Cyprus-Forum.com

[Klik]

http://www.kathimerini.com.cy/index.php ... tid=170754

The European Court of Human Rights will be delivering a Grand Chamber judgment in the case of
Cyprus v. Turkey (application no. 25781/94) concerning the question of just satisfaction (Article 41
of the European Convention on Human Rights) at a public hearing on 12 May 2014 at 15 p.m. - local
time – in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg.
The case concerns the situation in northern Cyprus since Turkey carried out military
operations there in July and August 1974, and the continuing division of the territory of
Cyprus since that time.
In a judgment delivered on 10 May 2001 the Court (Grand Chamber) found numerous
violations of the Convention by Turkey, arising out of the military operations it had
conducted in northern Cyprus in July and August 1974, the continuing division of the
territory of Cyprus and the activities of the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” (the
“TRNC”). Regarding the issue of just satisfaction, the Court held unanimously that it was
not ready for decision and adjourned its consideration.
The case concerning the execution of the principal judgment is currently pending before
the Committee of Ministers.
The Grand Chamber will rule on the question of just satisfaction on 12 May 2014.

So on Monday the ECHR will announce the p€nalty for Turkey's invasion... It's expected that it will be a record value. Not that I expect Turkey to oblige and even if that happens, I don't trust that our politicians will distribute the money to the refugees and to those with properties in the north, while Turkey will stop paying individuals for reparations since it will be in a position to say that it's paid our government.

At least this will be given a lot of publicity and there's going to be more awareness around the world about the unpunished crime of Turkey.

[CopperLine]

This refers to the original case Cyprus v Turkey going back to 1996. It is not a petition/complaint from individual Greek Cypriots.

Cyprus builds its case on violations of Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 13 of the European Convention of Human Rights as well as Articles 14, 17 and 18 of Protocol I of the ECHR. These alleged violations are with reference to "Greek-Cypriot missing persons and their relatives; the home and property of displaced persons; the right of displaced Greek Cypriots to hold free elections; the living conditions of Greek Cypriots in northern Cyprus; and the situation of Turkish Cypriots and the Gypsy community living in northern Cyprus" arising from the Turkish invasion.

This summarises the findings (judgment) of the Court :

I. PRELIMINARY ISSUES
1. Holds unanimously that it has jurisdiction to examine the preliminary issues raised in the proceedings before the Commission (paragraphs 56-58);
2. Holds unanimously that the applicant Government have locus standi to bring the application
3. Holds unanimously that the applicant Government have a legitimate legal interest in having the merits of the application examined (paragraph 68);
4. Holds by sixteen votes to one that the facts complained of in the application fall within the “jurisdiction” of Turkey within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention and therefore entail the respondent State's
responsibility under the Convention (paragraph 80);
5. Holds by ten votes to seven that, for the purposes of former Article 26 (current Article 35 § 1) of the Convention, remedies available in the “TRNC” may be regarded as “domestic remedies” of the respondent State and that the question of the effectiveness of these remedies is to be considered in the specific circumstances where it arises (paragraph 102);
6. Holds unanimously that situations which ended more than six months before the date of introduction of the present application (22 May 1994) fall outside the scope of the Court's examination (paragraph 104).

And then it goes through each set of violations, issue by issue, Article by Article, followed by dissenting or partially dissenting opinions, including by both RoC and Turkish nominated judges.

See full judgment here http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-59454

[bill cobbett]

Boys, don't you all be going around expecting to hear of mega pay-outs on Monday.

Having said that you might, but that isn't always the way "just satisfaction" works.

[Maximus]

Boys, don't you all be going around expecting to hear of mega pay-outs on Monday.

Having said that you might, but that isn't always the way "just satisfaction" works.

what are some of the other ways "just satisfaction" works in such a case?

[CopperLine]

Boys, don't you all be going around expecting to hear of mega pay-outs on Monday.

Having said that you might, but that isn't always the way "just satisfaction" works.

what are some of the other ways "just satisfaction" works in such a case?

(i) The respondent is told to pay up/remedy by the Court
(ii) The respondent doesn't pay up/remedy.
(iii) The Court brings the respondent back to the Court and says again 'Pay up/Implement the remedy."
(iv) The respondent doesn't pay up/remedy.
Repeat (iii) and (iv) ad infinitum

[Maximus]

Boys, don't you all be going around expecting to hear of mega pay-outs on Monday.

Having said that you might, but that isn't always the way "just satisfaction" works.

what are some of the other ways "just satisfaction" works in such a case?

(i) The respondent is told to pay up/remedy by the Court
(ii) The respondent doesn't pay up/remedy.
(iii) The Court brings the respondent back to the Court and says again 'Pay up/Implement the remedy."
(iv) The respondent doesn't pay up/remedy.
Repeat (iii) and (iv) ad infinitum

This is probably how Turkey will behave, sure.

But besides a payout as just compensation for a claimant, what are some of the other ways they can be justly satisfied in such a case. Restitution, is this another way, for example?

[bill cobbett]

Well, this isn't the first time that CY and Turkey have clashed.

There have been three previous occasions, in the late 70s and early 80s, when the Council of Ministers of the CoE felt that the finding of violations against Turkey and thus the vindication much of the Republic's case, was in itself "just satisfaction" and then went on to say that the settlement talks were the best way of furthering HR in CY.

Tough really, but who knows which way they'll go on Monday.

(May be a coincidence or it may not be a coincidence, that the Property Issue was tabled for discussion in CY this Monday, now postponed 'til Tuesday)

[B25]

Boys, don't you all be going around expecting to hear of mega pay-outs on Monday.

Having said that you might, but that isn't always the way "just satisfaction" works.

what are some of the other ways "just satisfaction" works in such a case?

For as long as there are no consequences againt Turkey, there is no reason for her to settle up, i mean why would she. Turkey does NOT obey NOR. Respect any laws of anything, why, because there are no consequences she is fully protected by the US. ECHR, don't make me laugh biggest waste of space going.

[Maximus]

Boys, don't you all be going around expecting to hear of mega pay-outs on Monday.

Having said that you might, but that isn't always the way "just satisfaction" works.

what are some of the other ways "just satisfaction" works in such a case?

For as long as there are no consequences againt Turkey, there is no reason for her to settle up, i mean why would she. Turkey does NOT obey NOR. Respect any laws of anything, why, because there are no consequences she is fully protected by the US. ECHR, don't make me laugh biggest waste of space going.

Turkey has settled up on ECHR rulings before but one way or the other, turkey will pay.

[erolz66]

The ECHR as a body of the CoE does have ultimate sanctions it can impose on states, namely the suspension or even expulsion of said state from the organisation itself (the Council of Europe) as for example when is suspended Greece's membership in 1969.

The IPC, a body set up by Turkey as a result of ECHR rulings has to date paid out £155,294,881 in settled claims.