Cyprus-Forum.com

[erolz66]

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.

Yes I accept the word use was found.

Do you accept that in the case Kazali and others v CY at the ECHR in 2008. Case No 49247/08 the court did NOT exonerate the RoC of violating the plaintiffs rights re property ?

Do you accept that posting "The ECHR found No Violations against CY and declared the case Inadmisable." creates an impression that the court DID exonerate the RoC of violating the plaintiffs rights re property ?

Weasel.

[erolz66]

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.

If you have TC relatives with property in the South who were living in the UK in 74 you can request that the RoC give you vacant access and free use of said property. If they do not then you can sue them for denial to it from that period. What you could also request is that they remit to you all sums collected from the use of that property by the 'Guardian' , minus any costs spent by such on its maintenance. This second part has not been tested by recourse to the ECHR yet. The law as It stands currently only allows for these sums to be paid to you after a settlement but it is quite possible that the ECHR would view such a condition as a violation of your rights of ownership.

[Kikapu]

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.

If you have TC relatives with property in the South who were living in the UK in 74 you can request that the RoC give you vacant access and free use of said property. If they do not then you can sue them for denial to it from that period. What you could also request is that they remit to you all sums collected from the use of that property by the 'Guardian' , minus any costs spent by such on its maintenance. This second part has not been tested by recourse to the ECHR yet. The law as It stands currently only allows for these sums to be paid to you after a settlement but it is quite possible that the ECHR would view such a condition as a violation of your rights of ownership.

Erol, what happens when a TC property in the south was divided 3,4,5 ways by the same TC family in the "trnc" and were issued points against it and those family members who were living in Cyprus before and after 74 have gotten GC properties for their points in the "trnc", but if a member of that same family who were also given points for their share of said TC property in the south but were living in the UK before and since 74, how can the ECHR help that family member living in the UK for their share of the family property in the south when the rest of the property was "exchanged" for a GC ones by the rest of the family members? I'm sure this is the case for VP's family member(s) in the UK as the case is in my family also. Some family members took GC properties with their points against the family TC properies in the south and others were also given points but never took any GCs properties against it. Unless the TC property in the south remained 100% "intact" and that no TC family members have gotten any GC properties against it or that they were also NOT living in Cyprus before 74, not sure the ECHR can do much to help any TC family member who has not received any GC properties even if they were living in the UK before 74 but the said TC property was divided by the same family members, points were issued against it, and some from the same family have gotten GC properties against it?

[erolz66]

Erol, what happens when a TC property in the south was divided 3,4,5 ways by the same TC family in the "trnc" and were issued points against it and those family members who were living in Cyprus before and after 74 have gotten GC properties for their points in the "trnc", but if a member of that same family who were also given points for their share of said TC property in the south but were living in the UK before and since 74, how can the ECHR help that family member living in the UK for their share of the family property in the south when the rest of the property was "exchanged" for a GC ones by the rest of the family members? I'm sure this is the case for VP's family member(s) in the UK as the case is in my family also. Some family members took GC properties with their points against the family TC properies in the south and others were also given points but never took any GCs properties against it. Unless the TC property in the south remained 100% "intact" and that no TC family members have gotten any GC properties against it or that they were also NOT living in Cyprus before 74, not sure the ECHR can do much to help any TC family member who has not received any GC properties even if they were living in the UK before 74 but the said TC property was divided by the same family members, points were issued against it, and some from the same family have gotten GC properties against it?

Firstly I am no expert on these matters and you should never take advise on such important things from forums. Having said that it is a complicated scenario. It may well be that the proposed changes to the IPC to allow TC to make claims there for loss of use of their property in south is your best hope. They will be able to take into consideration TRNC 'points' allocated against such property and if these were used or not.

[erolz66]

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.

Yes I accept the word use was found.

Do you accept that in the case Kazali and others v CY at the ECHR in 2008. Case No 49247/08 the court did NOT exonerate the RoC of violating the plaintiffs rights re property ?

Do you accept that posting "The ECHR found No Violations against CY and declared the case Inadmisable." creates an impression that the court DID exonerate the RoC of violating the plaintiffs rights re property ?

Weasel.

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

If there was no attempt to distort then why did you CHOOSE to use the phrase "The ECHR found No Violations against CY" when NO WHERE in the judgement does it say the RoC did not violate the rights of the claimants with regards to their property and the only basis for such is an absence of them saying there were violations ? Why not just say what they did 'Case inadmissable' ?

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.

You claim all you want to do and highlight was that cases by TC had gone before the ECHR. So why not just highlight the case ? Why post the case name and number in normal text and then highlight in huge and bold your misleading text about the result of the case ?

Weasel.

[Pyrpolizer]

This is getting ridiculous.
CL answered your question Erolz, I answered your question, Bill C answered your question, so what's left now to answer you why he used bold letters?
Case inadmissible. As simple as that. If and when it becomes admissible, if and when it ever gets judged we talk again.

[Sotos]

When it comes to courts like ECHR there is the principle of the "presumption of innocence" ... or as they say "innocent until proven guilty". So it is correct to say that in those cases the RoC has done nothing wrong until proven otherwise. In this thread you are arguing over usage of words when what is important is that you are the CRIMINALS and all these problems are a result of your illegal occupation of north Cyprus. If you did not STEAL our properties then there would be no need for the RoC to create the Guardian for the TC properties... and before you start your usual stupid excuses... not this, neither any other human right of anybody would be violated even if Cyprus was united with Greece. All such humans rights violations are a result of your partition actions of ethnic cleansing and stealing of properties.

[erolz66]

Case inadmissible. As simple as that.

Exactly which is why a description that the ECHR in this case found "No Violations against CY and declared the case Inadmisable" when no where in the case does it say the RoC did not commit violations is such a pejorative , misleading and distorted description. You might just as well claim in this case the ECHR found no evidence of life on Mars as well.

What is ridiculous, imo, is that Bill can have presented such a clearly misleading description of the result of this case and you and maximus and sotos and Bill himself rather than just admit the description is misleading seek to deny it is and claim its not on the basis of 'innocent until proven guilty' and other such excuses. I admit you did come close, briefly, with your "Although you are right in pointing out that inadmissible does not necessarily mean there has been no violation" yet even now you seem unable to just admit the description is misleading. You want to argue about intent , fine but to try and make out it is not misleading, that is ridiculous.

You may think this whole thing (Bills' misrepresentation, and others defence of it as not a misrepresentation) is a non issue. I think it is indicative of a problem that is systemic to the Cyprob in general and to discussions here as well. Both sides official propaganda does exactly the same thing, take something that is fact, misrepresent it in a misleading manner and then individuals from each respective side seek to defend such distortions based not on evidence but simply because it is 'their sides' distortion. If there is ever to be any hope for a better future then we have to stop doing this, though given how its gone here on something so plain and black and white where the source evidence is undisputable, I can not say there is much hope.

[Pyrpolizer]

We ve heard you my friend. How many times are you going to repeat the same thing?

[erolz66]

.... not this, neither any other human right of anybody would be violated even if Cyprus was united with Greece. All such humans rights violations are a result of your partition actions of ethnic cleansing and stealing of properties.

Even ignoring the absurd notion that TC being forced against their will to agree that their homeland becomes a part of what is to them a foreign nation is not a violation of their right to self determination, from which all other rights derive.. Even ignoring this, you claim under enosis there would have been no violations of TC rights ? Have you seen the cases in the ECHR against Greece in relation to the violations of the rights of 'Greek Muslims' ? If you had succeeded in the imposition of enosis on us in our own homeland through the use of illegal violence against us, then there can be no doubt, in light of these cases against Greece, that the TC community would have suffered similar violations to their rights.

http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pag ... =001-58518

http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng-pre ... 05-3063795

Shall I go on ?