MicAtCyp,
I agree that the TC's who have been given property in the north have to bear responsibility for that fact. To reclaim your property whilst living someone elses property that does not belong to you is obvioulsy wrong. And I think in this instance, it would be very difficult for a TC in that situation to get their property back in the south.
However, if a TC relinquishes property given to them in the north and decides to come south, and stays for six months, and shows that they intend to stay in the south then I do not see a problem with that. Perhaps restrictions could be placed on such property, so that the person cannot sell the property on until the problem in Cyprus is solved or they can show they will be residing in the south. It is very tricky but I think safeguards can be put in place to prevent misuse.
For TC's living abroad, especially in the EU, I do think that they would have a very good case. If the TC in question cannot get recourse in Cyprus then there is nothing stopping them from going to the ECHR. I think many TC's are discouraged from doing such things by the regime in the north, the simple reason being that the whole basis of the pseudostate hinges on the property issue. Undermine this issue and the pseudostate collapses.
So I can conclude that if someone is determined enough, they can make a case and have a fairly good chance of winning.
In the case of Arif, if a compromise is not agreed, or if the Supreme Court accepts the objections of the Atterney General, then he will more than likely take his case to the ECHR and most probably win. The government would be foolish to let that happen! If we are a state of law then we have to live by the law as well.