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.

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;

There's also an interesting RoC politics of this case. Why, given the 2001 judgment, did RoC not push the just satisfaction demands sooner and with more vigour ? The Court explained its reluctance to go immediately to just satisfaction after the original judgment (nothing wrong in principle about that). But why did RoC not initiate re-consideration until 2007 ? Well, IMHO, it was because of the EU entry negotiations, the Annan Plan negotiations, then the referendum, and then the post-referendum fall out. Once that was over RoC had nothing to lose in urging the Court to consider just satisfaction. In the rules of the Court it is up to the (successful) complainant to initiate just satisfaction. Any delays - and particularly one of 13 years - and any omissions in just satisfaction might well have much to do with the internal politics of the RoC as much as anything else. After all, it already had the critical original judgment in the bag, the issue of just satisfaction could be kept in reserve to be played at the most opportune moment. Why re-initiate in 2010 ? Possibly because by then all hope of a negotiated settlement had been lost ?

[bill cobbett]

Errr... can posters please spare a thought for those of us who have poor eyesight by breaking up big blocks of text with line breaks please.

Sorry CL and Pyro ... you were saying...?

[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?

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.

Hi copperline.
Most of what you said is correct except from the part that the RoC will just end it there. See previous posts highlighted blue.

[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;

There's also an interesting RoC politics of this case. Why, given the 2001 judgment, did RoC not push the just satisfaction demands sooner and with more vigour ? The Court explained its reluctance to go immediately to just satisfaction after the original judgment (nothing wrong in principle about that). But why did RoC not initiate re-consideration until 2007 ? Well, IMHO, it was because of the EU entry negotiations, the Annan Plan negotiations, then the referendum, and then the post-referendum fall out. Once that was over RoC had nothing to lose in urging the Court to consider just satisfaction. In the rules of the Court it is up to the (successful) complainant to initiate just satisfaction. Any delays - and particularly one of 13 years - and any omissions in just satisfaction might well have much to do with the internal politics of the RoC as much as anything else. After all, it already had the critical original judgment in the bag, the issue of just satisfaction could be kept in reserve to be played at the most opportune moment. Why re-initiate in 2010 ? Possibly because by then all hope of a negotiated settlement had been lost ?

Who said that the RoC is not a bitch my friend? Ask us who live under this state, we know better...
Yet they played their game quite well, i mean look at the "admissibility paragraph".

[Demonax]

I don't think RoT will pay a penny.

Some might disagree...

Riza Turmen, a former judge of the ECHR and now an opposition lawmaker in Turkey’s parliament, disagreed with Davutoglu saying that Ankara would be legally required to comply with the ruling. “It’s extremely clear from Article 46 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which says all signatories are committed to comply with final decisions,” Turmen told Reuters news agency.

http://cyprus-mail.com/2014/05/12/turke ... f-missing/

[B25]

I don't think RoT will pay a penny.

Some might disagree...

Riza Turmen, a former judge of the ECHR and now an opposition lawmaker in Turkey’s parliament, disagreed with Davutoglu saying that Ankara would be legally required to comply with the ruling. “It’s extremely clear from Article 46 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which says all signatories are committed to comply with final decisions,” Turmen told Reuters news agency.

http://cyprus-mail.com/2014/05/12/turke ... f-missing/

I agree with CL, and what will the ECHR do if Turkey refuses, smack her bottom??? Come on, Turkey has not abided by any rules to date, do you see her being bombed??? Toothless tiger.

[Maximus]

I don't think RoT will pay a penny.

Some might disagree...

Riza Turmen, a former judge of the ECHR and now an opposition lawmaker in Turkey’s parliament, disagreed with Davutoglu saying that Ankara would be legally required to comply with the ruling. “It’s extremely clear from Article 46 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which says all signatories are committed to comply with final decisions,” Turmen told Reuters news agency.

http://cyprus-mail.com/2014/05/12/turke ... f-missing/

I agree with CL, and what will the ECHR do if Turkey refuses, smack her bottom??? Come on, Turkey has not abided by any rules to date, do you see her being bombed??? Toothless tiger.

Interest starts racking up after 89 days. (90 days from judgement)

I know Turkey might not pay but it will always be there and mounting and the ruling is just priceless.

[Viewpoint]

Turkey is putting everything on hold to pay 90 million euro directly to GCs does anyone want to hold their breath?

[Demonax]

I know Turkey might not pay but it will always be there and mounting and the ruling is just priceless.

Exactly. It's not about the level of the award, although it is apparently the largest ever made by the Court. The most interesting aspect is that the ECHR recognises ongoing violations of GC human and property rights in the occupied areas and obliges Turkey to end them regardless of the activities of the so-called 'compensation committee'.

The implications are far-reaching and you can bet the ROC’s lawyers are studying the judgement very carefully as it potentially opens up the floodgates for further claims against Turkey.

[Viewpoint]

I know Turkey might not pay but it will always be there and mounting and the ruling is just priceless.

Exactly. It's not about the level of the award, although it is apparently the largest ever made by the Court. The most interesting aspect is that the ECHR recognises ongoing violations of GC property rights in the occupied areas and obliges Turkey to end them regardless of the activities of the so-called 'compensation committee'.

So? and that changes what exactly? you people really have to get a grip these pieces of paper are worth nothing if you cant impose them, no one is going to pay you a penny.