Cyprus-Forum.com

[CopperLine]

That's it. The sum total of the only Cyprus v Turkey court case, launched in 1994.
90 million Euro. 60 million for the GCs of Karpas and 30 million for the relatives of the missing, to be disbursed by the RoC state after payment by the RoT. The duty of enforcement moves from the Court to the Council of Europe. I don't think RoT will pay a penny. Keep in mind that this was a state v. state case; it does not have (negative) implications for individual cases.

[Demonax]

Written statement by the Government Spokesman on ECHR’s judgment

The Government of the Republic of Cyprus welcomes the judgment by the European Court of Human Rights with regard to the claim by the Republic of Cyprus against Turkey for just satisfaction on the basis of article 41 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

It notes, in particular, the reference of the Court that Turkey has not fully complied with the decision of 2001 at the Fourth Intestate Appeal of the Republic of Cyprus against Turkey, and that this compliance is not consistent with any permit, participation or complicity in any illegal sale or exploitation of Greek Cypriot properties in the occupied areas.

The Government of the Republic of Cyprus also notes with particular satisfaction, the reference that the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case Demopoulos and Others Vs Turkey does not release Turkey of its obligations for compliance with the decision of the Court on the Fourth Intestate.

It welcomes the adjudication of compensation for the non-pecuniary damage suffered by the relatives of the missing persons in the amount of 30 million euro. It stresses that the efforts will continue until the effective investigation for the ascertainment of the fate of all the missing persons is completed and their identified remains are handed over so that they are buried according to the wishes of their loved ones.

As far as the adjudication of compensation for the non-pecuniary damage suffered by the enclaved persons (in the Turkish occupied areas) in the amount of 60 million euro, and in spite of the fact that the persecution and the suffering they have endured cannot be assessed in monetary terms, the Government of Cyprus welcomes the fact that the Court condemns, in this way, one more time, the Turkish policy of the violations of the human rights of the enclaved persons as well as the effort to change the demographic character of the occupied areas.

The Government expects the immediate compliance by Turkey through the adoption of the necessary measures to stop the illegal exploitation and sale of Greek Cypriot properties in the occupied areas and to pay the damages that have been adjudicated by the Court.

http://www.cyprusexpat.co.uk/blog/read/ ... Ls.twitter

[Demonax]

Also note that Turkey is required to comply within 90 days. After that a penalty will be added.

[erolz66]

...good news for families with missing,

Good news for GC families with missing as result of the events of 74.

[Jerry]

That's it. The sum total of the only Cyprus v Turkey court case, launched in 1994.
90 million Euro. 60 million for the GCs of Karpas and 30 million for the relatives of the missing, to be disbursed by the RoC state after payment by the RoT. The duty of enforcement moves from the Court to the Council of Europe. I don't think RoT will pay a penny. Keep in mind that this was a state v. state case; it does not have (negative) implications for individual cases.

So what happened to "Yes, this case is not just about property. But to be clear, the application and the judgment refers to the denial of GC access to and enjoyment of property in the north."

They have addressed the issue of relatives of the missing and the enclaved in Karpas. What has the ECHR done about the continued appropriation of our property contrary to the 2001 judgment and the denial of access to and enjoyment of our property?

[Pyrpolizer]

Is this a joke? If there's more to come ok.. but it sounds like a joke

Slowly slowly.

On 31 August 2007 the applicant Government informed the Court that they had the intention to submit an “application to the Grand Chamber to resume its consideration of the possible application of Article 41 of the Convention”. On 11 March 2010 the applicant Government submitted to the Court their claims for just satisfaction concerning missing persons in respect of whom the Court had found a violation of Articles 2, 3 and 5 of the Convention (see chapter II, points 2, 4 and 7 of the operative part of the principal judgment and the corresponding paragraphs to which they refer). They declared that the just satisfaction issue with respect to the remaining violations, in particular those relating to homes and property of Greek Cypriots, remained reserved, and that they would possibly come back to this issue later. Both the applicant and the respondent Government subsequently filed observations.

[Flying Horse]

Here is the part dealing with the expropriation of Greek Cypriot property in the occupied areas:

23. The Court had to intervene for the sake of legal certainty and to safeguard its own authority. The Court, and only the Court, has the last word about the interpretation of its Demopoulos decision, hence settling this dispute in a manner that lessens the likelihood of future conflicts between the parties while upholding the rule of law and ensuring full execution of the judgment on the merits in Cyprus v. Turkey. The Court’s answer to the claimant State’s request is crystal clear: the Court did not decide in Demopoulos that Turkey’s obligations under Article 46 to execute the Grand Chamber judgment of 2001 had been fulfilled, nor did the Court hold that the ongoing violations found by the Grand Chamber in its judgment on the merits had come to an end by virtue of the enactment of Law 67/2005, and this for the simple, but obvious, reason that Demopoulos was concerned only with domestic remedies in respect of violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in individual cases. To put it unambiguously, the Demopoulos decision did not interfere with the claimant State’s right to full implementation of the Grand Chamber judgment of 2001, including the immediate cessation of the continuing unlawful disposal (including sale, lease, use or any other means of exploitation) of the land and property of Greek Cypriots in Northern Cyprus by the “TNRC” authorities with the complicity of the Turkish State. This is not a mere statement on the interpretation of a previous judgment of the Court. The Court’s intention goes much further. This is also an acknowledgment of the existence of a situation of non-implementation of the Grand Chamber’s judgment of 2001, and therefore of a violation by the respondent State of its obligations under Article 46 of the Convention, to which the Court seeks to put an end.

Please explain in laymans terms.

Edit: No need , I've digested it.

[Pyrpolizer]

That's it. The sum total of the only Cyprus v Turkey court case, launched in 1994.
90 million Euro. 60 million for the GCs of Karpas and 30 million for the relatives of the missing, to be disbursed by the RoC state after payment by the RoT. The duty of enforcement moves from the Court to the Council of Europe. I don't think RoT will pay a penny. Keep in mind that this was a state v. state case; it does not have (negative) implications for individual cases.

So what happened to "Yes, this case is not just about property. But to be clear, the application and the judgment refers to the denial of GC access to and enjoyment of property in the north."

They have addressed the issue of relatives of the missing and the enclaved in Karpas. What has the ECHR done about the continued appropriation of our property contrary to the 2001 judgment and the denial of access to and enjoyment of our property?

It already has decided about that Jerry. It seems in that case the RoC does not want to mess up with overlapping an inter-State case over individual cases. I am certain future ROC claims will be concentrated on the issue
that Turkey is required by Article 46 to abide by the judgment in Cyprus ν Turkey by abstaining from permitting, participating or acquiescing or being otherwise complicit in, the unlawful sale and exploitation of Greek Cypriot homes and property in the northern part of Cyprus;

[CopperLine]

That's it. The sum total of the only Cyprus v Turkey court case, launched in 1994.
90 million Euro. 60 million for the GCs of Karpas and 30 million for the relatives of the missing, to be disbursed by the RoC state after payment by the RoT. The duty of enforcement moves from the Court to the Council of Europe. I don't think RoT will pay a penny. Keep in mind that this was a state v. state case; it does not have (negative) implications for individual cases.

So what happened to "Yes, this case is not just about property. But to be clear, the application and the judgment refers to the denial of GC access to and enjoyment of property in the north."

They have addressed the issue of relatives of the missing and the enclaved in Karpas. What has the ECHR done about the continued appropriation of our property contrary to the 2001 judgment and the denial of access to and enjoyment of our property?

As mentioned the case does include access and enjoyment to property. In fact the RoC claims refer to most of the Articles of the main convention plus some of the additional protocols. The judgment about these all took place in 2001 and almost all the alleged violations carried out by Turkey were confirmed in that original judgment. In principle the respondent state must act on those judgments and 'make right' in terms of changing practice, amending laws and so on. In one of my posts yesterday (or maybe the day before) I tried to outline what "just satisfaction" was (and what it didn't or was unlikely) to cover. In a nutshell just satisfaction is refers to a form of compensation, but it is not restitution. The fact that the Court has not mentioned restitution of property here does not mean that it doesn't think that access/enjoyment of those properties should not be restored, nor that Turkey should be allowed 'to get away with it'. This much is absolutely clear from the original judgment. What the court has done in this just satisfaction - remembering that this was a case brought by one state (on behalf of people in general) against another state - has been to identify specific groups of people when it could do so and say these groups i.e, specifically the relatives of missing persons and the people of the Karpaz, who can be identified must and can practically be provided with just satisfaction i.e, compensation. By doing this the Court is trying to be as focused and practical as possible. Further, the Court has repeatedly said that nothing in its state v state judgment interferes with the rights or judicial opportunities of individuals pursuing individual cases. Thus property cases - where you have a right to access and enjoy your property as a human right but you do not have a human right to own a particular house (important distinction) - allow a private action in ways in which the violation of the right to life or association cannot be a private matter.
Of course much of it is up for debate and one may not agree with the Court's reasoning and jurisprudence but there are strong reasons for the Court's decision. In short, the Court has been clear on property questions as it has been clear about violations of right to life. In both areas individual cases will still go forward, backed by the original 2001 judgment. But it is highly, highly unlikely that there will be another state v state case. Why ? Because RoC has got the maximum judgment (not max satisfaction or restitution or reparation) out of the case. The 2001 judgment could hardly have been more categorical about Turkey's culpability.

[Pyrpolizer]

btw who said that Turkey got the possession TC properties in the free areas on exchange-imish of GC properties in the occupied and that somehow she manages to brake even thru the IPC? Tell that "turkish Law" to the ECHR so that all 17 judges (including the Turkish one) get a good laugh