag ... 001-109812 ) is an amalgamation of 9 such similar cases. These cases, as a result of the changes made to domestic law because of the Sofi vs RoC case now have to go back to the RoC domestic remedy (much like GC cases now have to go to the IPC before they can return to the ECHR). One can hope that they will get resolved fairly and justly there , but if they do not they will return to the ECHR again, at which point the RoC will again 'settle' days before a ruling by the ECHR and make further changes to the law as a result or the ECHR will make a ruling and either find no violation by the RoC or find a violation and mandate such changes to the law. This is exactly why Bill's assertion that the ECHR have already found 'no violation' by the RoC in these cases is such a distortion of the truth. They have not.

[Sotos]

Thanks erolz. This looks like a good example of the ECHR working (albeit always slowly), and in this case to the benefit of TCs. I didn't know about this decision. I hope many more TCs pursue such actions.

There are more pursuing such things. The case that Bill cited ( http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pag ... 001-109812 ) is an amalgamation of 9 such similar cases. These cases, as a result of the changes made to domestic law because of the Sofi vs RoC case now have to go back to the RoC domestic remedy (much like GC cases now have to go to the IPC before they can return to the ECHR). One can hope that they will get resolved fairly and justly there , but if they do not they will return to the ECHR again, at which point the RoC will again 'settle' days before a ruling by the ECHR and make further changes to the law as a result or the ECHR will make a ruling and either find no violation by the RoC or find a violation and mandate such changes to the law. This is exactly why Bill's assertion that the ECHR have already found 'no violation' by the RoC in these cases is such a distortion of the truth. They have not.

Wasn't Sofi living in the UK? That makes all the difference. If TCs who live in occupied Cyprus in the homes and properties of GCs try to do the same en mass then be sure that Cyprus will arrange it so that the Greek Cypriot property owners will sue those TCs in Cypriot courts. The TCs will end up with a net loss (compensation for their properties - money they have to pay for illegally using GC properties), and possibly a few years in jail. So bring it on

[bill cobbett]

Fair enough erolz. I hope that I can be forgiven for thinking, without reviewing 14 pages of posts and 4, 5 or 6 comments per page, that in a thread on "ECHR's decision of Monday" the discussion was most likely on the subject of the ECHR's decision on Monday ?

Absolutely.

Just as you might forgive me for that and not assume it was a wilful misunderstanding on my part,

I in no way think you misunderstanding was 'willful'. It was as you point out entirely 'natural' mistake to make and I welcome your calm response to me pointing it out, something that seem to be rare here in general.

and with a view to the agreed importance of evidence, perhaps you could explain why you interpret BillC's commentary on your posts as deliberate distortion of the truth. How do you know it is deliberate ? How do you know what his or any of our intentions are ? Why are you so sure it is not a simple mistake or misunderstanding ?

I do not know it was done with an intent to create a false impression as absolute fact. It is a judgment call on my part based on my perception of Bills posting in the past, how he 'formatted' the original post and most of all how he has responded to date to my pointing out his distortion of fact. If it was a simple misunderstanding it should have started and ended as quickly as ours above did. That it has not makes me of the opinion that it was his intent to created a distorted impression of the truth in the first place and he intends to keep trying to defend that distortion and deny it is a distortion. Really if you can find the time please do read back from his post my initial reply and how it went forward from there. I would be very interested in your opinion on if you think he is doing this with intent ?

The trouble with the Cyprus problem is that so many people or so fucking sure about what the other's intentions are supposed to be. Never a thought that actually there could be good reasons for misunderstandings, mistakes or unjustified caution or fear. Instead we jump to unwarranted but uncompromising conclusions. Unless that attitude changes, nothing else will change.

If there had been even the slightest suggestion from Bill that he understood that a ruling of 'no violation' was not the same thing as one of 'not admissable' , then I would be more than willing to countenance that this was down to 'misunderstanding'. That he has not makes it hard for me to believe anything other than an intent to distort in this case.

Erol me dear... BillC has not used the word.. "ruling"... !!! , yet you have posted 3,4 or 5 times that this word was used. Please accept that it wasn't used.

As a reminder, the word that was used was "found".

Thanks to CL for the flow-chart above and the sequence of steps in the ECHR process which is a terribly useful contribution... a more elaborate version appears at http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Case_ ... ng_ENG.pdf

To everyone else... there has been no deliberate attempt by BillC to distort, the bigness and boldness of the following statement...

" There was an attempt of this sort, albeit against CY, in the matter of Kazali and others v CY at the ECHR in 2008. Case No 49247/08

The ECHR found No Violations against CY and declared the case Inadmisable. ..." , was an interjection in a chat on Page 10 of this thread, between Maxi and VP, big and bold (as is BillC's style) to remind or alert them, to stress that cases against CY had been before the ECHR.

[Viewpoint]

So does that now mean all my relations in the UK can sue the "RoC" for denied property rights in the South? The Sofi case being a precedent.