Cyprus-Forum.com

by **Oceanside50** » Fri Jan 08, 2016 11:23 pm

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/britis ... sCatID=351

by **GreekIslandGirl** » Sat Jan 09, 2016 12:01 am

I don't understand. Are the British courts sneakily trying to wreck the legitimate cases/process by seizing diplomats' accounts?

by **Oceanside50** » Sat Jan 09, 2016 12:07 am

GreekIslandGirl wrote:I don't understand. Are the British courts sneakily trying to wreck the legitimate cases/process by seizing diplomats' accounts?

Apparently there's a case where the ruling calls for seizure of Turkish assets

by **GreekIslandGirl** » Sat Jan 09, 2016 12:09 am

Oceanside50 wrote:
GreekIslandGirl wrote:I don't understand. Are the British courts sneakily trying to wreck the legitimate cases/process by seizing diplomats' accounts?

Apparently there's a case where the ruling calls for seizure of Turkish assets

Yes, but if they are not allowed to seize those of diplomats and the British Courts have 'erroneously' done just that, it could wreck the legitimate process, couldn't it? Cause a setback for the rest. There are so many major Turkish assets in the UK, why start with some measly couple of diplomats' accounts? I smell a rat ...

by **Oceanside50** » Sat Jan 09, 2016 12:22 am

GreekIslandGirl wrote:
Oceanside50 wrote:
GreekIslandGirl wrote:I don't understand. Are the British courts sneakily trying to wreck the legitimate cases/process by seizing diplomats' accounts?

Apparently there's a case where the ruling calls for seizure of Turkish assets

Yes, but if they are not allowed to seize those of diplomats and the British Courts have 'erroneously' done just that, it could wreck the legitimate process, couldn't it? Cause a setback for the rest. There are so many major Turkish assets in the UK, why start with some measly couple of diplomats' accounts? I smell a rat ...

What if it's a European Union court? Does that make a difference?

by **GreekIslandGirl** » Sat Jan 09, 2016 12:24 am

It looks to me like the British Courts are playing silly buggers here - seizing the wrong stuff so that Turkey files a counterclaim and then gets off Scot free, huh?

Does it relate to this ruling:

The European court of human rights (ECHR) has ordered Turkey to pay €90m (£73m) in compensation for its 1974 invasion of Cyprus ...
The court's largest-ever damages award is based on earlier ECHR judgments ruling that the invasion and subsequent occupation of the northern third of the island was illegal. The breakaway Turkish Cypriot state created by the invasion is only recognised by Turkey. But the size of the award by the Strasbourg-based court – comprising €30m compensation to relatives of those still missing from the conflict and €60m for Greek Cypriots who ended up on the Turkish side of the lines as an enclave on the Karpas peninsula – breaks new ground.
....
Sixteen years ago, the ECHR awarded €1.2m in damages to an individual Greek Cypriot who sued Turkey for the loss of her property in the seaside city of Kyrenia. In that case, Ankara paid the award, but has insisted it is not bound by Monday's judgment. Legal experts said the country could theoretically have non-sovereign, commercial assets abroad seized to pay the damages.

The Guardian

It clearly states they have to seize commercial assets not sovereign assets - so why did the British Courts seize diplomats' accounts? Why aren't Cyprus' lawyers onto this to manage the behaviour of the British Courts?

by **GreekIslandGirl** » Sat Jan 09, 2016 12:27 am

Oceanside50 wrote:
GreekIslandGirl wrote:
Oceanside50 wrote:
GreekIslandGirl wrote:I don't understand. Are the British courts sneakily trying to wreck the legitimate cases/process by seizing diplomats' accounts?

Apparently there's a case where the ruling calls for seizure of Turkish assets

Yes, but if they are not allowed to seize those of diplomats and the British Courts have 'erroneously' done just that, it could wreck the legitimate process, couldn't it? Cause a setback for the rest. There are so many major Turkish assets in the UK, why start with some measly couple of diplomats' accounts? I smell a rat ...

What if it's a European Union court? Does that make a difference?

What do you mean? The problem here is that Turkey is complaining the British Courts seized diplomats' accounts. Why did they touch diplomats' accounts? They should have gone for the correct assets (commercial according to the ruling, if that's the right one seeing as we have so little to go on.)

by **repulsewarrior** » Sat Jan 09, 2016 10:21 pm

...it does look like a Judge ruled in a manner which is not suited; i ask, was it the claimants that demanded these actions (were there seize-able "diplomatic" assets found)?

...wish bill c. was here, he could straighten us out. In the mean time i hope more news can be found.

by **Lordo** » Thu Mar 17, 2016 12:17 am

bill c is so embarrassed about the cock up regarding water pipeline, he dare not show his face again. they blocked couple of diplomats accounts. big wow

by **Oceanside50** » Thu Mar 17, 2016 2:35 am

repulsewarrior wrote:...it does look like a Judge ruled in a manner which is not suited; i ask, was it the claimants that demanded these actions (were there seize-able "diplomatic" assets found)?

...wish bill c. was here, he could straighten us out. In the mean time i hope more news can be found.

Here's Bill C walking on the beach with his disco shoes and wife's sunglasses, Giasou dthkie Bill.