Cyprus-Forum.com

[B25]

And you think that a miserly £155m is enough for the damage, murders and occupation of 37% of our country.

You could win more than that on the Euro lottery FFS.

So much for sanctions, mickey mouse BS.

Debate is not your strong point is it b25 ?

You said there were no consequences re ECHR rulings. Actually there are the ultimate being suspension or expulsion of the offending state from the CoE (and this has been used historically by the CoE in the example of Greece). You said Turkey will not pay up - yet it has paid up 155 million sterling to date as a result of a ECHR ruling against it and as and when more claims are made it will pay more. So basically both your assertions are factually incorrect, but lets not let facts get in the way of your race based hate posts shall we ? I mean they never have before so why change ?

More nonsense from the Turkish mouthpiece.

I must say i had a good laugh at this reply, expulsion from where, oh deary my such pain, the pain. I mean as if Turkey gives a F about supposedly being expelled. This is no consequence is it. It is hardly likely the hurt Turkey. As i said total nonsense.

Then you go on about the blackmail extortion that the GC face, Turkeys offers 1/5 of tye land value and not only that, the land is now in aturkish hands. Thats not redress that is extortion.

So where you claim facts, i claim criminal activity. Me thinks you need to revisit you motherland Turkey for better responses.

Plonker.

[Maximus]

Erolz,

whatever the amount Turkey is asked to pay, it will not buy her anything.

(if she pays)

[Get Real!]

So take a case where such a TC signed over that land to the TRNC in exchange for land in the North.

You can't be that naive...

A TC signs over? To the "TRNC"?

You live in your own little world...

[Jerry]

I have personal knowledge of the IPC. It says on its website, "As of 7 May 2014, 5866 applications have been lodged with the Commission and 510 of them have been concluded through friendly settlements and 12 through formal hearing. The Commission has paid GBP 155,294,881 to the applicants as compensation. Moreover, it has ruled for exchange and compensation in two cases, for restitution in one case and for restitution and compensation in five cases. In one case it has delivered a decision for restitution after the settlement of Cyprus Issue, and in one case it has ruled for partial restitution.
The Immovable Property Commission seeks to be a just, fast an effective remedy for property claims. In this way, the Commission purports to contribute to the comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus Issue."

Far from being "just, fast and fair" the IPC makes it difficult for non Turkish speaking individuals by only accepting applications in Turkish, a pathetic attempt to make the Greek Cypriot recognise the "trnc". Consequently one has to employ a lawyer in the north who takes 10% of the award plus expenses. Awarded compensation is paid into a bank account in the "trnc" not directly to the applicant. No compensation is paid for loss of movable property such as motor cars and furniture unless receipts (40+ years?) are submitted. Property prices south of the Green Line are double those in the occupied territory but compensation offered by the IPC does not reflect this.

Initially the ECHR refused to accept the IPC as a fair means of resolving property claims because it did not offer restitution to potential applicants. Having included restitution as a remedy the Court acknowledged the IPC as a vehicle for settling property claims although as can be seen from the above in practice it is only rarely offered. The ECHR must be aware of this but having rid itself of mounting claims from Greek Cypriots it has failed to act, perhaps tomorrow it will address the matter.

[CopperLine]

For what it's worth IMHO the Court is very, very unlikely to announced most of those things that people have listed as expectations in this thread. Of course I hope that I am wrong.

• There will not be a Court demand for restitution.
• There will be an implicit assumption of non-repetition and non-frustration by the respondent of the Court's decision.
• There will be no explicit remedy imposed by the Court.
• There will be some compensation (just satisfaction), potentially a very large amount.
• There will be the award of costs against the respondent.

The result will be that (a) Turkey will not restore, (b) Turkey will not remedy and (c) Turkey will not even compensate and not pay costs. (It is not the ECHR which pays compensation or has the means to restore or remedy. It is the obligation of the respondent state to do so).

I hope sincerely 100% that I prove to be 100% wrong.

[Flying Horse]

I have personal knowledge of the IPC. It says on its website, "As of 7 May 2014, 5866 applications have been lodged with the Commission and 510 of them have been concluded through friendly settlements and 12 through formal hearing. The Commission has paid GBP 155,294,881 to the applicants as compensation. Moreover, it has ruled for exchange and compensation in two cases, for restitution in one case and for restitution and compensation in five cases. In one case it has delivered a decision for restitution after the settlement of Cyprus Issue, and in one case it has ruled for partial restitution.
The Immovable Property Commission seeks to be a just, fast an effective remedy for property claims. In this way, the Commission purports to contribute to the comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus Issue."

Far from being "just, fast and fair" the IPC makes it difficult for non Turkish speaking individuals by only accepting applications in Turkish, a pathetic attempt to make the Greek Cypriot recognise the "trnc". Consequently one has to employ a lawyer in the north who takes 10% of the award plus expenses. Awarded compensation is paid into a bank account in the "trnc" not directly to the applicant. No compensation is paid for loss of movable property such as motor cars and furniture unless receipts (40+ years?) are submitted. Property prices south of the Green Line are double those in the occupied territory but compensation offered by the IPC does not reflect this.

Initially the ECHR refused to accept the IPC as a fair means of resolving property claims because it did not offer restitution to potential applicants. Having included restitution as a remedy the Court acknowledged the IPC as a vehicle for settling property claims although as can be seen from the above in practice it is only rarely offered. The ECHR must be aware of this but having rid itself of mounting claims from Greek Cypriots it has failed to act, perhaps tomorrow it will address the matter.

Funny, I was just looking at the IPC website, and apart from the Homepage being in English, every other headed section was in Turkish. Fat lot of good that is!
This was on my Sunday afternoon of googlefu and the six seperations of boredom.
On my travels I also watched (and fell asleep) the 2009 webcam of English speakers to the ECHR on the case of Demopoulos v. Turkey and seven other test cases declared inadmissible.

IMO, the IPC is not just and fair. Can any one tell a numpty, how on earth can people provide title deeds to their properties if they haven't lived in them or seen them for 40 yrs?
I also noted how the RoC continues to deal with TC properties in the South, a far cry from the TRNC.

[bill cobbett]

I have personal knowledge of the IPC. It says on its website, "As of 7 May 2014, 5866 applications have been lodged with the Commission and 510 of them have been concluded through friendly settlements and 12 through formal hearing. The Commission has paid GBP 155,294,881 to the applicants as compensation. Moreover, it has ruled for exchange and compensation in two cases, for restitution in one case and for restitution and compensation in five cases. In one case it has delivered a decision for restitution after the settlement of Cyprus Issue, and in one case it has ruled for partial restitution.
The Immovable Property Commission seeks to be a just, fast an effective remedy for property claims. In this way, the Commission purports to contribute to the comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus Issue."

Far from being "just, fast and fair" the IPC makes it difficult for non Turkish speaking individuals by only accepting applications in Turkish, a pathetic attempt to make the Greek Cypriot recognise the "trnc". Consequently one has to employ a lawyer in the north who takes 10% of the award plus expenses. Awarded compensation is paid into a bank account in the "trnc" not directly to the applicant. No compensation is paid for loss of movable property such as motor cars and furniture unless receipts (40+ years?) are submitted. Property prices south of the Green Line are double those in the occupied territory but compensation offered by the IPC does not reflect this.

Initially the ECHR refused to accept the IPC as a fair means of resolving property claims because it did not offer restitution to potential applicants. Having included restitution as a remedy the Court acknowledged the IPC as a vehicle for settling property claims although as can be seen from the above in practice it is only rarely offered. The ECHR must be aware of this but having rid itself of mounting claims from Greek Cypriots it has failed to act, perhaps tomorrow it will address the matter.

Funny, I was just looking at the IPC website, and apart from the Homepage being in English, every other headed section was in Turkish. Fat lot of good that is!
This was on my Sunday afternoon of googlefu and the six seperations of boredom.
On my travels I also watched (and fell asleep) the 2009 webcam of English speakers to the ECHR on the case of Demopoulos v. Turkey and seven other test cases declared inadmissible.

IMO, the IPC is not just and fair. Can any one tell a numpty, how on earth can people provide title deeds to their properties if they haven't lived in them or seen them for 40 yrs?
I also noted how the RoC continues to deal with TC properties in the South, a far cry from the TRNC.

On the matter of title deeds Miss Horse, after investigations, the Republic does issue certificates of ownership in lieu of the original deeds and the Land Registry will note any claims you may have on the cadastral plans for your village. Further info from your district's Land Registry office.

[Flying Horse]

I have personal knowledge of the IPC. It says on its website, "As of 7 May 2014, 5866 applications have been lodged with the Commission and 510 of them have been concluded through friendly settlements and 12 through formal hearing. The Commission has paid GBP 155,294,881 to the applicants as compensation. Moreover, it has ruled for exchange and compensation in two cases, for restitution in one case and for restitution and compensation in five cases. In one case it has delivered a decision for restitution after the settlement of Cyprus Issue, and in one case it has ruled for partial restitution.
The Immovable Property Commission seeks to be a just, fast an effective remedy for property claims. In this way, the Commission purports to contribute to the comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus Issue."

Far from being "just, fast and fair" the IPC makes it difficult for non Turkish speaking individuals by only accepting applications in Turkish, a pathetic attempt to make the Greek Cypriot recognise the "trnc". Consequently one has to employ a lawyer in the north who takes 10% of the award plus expenses. Awarded compensation is paid into a bank account in the "trnc" not directly to the applicant. No compensation is paid for loss of movable property such as motor cars and furniture unless receipts (40+ years?) are submitted. Property prices south of the Green Line are double those in the occupied territory but compensation offered by the IPC does not reflect this.

Initially the ECHR refused to accept the IPC as a fair means of resolving property claims because it did not offer restitution to potential applicants. Having included restitution as a remedy the Court acknowledged the IPC as a vehicle for settling property claims although as can be seen from the above in practice it is only rarely offered. The ECHR must be aware of this but having rid itself of mounting claims from Greek Cypriots it has failed to act, perhaps tomorrow it will address the matter.

Funny, I was just looking at the IPC website, and apart from the Homepage being in English, every other headed section was in Turkish. Fat lot of good that is!
This was on my Sunday afternoon of googlefu and the six seperations of boredom.
On my travels I also watched (and fell asleep) the 2009 webcam of English speakers to the ECHR on the case of Demopoulos v. Turkey and seven other test cases declared inadmissible.

IMO, the IPC is not just and fair. Can any one tell a numpty, how on earth can people provide title deeds to their properties if they haven't lived in them or seen them for 40 yrs?
I also noted how the RoC continues to deal with TC properties in the South, a far cry from the TRNC.

On the matter of title deeds Miss Horse, after investigations, the Republic does issue certificates of ownership in lieu of the original deeds and the Land Registry will note any claims you may have on the cadastral plans for your village. Further info from your district's Land Registry office.

It was more curiosity than anything. Going by the webcam 2 hr viewing into the handling of the above case, the TRNC/Turkey/ECHR ways of dealing with things made my mind boggle.
If the RoC can act in a fair manner, why is it so hard for the TRNC?
If the RoC considers people currently residing in TC property in the south, as mere custodians until the true owners wish to take it back, why can't the TRNC?
If the RoC and its tax payers pay for the upkeep of the above properties as a landlord, why can't the TRNC?

[Viewpoint]

How long do I have to live in the south before claiming my property? only to be told you cannot have any rights until a solution is found.

[boulio]

How long do I have to live in the south before claiming my property? only to be told you cannot have any rights until a solution is found.

Just as long as the tc keep saying varosia will be part of a solution and not before.