Cyprus-Forum.com

[Viewpoint]

Kifeas

As a test to prove you are wrong, I challenge you to find me one buyer for my property in the north and then we will see if the RoC can indeed stop me from selling it. I bet 100,000 pounds and I ask you bet only 1,000 on it, that I can sell it and RoC will have no choice other than transferring the title deeds.

Your on I take up your challenge please provide details of property and price you expect, you can private message me.

[magikthrill]

I am talking about "Liverpool's chances of winning CL this year, you are talkintg about the hot chick you have seen on Sunset Boulavard the other night".

She was on HOLLYWOOD boulevard. not sunset! get your facts straight.

I am talking about possibility of TCs being able to buy the GC property if RoC let's it.

First of all for a TC to pay for the property even if the RoC did allow it would be stupid.

This is because under any "solution" 95% of TCs will get to keep the stolen property.

YOu are not thinking of the issue realistically. If the RoC allows TCs to sell their property in the south then by TCs owning the land in the north they will have more motivation (and perhaps a tad bit of legality that is inexistant right now) to remain a breakaway state.

[uzan]

Kifeas

As a test to prove you are wrong, I challenge you to find me one buyer for my property in the north and then we will see if the RoC can indeed stop me from selling it. I bet 100,000 pounds and I ask you bet only 1,000 on it, that I can sell it and RoC will have no choice other than transferring the title deeds.

Kifeas,Please do not bet because you will loose.We try to buy some property with Australian passport everthing was okey until somebody realized my birth place and they (roc) make them to stop selling it.

[Viewpoint]

uzan

Kifeas,Please do not bet because you will loose.We try to buy some property with Australian passport everthing was okey until somebody realized my birth place and they (roc) make them to stop selling it.

When can you pay me the 100.000 pounds ??? Please PM soon.

[uzan]

uzan

Kifeas,Please do not bet because you will loose.We try to buy some property with Australian passport everthing was okey until somebody realized my birth place and they (roc) make them to stop selling it.

When can you pay me the 100.000 pounds ??? Please PM soon.

viewpoint I dont know what wrong with you or me, you can't understand me to night, simley I try to say you are right and I hope you can give me some money too.Can you check you e-mail box.

[erolz]

First of all for a TC to pay for the property even if the RoC did allow it would be stupid.

This is because under any "solution" 95% of TCs will get to keep the stolen property.

It is not stupid. Certainly not all TC would wish to do this, but some certainly would. Firstly without a settlement those TC that chose this route would accrue the value of buying the land from the pre 74 GC owner, as property here that is exchange property is worth less than properrty that was TC prior to 74. Thus they pay a price and receive a return for that in increased value of their property here. You say in the event of a solution 95% of TC will get to keep former GC land, yet it seems pretty clear to me that no such solution will be acceptable to GC so would not be a solution - just another failed attempt at one. All property deals represent a form of speculative investment. Maybe a TC buying their land now from the pre 74 GC owner will be worse off after a solution and mybe they will not. It is a judgment call. I do not think it is certain either way. Finally there is the act that some TC may wish to buy their land from the GC pre 74 owner (if they are willing to sell) simply on the gorunds that they are fed up with being called a thief when they do not consider themselevs such and want total security of ownership whatever happens in the future and are willing and able to pay a price for that.
So not all TC would chose this route. Not all GC would want to sell either, but any that do - even a single transaction would be on less propblem removed from the property issue, which I think was the original posters point.

YOu are not thinking of the issue realistically. If the RoC allows TCs to sell their property in the south then by TCs owning the land in the north they will have more motivation (and perhaps a tad bit of legality that is inexistant right now) to remain a breakaway state.

Another reason why some TC would be willing to buy their land from former GC owners - though this is also the main reason why I think the RoC would resist such moves as best they can.

[MicAtCyp]

You speak like someone that has evidence to say this. It
didn’t occur to me in real life but I can tell you this.
If I decide to sell my property in the north and someone
is willing to buy it and we agree on the price and
ultimately RoC refuses to curry out the title transfer
through the land registry, I will sue RoC the next
morning and read my lips, "I WILL WIN THE CASE 100%" and
have them pay all the legal expenses as well

Don't be so sure Kifeas. If it were like that many GCs would already sell their properties in the occupied.There are legal matters involved as well as matters defining the State itself.As a matter of principle a state cannot allow sale of properties that are NOT under it's FULL control and in which BOTH the seller and the buyer are also under it's OWN law. Imagine for example your neighbour sells too, and there is a dispute on the exact coordinates of each property.Who is going to resolve the difference?Imagine the buyer dies the next day.How the state will arrange the inheritance of the property?

Second although properties belong to the people the total amount of properties constitute the State itself.The value at which properties are sold is just a figure that assumes properties will continue to constitute the very same State.When you sell a property for 50K pounds it's value is NOT really 50K. It is 50K for you, plus 50 million state value. That 50 million state value returns to the state when another citizen buys the property and sets it again a part of the very same state.

It would be easier and much more economical instead of making wars, to just buy the whole lands. Turkey could buy the whole Cyprus with less money than what the occupation already costed her, and we could buy the TOTAL of the occupied areas with less money than what the Anan Plan would cost us.
The fact is that the value of land when sold outside the juristiction of the State is infinite

Perhaps the only way for you to sell your property in the occupied is to sell it to another GC or Tc who already resides permanently in the free areas, and as you know such buyers don't really exist.

As a test to prove you are wrong, I challenge you to
find me one buyer for my property in the north and then
we will see if the RoC can indeed stop me from selling
it. I bet 100,000 pounds and I ask you bet only 1,000 on
it, that I can sell it and RoC will have no choice other
than transferring the title deeds.

Sorry you would lose.You are not the first one who thought about it.No lawyer ever accepted to take such a case or even promote it to the ECHR. Does that tell you something? The fact is that some lawyers tried to bypass this obstacle by making private agreements between buyer and seller so that that agreement can be used for the transfer of ownership AFTER a solution.Such agreements however are at stake unless they are filed at the Lands department (which presently does not accept them) so even those agreements are very much at risk of meaning nothing in the end.

Or they are supposed to give citizenship
to TCs that are born outside Cyprus (if their
parents are Cypriot) but they do not.

Of course they do not. Who said they are "supposed" to do so?

[Viewpoint]

Kifeas where are you????

[Kifeas]

You speak like someone that has evidence to say this. It
didn’t occur to me in real life but I can tell you this.
If I decide to sell my property in the north and someone
is willing to buy it and we agree on the price and
ultimately RoC refuses to curry out the title transfer
through the land registry, I will sue RoC the next
morning and read my lips, "I WILL WIN THE CASE 100%" and
have them pay all the legal expenses as well

Don't be so sure Kifeas. If it were like that many GCs would already sell their properties in the occupied.There are legal matters involved as well as matters defining the State itself.As a matter of principle a state cannot allow sale of properties that are NOT under it's FULL control and in which BOTH the seller and the buyer are also under it's OWN law. Imagine for example your neighbour sells too, and there is a dispute on the exact coordinates of each property.Who is going to resolve the difference?Imagine the buyer dies the next day.How the state will arrange the inheritance of the property?

Second although properties belong to the people the total amount of properties constitute the State itself.The value at which properties are sold is just a figure that assumes properties will continue to constitute the very same State.When you sell a property for 50K pounds it's value is NOT really 50K. It is 50K for you, plus 50 million state value. That 50 million state value returns to the state when another citizen buys the property and sets it again a part of the very same state.

It would be easier and much more economical instead of making wars, to just buy the whole lands. Turkey could buy the whole Cyprus with less money than what the occupation already costed her, and we could buy the TOTAL of the occupied areas with less money than what the Anan Plan would cost us.
The fact is that the value of land when sold outside the juristiction of the State is infinite

Perhaps the only way for you to sell your property in the occupied is to sell it to another GC or Tc who already resides permanently in the free areas, and as you know such buyers don't really exist.

As a test to prove you are wrong, I challenge you to
find me one buyer for my property in the north and then
we will see if the RoC can indeed stop me from selling
it. I bet 100,000 pounds and I ask you bet only 1,000 on
it, that I can sell it and RoC will have no choice other
than transferring the title deeds.

Sorry you would lose.You are not the first one who thought about it.No lawyer ever accepted to take such a case or even promote it to the ECHR. Does that tell you something? The fact is that some lawyers tried to bypass this obstacle by making private agreements between buyer and seller so that that agreement can be used for the transfer of ownership AFTER a solution.Such agreements however are at stake unless they are filed at the Lands department (which presently does not accept them) so even those agreements are very much at risk of meaning nothing in the end.

Or they are supposed to give citizenship
to TCs that are born outside Cyprus (if their
parents are Cypriot) but they do not.

Of course they do not. Who said they are "supposed" to do so?

MicAtCyp,
I think you are making a mistake.
Yes, the state is allowed to set limits to the amount of land sold to foreigners (not to E.U. citizens though because Cyprus didn’t seek derogations from E.U. on the matter.) Other than that, if I want to sell my land in the north to another GC or a TC or to another E.U. citizen, RoC doesn’t have the right to obstruct me or not to facilitate the transfer. Of course it is also allowed to charge the nomilar transfer rights like in any other case.

I am not saying that the RoC might not attempt to inhibit it. However I am 100% sure that if I take the case to a court in the RoC or if not satisfied to the ECHR or even to the Court of the European Communities, I will win the case and the RoC will be ordered to facilitate the title transfer.

Think about this. The RoC accepts that I am the legal owner. Facilitates or participates in the actions taken by me against Turkey in the ECHR, for obstructing or depriving its citizens to enjoy their property. In the case of Apostolides, the court ordered the British couple to demolish the house and deliver the land free of any trespassing acts, back to the owner.

What do all these mean? They mean that the RoC recognises my right to enjoy my property. The only other thing that the RoC cannot provide to me is the enforcement of my right to have access it. For this reason RoC participates on my side for the action that both of us take against Turkey. However, my rights for enjoyment of my property include my right to sell it as well. If the RoC refuses to allow me to exercise part of my right for free enjoyment (which is the right to sell my property if I want,) it is like it acts in a similar manner like Turkey, which also denies my right for free enjoyment, by not allowing to me to have access to it.

The real question that one should ask is this. Who would be interested to buy such land in the north, through the RoC land registry procedure, if the RoC cannot guarantee to the new buyer free access to it. However this is something that concerns the buyer. If he/she accepts that the RoC has no power to allow him free access to the property he wishes to buy but he is still interested to buy this property, then I am believe the RoC has no legal right and essentially no choice, not to facilitate the sale. Doing otherwise, it is like placing itself in the same posiotion like like Turkey, which also denies my property rights.

Again, the right to free enjoyment of ones property includes the right to sell it.

[Kifeas]

As a test to prove you are wrong, I challenge you to find me one buyer for my property in the north and then we will see if the RoC can indeed stop me from selling it. I bet 100,000 pounds and I ask you bet only 1,000 on it, that I can sell it and RoC will have no choice other than transferring the title deeds.

Kifeas,Please do not bet because you will loose.We try to buy some property with Australian passport everthing was okey until somebody realized my birth place and they (roc) make them to stop selling it.

I am sorry but I do not understand how this case relates to the subject. can you give me all the details?