Cyprus-Forum.com

[elko]

Next you will ask me to prove that Monday follows Sunday. I can't be bothered.
ismet

[stuballstu]

Piratis wrote

stuballstu, you are the one who is talking nonsense. EU and its laws are one thing, ECHR (not part of EU) is another. ECHR doesn't make laws, and it doesn't decide what is legal and what is not. It decides if human rights were violated in country.

So get your facts straight.

Piratis

I think if you check you will see that my facts are correct.

Within the borders of RoC only RoC can decide what is legal and what is not

This is not true. As member of the EU all EU laws and directives take precedence over local laws. I suggest that you are the one that does the research on this one. You are making false claims that only the ROC government can decide what is legal and what is not inside its own borders.

The ECHR is not part of the EU, no one is claiming that. But you are claiming that the ROC decides what is legal and what is not. That is bollocks and you of all people should know it. EU laws take precedence! That is why the ROC government had to change its constitution to allow this to happen.

As for the property commission. Once the ECHR ratify the property commission as suitable local remedy it will not deal with any cases relating to Cyprus unless it has been to the property commission first. If no suitable remedy has been reached at the property commission then an appeal can be lodged at the ECHR. That is one of the reasons why the ECHR has asked Turkey to provide a remedy.

If you say that no one can make the laws and claim that the ROC can decide what is legal within its borders why dont they send GC policeman up to every GC refugees land in the north and arrest the people who live on these lands or who have bought them? Would it be because, by their own admission, they dont have effective control over the north?

Facts straight??? I think you'll find mine are. Are yours?

[Piratis]

What EU has to do with ECHR?? Why are confusing the two?

Sure, EU laws have precedence over local laws but that has nothing to do with ECHR. So why are you bringing EU in this?

OK, let me rephrase it to satisfy you: Only RoC and EU can decide what is legal and what is not in Cyprus, not ECHR. The property "commission" is illegal because RoC says so (and EU doesn't say the opposite). Agreed?

Conclusion: The "commission" in the occupied areas is illegal, which is what I said from the very beginning.

[elko]

Piratis,
I think I am beginning to understand how your mind works

Are you saying that even if ECHR rocognizes the Commission as "local remedy" and thus if you do not go through the Commission you will have no case at ECHR
BUT despite all that the Commission is illegal because the legal government of ROC says so and the EU is not saying the opposite?

Have I got you right?
ismet

[Viewpoint]

What EU has to do with ECHR?? Why are confusing the two?

Sure, EU laws have precedence over local laws but that has nothing to do with ECHR. So why are you bringing EU in this?

OK, let me rephrase it to satisfy you: Only RoC and EU can decide what is legal and what is not in Cyprus, not ECHR. The property "commission" is illegal because RoC says so (and EU doesn't say the opposite). Agreed?

Conclusion: The "commission" in the occupied areas is illegal, which is what I said from the very beginning.

Who will the GCs surrender their deeds to in order to get compensation? the "Roc" EU ECHR UN Greece? or Turkey?

[Pyrpolizer]

Have Loizidou or Xenides surrendred their RoC deeds to anyone

[stuballstu]

Well done Piratis

Two contradictory statements in the one day.

Statement one

Within the borders of RoC only RoC can decide what is legal and what is not

Statement two

Sure, EU laws have precedence over local laws

Hypocricy at its best!

How can you say on one hand that only the ROC can decide what is legal within its borders when quite clearly it doesn't and does not have sole rights on the whole of Cyprus. The EU (not the ECHR) has precedence (see thats finally sunk in with you) and by their own admittance the ROC government does not have any control over what happens in the North. Therefore it has no say, legally, on what happens in that part of Cyprus.

If they do, again I'll ask, Why dont they send GC policeman to GC refugees property and arrest anyone who has bought, owns or rents on this land. Would it be because they have no juristiction within that part of Cyprus?


Piratis wrote

Conclusion: The "commission" in the occupied areas is illegal, which is what I said from the very beginning.

Please provide evidence that this has been passed at ROC parliament which speicifically states that this property commission is illegal?

Well done to the ROC government, another shot in the foot for ordinary GC's. The ECHR will no longer look at cased of GC refugees unless they have been to the property commission first and the GC refugees now have only whats called an "illegal" form of restitution. Now they are in a "lose, lose" position. Congratulations to your government.

[Piratis]

Who will the GCs surrender their deeds to in order to get compensation? the "Roc" EU ECHR UN Greece? or Turkey?

Land of our country can not be "surrendered" to another country. If some British gives the deeds to his property in the UK to the Cyprus government, would that make that UK land part of Cyprus??

You can not buy our country. Period.

[Viewpoint]

Have Loizidou or Xenides surrendred their RoC deeds to anyone

They were not redirected to the newly formed property commission although 3 other GCs who apllied to the Property commission didn't surrenders theirs either I hear one of them has moved back to his property. Why do you deny your people the right to have the opportunity to claim back their property? You shoudl welcome this with open arms isnt this what you wanted?

[skipper]

It does n't matter if the RoC declares the commission as illegal as they are a not a party to the court case, the case is between an individual and Turkey. Like I said in the previous thread regarding this, the ECHR recognises the TRNC in past judgements as sub-ordinate to Turkey, whether it is recognised as a state by anyone else has no bearing on the case as the court is simply looking for a mechanism that will provide redress for applicants. If the RoC makes dealing with the commission a specific criminal offsense GC's will not beable to go back to the ECHR against Turkey because it would not Turkey blocking them from getting redress, they would have to take the RoC to the ECHR which would then rule if the RoC had breached a human right.

With regards to the issue of handing back of land that has occupants on it since the court is concerned with human rights it also has to take into that into account, since regadless of how they came to be situated there they have rights too, anyone who has had tenants that refuse to leave will know what I'm talking about. The only grey area is military zones, which way the ECHR will go regarding those is anyones guess.

My previous post for the lazy:

This is a nonsense argument considering how the TRNC has been evaluated in previous judgments by the ECHR.

In early cases taken to the ECHR (and still to an extent) Turkey had argued that the TRNC is an independant state and as such petitions should be to the TRNC authorities. The ECHR looked into this and came to the conclusion that whilst acknowledging that there is a working administration with state like institutions it could not be considered independant since the Turkish army has a large presense excercising effective control in areas such as policing it could only be regarded as a sub-ordinate administration. This is the basis for every court case taken against Turkey with regards to Cyprus.

The ECHR has recognised the TRNC as being the sub-ordinate administration of Turkey in the north (ie a local administration) so in this case how could a commission established in the TRNC to handle GC's property claims not be seen to be doing what the ECHR asked for?

This is why regardless of the TRNC appearing in name or not your argument would n't stand, unless some GC's lawyers want go and argue that the TRNC is not controlled by Turkey??

If you look at the previous judgement, the reason why the property commission was rejected then was not because it was established by the TRNC, it was rejected because there was no chance of restitution to the applicant. Since restitution is now possible under certain circumstances the only argument is whether the ECHR thinks that the circumstances where restitution is not possible are valid or not.

The interesting thing with regards to the Aresti case is that her home is in an area where Turkey has agreements after 1974 that the Turkish Army control the vacant area and as such this is why it has been closed off ever since. In the absense of a political agreement to the Cyprus problem, Turkey will argue that this should continue to be the case, infact the commission had offered Aresti her home back after a solution. If the ECHR thinks this is not a valid argument then they could always open up the whole area under the control of the TRNC and allow everyone to go back. I'm wondering how many residents would be willing to reclaim their property in such a case?

Anyhow, I could go on with other aspects relating to this but I think this will suffice for the time being.