Cyprus-Forum.com

[Lordo]

oh dear me more bullshit from pyropullarui again. there was nothing poor about the gibrizlis till you swine decided to ethnically cleanse 50 thousand one third of the country into the enclaves.

but you see my swinnish friends what goes around comes around sooner or later.

you heard of this song? i had many times while you were cleaning us ethnically as it were.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRwuDdqbAzk[/youtube]

[bill cobbett]

What did Soddo say...???

[Viewpoint]

So now this case can serve as a precedent and TCs can sue the "RoC" for what they did in 1963 and 1974?

[Demonax]

So now this case can serve as a precedent and TCs can sue the "RoC" for what they did in 1963 and 1974?

You need to read the judgement. The precedent concerns illegal foreign armed intervention in other states:

“The message to member States of the Council of Europe is clear: those member states that wage war, invade or support foreign armed intervention in other member states must pay for their unlawful actions and the consequences of their actions, and the victims, their families and the states of their nationality have a vested and enforceable right to be duly and fully compensated by the responsible warring state.”

In other words, Turkish Cypriots can go to the ECHR and sue Turkey for depriving them of their human rights and international recognition, isolating them in a pseudo-state and forcing them into minority status in an illegal Turkish colony.

I encourage you to go for it!

[Maximus]

So now this case can serve as a precedent and TCs can sue the "RoC" for what they did in 1963 and 1974?

You need to read the judgement. The precedent concerns illegal foreign armed intervention in other states:

“The message to member States of the Council of Europe is clear: those member states that wage war, invade or support foreign armed intervention in other member states must pay for their unlawful actions and the consequences of their actions, and the victims, their families and the states of their nationality have a vested and enforceable right to be duly and fully compensated by the responsible warring state.”

In other words, Turkish Cypriots can go to the ECHR and sue Turkey for depriving them of their human rights and international recognition, isolating them in a pseudo-state and forcing them into minority status in an illegal Turkish colony.

I encourage you to go for it!

Yes indeed, the Cyprus problem being settled through legal redress with everyone observing the law is the way.

Please go and do it. Go and stand in a human rights court and argue your case with your apartheid papers.

[bill cobbett]

So now this case can serve as a precedent and TCs can sue the "RoC" for what they did in 1963 and 1974?

You need to read the judgement. The precedent concerns illegal foreign armed intervention in other states:

“The message to member States of the Council of Europe is clear: those member states that wage war, invade or support foreign armed intervention in other member states must pay for their unlawful actions and the consequences of their actions, and the victims, their families and the states of their nationality have a vested and enforceable right to be duly and fully compensated by the responsible warring state.”

In other words, Turkish Cypriots can go to the ECHR and sue Turkey for depriving them of their human rights and international recognition, isolating them in a pseudo-state and forcing them into minority status in an illegal Turkish colony.

I encourage you to go for it!

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.

From the case Judgment...

"... That the courts of the Republic provided adequate redress and that these local remedies had not been exhausted and went on to say...

"III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION

154. Some of the applicants made a number of other complaints, including complaints directed against Greece and the United Kingdom (see paragraphs 103-106 above).
155. In the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds no appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols arising from these complaints.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to join the applications;
Declares the applications inadmissible. ..."

[erolz66]

The ECHR found No Violations against CY and declared the case Inadmisable.

Bill despite your large font and bold letters things are not quite as you imply.

There is no doubt the RoC's law 1991 and now amended law 139/1991 as implemented by the RoC was in breach of the ECHR charters in regards to TC. If you have any doubt about this then check out ECHR case SOFI v. CYPRUS 18163/04

In this case the applicant made a claim via 'domestic remedies' in the RoC in April 2003. Having got no satisfaction from these domestic remedies she filed a case at the ECHR on 6th April 2004. Six years later and literally ONE DAY before the ECHR was due to rule on this case the RoC admitted that it had been infringing her rights and granted her 427,150.36 euros for pecuniary damage for loss of use of her property, 50,000 euros for non-pecuniary damage and 59,801.06 euros for costs and expenses. They also agreed to amend the law.

The fact is that the RoC has been and is playing an effective 'gaming' of the ECHR process. Delaying 'domestic remedy' as long as possible, then waiting to the very last moment it can when cases are pending at the ECHR and then settling at the very last moment to avoid ECHR ruling against the RoC that would be legal precedent and force changes to their domestic laws outside of their control. Where they have been forced to change the law as in this case they have always sought to do the absolute minimum change necessary, and in the process forcing existing claims at the ECHR to have to go back to 'domestic remedies' as a result of these changes.

There are many more TC who could make claims against the RoC as above and undoubtedly many will. Just as surely the now amended RoC law will eventually come before a ECHR ruling and probably the same tactic will be used by the RoC, to delay and deny liability right up to a day before the ECHR is due to rule and then settle the case, make the absolutely minimal changes in the law and in the process force all those with pending case to have to go back to the RoC and exhaust this new domestic recipe.

The fact is the RoC 'guardian laws' are full of holes and the RoC has systematically denied TC their valid rights using this flawed law. This is still true today. The RoC can 'run' and has to date been doing so with maximum effect but ultimately it can not hide and it will later rather than sooner have to face up to its own violations of TC rights re property as it reluctantly did in the case SOFI v. CYPRUS. Most of those you state in your example who have no exhausted domestic remedies will now be doing so and will then be returning to the ECHR with their cases.

We are yet to see a Cypriot take a case against the RoC to the ECHR re their 'missing' in the period 64-74.

[Jerry]

"Delaying domestic remedy", you only have to look at NCFP property sagas to realise that domestic remedies suffer endless delays in the "trnc" as well if your face doesn't fit - what chance would a Greek Cypriot have appealing to the "trnc" higher court if he refused an offer from the IPC?

As for making a claim at the ECHR against the ROC for the missing TCs pre 1974, how would a GC make a similar claim, against who, Denktash?

[bill cobbett]

The ECHR found No Violations against CY and declared the case Inadmisable.

Bill despite your large font and bold letters things are not quite as you imply.

There is no doubt the RoC's law 1991 and now amended law 139/1991 as implemented by the RoC was in breach of the ECHR charters in regards to TC. If you have any doubt about this then check out ECHR case SOFI v. CYPRUS 18163/04

In this case the applicant made a claim via 'domestic remedies' in the RoC in April 2003. Having got no satisfaction from these domestic remedies she filed a case at the ECHR on 6th April 2004. Six years later and literally ONE DAY before the ECHR was due to rule on this case the RoC admitted that it had been infringing her rights and granted her 427,150.36 euros for pecuniary damage for loss of use of her property, 50,000 euros for non-pecuniary damage and 59,801.06 euros for costs and expenses. They also agreed to amend the law.

The fact is that the RoC has been and is playing an effective 'gaming' of the ECHR process. Delaying 'domestic remedy' as long as possible, then waiting to the very last moment it can when cases are pending at the ECHR and then settling at the very last moment to avoid ECHR ruling against the RoC that would be legal precedent and force changes to their domestic laws outside of their control. Where they have been forced to change the law as in this case they have always sought to do the absolute minimum change necessary, and in the process forcing existing claims at the ECHR to have to go back to 'domestic remedies' as a result of these changes.

There are many more TC who could make claims against the RoC as above and undoubtedly many will. Just as surely the now amended RoC law will eventually come before a ECHR ruling and probably the same tactic will be used by the RoC, to delay and deny liability right up to a day before the ECHR is due to rule and then settle the case, make the absolutely minimal changes in the law and in the process force all those with pending case to have to go back to the RoC and exhaust this new domestic recipe.

The fact is the RoC 'guardian laws' are full of holes and the RoC has systematically denied TC their valid rights using this flawed law. This is still true today. The RoC can 'run' and has to date been doing so with maximum effect but ultimately it can not hide and it will later rather than sooner have to face up to its own violations of TC rights re property as it reluctantly did in the case SOFI v. CYPRUS. Most of those you state in your example who have no exhausted domestic remedies will now be doing so and will then be returning to the ECHR with their cases.

We are yet to see a Cypriot take a case against the RoC to the ECHR re their 'missing' in the period 64-74.

Nothing was "implied" . A simple fact was stated along with refs to the case.

The fact that in the matters of Kazali and others v CY at the ECHR in 2008, Case No 49247/08, that the ECHR found no violations and declared the case inadmissible. Fact.

Erol is incorrect in saying the following... " We are yet to see a Cypriot take a case against the RoC to the ECHR re their 'missing' in the period 64-74. ..."

Refs for everyone...

Applications nos. 59623/08, 3706/09, 16206/09, 25180/09, 32744/09, 36499/09 and 57250/09
by Semral Emin and Others, Nazli Gürtekin and Others, Fatma Aybenk Abdullah and Others, Meryem Arkut and Others, Ayşe Akay and Others, Omer Hussein and Others and Ayşe Eray and Others v. Cyprus, Greece and the United Kingdom

So, would you agree Erol that you were incorrect when you claimed that... "" We are yet to see a Cypriot take a case against the RoC to the ECHR re their 'missing' in the period 64-74. ..." ... ???

[erolz66]

Nothing was "implied" . A simple fact was stated along with refs to the case.

Nothing implied but a need for bold and 150 point text ?

The fact that in the matters of Kazali and others v CY at the ECHR in 2008, Case No 49247/08, that the ECHR found no violations and declared the case inadmissible. Fact.

This is not a fact at all - it is a classic manipulation of facts. The case(s) you referred to had two parts. A main part to do with alleged violations of TC rights to property by the Roc and a secondary part described by the ECHR as "Some of the applicants made a number of other complaints, including complaints directed against Greece and the United Kingdom (see paragraphs 103-106 above)." It is ONLY in the second part that the ECHR found no violations and even then is usage of words is interesting "finds no appearance of a violation" vs your "no violation". In the first part, the main substantive part of these claims, they did NOT declare there were no violations at all, just that the cases were currently inadmissible, because a new law (revision forced by the Safi case) came into effect, since the claims were submitted to the ECHR and this has to also be exhausted before a claim to the ECHR can become admissible and THEN the court will determine if there are violations or not. The FACT of these cases is part 1 - inadmissible (until the plaintiffs exhausted local remedies of the now amended law) at which time they can if still not satisfied re submit the claims to the ECHR who will THEN decide if their are violations or not and a 2nd part were no violations were found. You present this as 'no violations' re both parts which is simply untrue.

Your blatant manipulation and distortion of fact is shameless Bill but totally consistent with your history of such individually and communally.

Erol is incorrect in saying the following... " We are yet to see a Cypriot take a case against the RoC to the ECHR re their 'missing' in the period 64-74. ..."

Indeed I was incorrect and I thank you for pointing these cases out that I was unaware of until you did so. These cases are also currently 'inadmissible' because the court does not think that the RoC has had enough time since Oct 2010 when investigation into the alleged crimes was started for the court to yet rule. These claims are not 'going away' and eventually they will have to face these claims in the ECHR.

So, would you agree Erol that you were incorrect when you claimed that... "" We are yet to see a Cypriot take a case against the RoC to the ECHR re their 'missing' in the period 64-74. ..." ... ???

I would and indeed I have above.