Kifeas
Viewpoint, you know very well that had your “leadership” not allowed this relentless unethical attack on GC properties from all those crooks in the occupied north, after the Annan plan referendums, there would have been no need for Apostolides and Orams to end up in courts in this fashion. Apostolides court action was only necessary in order to stop this unethical climaxing of the looting of GC properties since 2003 /04, something which the TC “leadership” should have done instead. Apostolides court action was only meant to save and keep alive the prospects of a peaceful solution, and not to obstruct or destroy them. Without the substantial return of GC properties in the north, there is no other sufficient material basis for the GCs to want a peaceful reunification solution on the basis of BBF! Your community’s “leadership” tries to ignore this fact and pretends there is nothing it can do, and this is what compelled the GC Aposolides and Candunas to take action towards ending this unethical situation. Orams was not the target as such, nor was the goal as such the demolition of the villa they had built!
Firstly the risk that such a case would carry was evident form the start and this outcome is one that you will find difficult to stomach for many years to come. This is not the way to go about stopping development of disputed land in the north. You are trying to take the place of your leaders and solve the land problem through the law courts, you would have been more productive if you made the same effort and applied pressure on your leaders to persue measures with the TCs to bring this sort of building to a halt and allowed the economy in the north breathing space so as to move away from the building development which is currently taking place.
Your above highlighted comment confirms my thoughts that the goal of the majority of Gcs is purely to get back land and not build a united Cyprus for all.
What incentive is there for our leaders to stop development in the north, do they have any other areas in the economy which they can exploit, can they fly tourists direct to the island, can we sell our goods direct to the EU? Economic development knows no barriers and generates wealth via which ever route it can find, to control these you have to have alternatives otherwise you will be commiting economical suicide. On the one hand you proclaim we should breakaway from Turkey who we are economically dependent on and in the same breath you continue your politics of holding us economically hostage via isoaltion, restrcitions, no solution and trying to bring to a halt buiding development (which although controvertial) is a must for developing economies.
Imho this reality should fuel your desire for a solution the sooner the better but no instead you continue with court cases which take many many years to conclude, I really find it difficult to understand the GC logic on this issue.
The decision that the British court had taken is profoundly a politically motivated one, veiled under a clearly one-sided and wrongfull interpretation of protocol 10 of the Cyprus EU treaty of accession. The assumptions and provisions of Protocol 10 of the treaty of accession were devised by the EU and Cyprus in order to serve as a shield to its inability due to the presence of the Turkish occupation forces to have effective and de facto control of its north, currently occupied territories. What was meant in the spirit of protocol 10 to serve as a protective shield, cannot itself be assumed to become a grave stone under which to burry the de jure sovereignty and jurisdiction of the RoC in these areas, in the expense and contrary to all other provisions of international law. The decision against Orams, whose recognition was sought in the UK, was a decision taken not in the occupied north of Cyprus in which the EU aqui is suspended and therefore enforcement in other EU countries cannot take place, but it was a decision taken by a RoC court fully based in the south areas of the RoC -in which the aqui is valid, regardless of the fact that it relates to a case whose evidence is situated in the north. Council Regulation (EC) No. 44/2001 on the basis of which recognition of the RoC court ruling was sought in the UK, is part of the EU aqui, but also the decision taken by the RoC court becomes part of the aqui because it was made by a competent RoC court that is based and functions in a territory of the EU in which the aqui is enforced. The decision was not taken by a court that was based in the occupied north in which the aqui is suspended. Furthermore, the act of trespassing for which the Orams were condemned, is not based on a law that came into existence as part of the EU aqui, but it was a pre-existing RoC law, as it is also the case in most other countries world-wide.
I am confident that with the right preparation, and also upon an authoritative interpretation of protocol 10 of the treaty of accession, the above UK high court decision may be appealed and reversed, especially in view of the fact that protocol 10 was not designed in order to sabotage and cancel the de jure sovereignty and jurisdiction of the RoC in its northern occupied territories.
I am not a legal expert so I will not argue the rights and wrongs of the reasons for the decision, the situation as it currently stands is that the decision taken in the GC courts is not forcable in the TRNC or the UK.
You have been given the right to appeal, you state you are confident then feel free to go ahead but never count your chickens before they hatch.
