Cyprus-Forum.com

[insan]

How about Socrates re brother? We TCs either pronounce it Sokrates or Sokrat but we don't pronounce Eracles as Erakl instead just Erakles we say.


Ps: And btw, nice to see you calmed down. Your temper has never lasted too long before.

[Alexandros Lordos]

PS. Alexandre your name in this form is not 2nd person singular. It is not a verb! it is "calling case" singular.How to from it? If the nominative case ends to a consonant (usually s) simply drop the s.In rare cases when the vowel that is left is an o you may need to change it to e.
E.g. Pantelis- Re Panteli, Yiannis-Hey Yianni, Mehmet- Re Mehmet, Maria-Hey Maria, Lordos-Re Lordo or Re Lorde.

He, he, he. Just an explanation for of TC friends who might wonder.

[erolz]

He, he, he. Just an explanation for of TC friends who might wonder.

I didn't understand that even in english ??

[Alexandros Lordos]

Turkcyp,

I will come back with my response on property rights and implementation guarantees tomorrow ... for now, I just wanted to add my views on the 1960 constitution.

Basically, the only thing I would like to see changed in the 1960 constitution is the president/vice-president system ... which I thought was antagonistic, given that they were elected in separate ballots, and also too vulnerable to deadlocks. I would much prefer it, if it was replaced by a Presidential Council of 6, as in the Annan Plan, elected from a common ballot, because this would give a premium to moderate and co-operative politicians, and also remove the possibility of a one-man veto or a one-man take-over.

Otherwise, the 1960 constitution is fine.

To be honest though, I am - more generally - a bit ambivalent about the viability prospects of a Unitary State ... on the one hand, it sounds appealing that a total mixing of populations would take place, on the other hand, it sounds potentially explosive, especially given that all decisions of the government would affect both communities simultaneously and would therefore require joint consent.

The Federal System, in contrast, allows for some autonomy of each community, and therefore we won't be getting in each other's way so much ...

[MicAtCyp]

You are right re gardas I think I am going to withdraw from all the forums, I started loosing control more often than usual.
Erol, I understand why, its because in English you dont cave many cases for nouns. In Greek we have 5, 4 of which are identical with the Turkish ones i.e The Nominatif,the Genetif, the Datif, nd the Akuzatif.Notice the Datif (Dotiki in Greek) was only used in ancient Greek). Anyway the fifth one in the "calling case". When you call someone directly, or you are addressed to him directly if his/her name ends to an s you drop the s.So it remains with a vowel in the end.Sometimes (not often) you change that vowel too.
Obviously foreign names, or Greek names ending to anything else than an S remain the same as in the nominative case.
Insan gardas, back to you now.
The actual spelling is Sokratis, and Iraklis.
You want to call them, or Say something to them? Drop the s.

Sokrati and Irakli, listen to me. You are both dead!

[insan]

Insan gardas, back to you now.
The actual spelling is Sokratis, and Iraklis.
You want to call them, or Say something to them? Drop the s.

Sokrati and Irakli, listen to me. You are both dead!

Thanks for the explanations, adelfe MicAtCyp. Please don't lose your calm. Today the ones who withdraw from all the forums, tomorrow withdraw from the House of the Commons.


Nice to see you backing to normal


No hard feelings re gardas. This is life.

[Alexandros Lordos]

Dear Turkcyp,

Turkcyp,

concerning property issues:

- I understand what you are saying about first tier, second tier and third tier properties as far as foreign buyers is concerned. What the Annan Plan does is to fully protect those buyers who bought second tier properties (ie properties that actually belong to GCs but were given to TCs sometime after 1974). What I am saying - and it may sound harsh - is that there should be absolutely no protection for these people. At best, they should be entitled to the original property of the TC seller in the south, with which their GC property was exchanged after 1974. We are not talking about human pain here, we are not talking about refugees, we are talking about tourists who thought they found a good bargain and had no qualms about making a holiday home of property that belonged to someone else.

I guess this may sound very frivolous issue to you, but it has legal ramifications. If you say that TCs has legal rights to exchange these properties for their old ones, then legally talking when a TC sold that property all the rights, risks, and claims against (debts) for that property transfers to the buyer, may it be another TC, another GC or another foreigner.

This is a basic legal concept, and I hardly doubt that you can limit that. And quite frankly I do not see the reason fro blocking it either. If a TC decides to sell its property that he exchanged for his/hers southern property then, I think the buyer of that property should have all of his/her rights. Of course the TC when he sells that property looses all of his/her rights against the property in the south as well. If that is what you are afraid of. (kind of double compensation),

You have to understand how sensitive this issue is to Greek Cypriots ... right now, with the provisions of Annan 5, they feel that they are at the bottom of the pecking order when it comes to reclaiming property. First come TC refugees (acceptable), then heavily invested properties (perhaps also acceptable when examined with a cool head), then settlers who have lived in these houses for at least ten years (insulting), then foreign tourists who are not even poor or displaced or anything, but who happened to have found a bargain by investing on the pain of the Cypriot people (extremely insulting), and then, finally, if something is left over, GCs can have a third of it ...

In a sense, turkcyp, I feel that there is a characteristic you have in common with Piratis (...surprised? ) You both get carried away by legal arguments, which arguments you tend to put above the needs of the other community. Forgive me this criticism, I have nothing but the utmost respect for you and your perceptive intellect.

In the particular issue of whether the right to exchange gets transferred to the "buyers" of those properties as well, let's not forget that the right to exchange is itself not legal, it is a humanitarian measure which can only be arrived at by bending the law (which law simply says, original owners have full rights over all their properties). Now, to take this humanitarian measure and call it a legal right, or even to say that because of this measure then various transactions that took place before the solution (between TCs and foreigners) are themselves also legalised ... No. I think this goes too far! If the foreign buyers have a right to anything, it is to the original property which the TC owned, which was the only property that he had a right to sell (according to international law, not according to TRNC law). So, the british tourist who has now cosily settled into a Greek Cypriot house in Lapithos or Karmi, overlooking the bay of Kyrenia, can pack all his things and move on to the property he really bought, in the Turkish neighbourhood of Larnaca or Limassol or Paphos or wherever. If he doesn't like that, it is his problem.

But the one about ECHR would do more harm than good. Knowing that they can go to ECHR, at the end of the day, and get full reinstitution like Louzidou, why would any GC accept the recommendation of local legal authorities. I think the property disputes should be solved at the local level. You can apply to the property commission, and if you do not like the verdict I guess you can go all the way up to Cyprus Supreme Court.

Well, I am not suggesting that people should have the right to go to ECHR as an alternative to going to the property commission, I am just saying that if through the property commission they do not get what they have a right to (in accordance with the terms of the settlement) then they should have the right to go to the ECHR, against the constituent state (TC or GC) which has failed to take measures to rehouse current occupants so that their property would be vacated on time, or against Turkey if she fails to withdraw her troops from areas subject to territorial adjustment as agreed, thus making it impossible for them to reclaim their property.

Have a nice day, my friend

[turkcyp]

Dear Alex,

You have to understand how sensitive this issue is to Greek Cypriots ... right now, with the provisions of Annan 5, they feel that they are at the bottom of the pecking order when it comes to reclaiming property. First come TC refugees (acceptable), then heavily invested properties (perhaps also acceptable when examined with a cool head), then settlers who have lived in these houses for at least ten years (insulting), then foreign tourists who are not even poor or displaced or anything, but who happened to have found a bargain by investing on the pain of the Cypriot people (extremely insulting), and then, finally, if something is left over, GCs can have a third of it ...

I definetly understand the sensitivity of GCs on this issue.

But let me ask you another hypothetical question to make my point more clear. What if the land a TC exchanged his/her property for is sold to another TC. Would that buyer TC (who is not a foreigner, a lucky rich tourist as you have claimed) will be entitled the same rights.

There are thousands of transactions like this that took place in the last 30 years. For example, I have built my house on a land I have bought from a TC, which he had obtained by point system established for this kind of exchange by the north authorities.

I made conscious effort not to buy a land that is given to settlers, as I believe that is very risky. So the only risk I took when I was buying this land from the fellow TC was the risk that "his land he left in south does not worth the land he acquired here". And I am willing to cover the difference to a fellow GC, as he was required to do so in Annan Plan.

And there too many transaction that are done like this in the last 30 years. We are not simply talking about couple of thousand Brits trying to buy cheap properties. You are suggesting that every transaction that is done between a two fellow TCs in the last 30 years on an exchanged land should not be accepted. Are you aware of the mess this proposal is creating.

That is my view. They say "kas yapmaya calisirken goz cikarmiyalim" (meaning "while trying to correct the eyebrows, let's not harm the eyes").

In a sense, turkcyp, I feel that there is a characteristic you have in common with Piratis (...surprised? ) You both get carried away by legal arguments, which arguments you tend to put above the needs of the other community. Forgive me this criticism, I have nothing but the utmost respect for you and your perceptive intellect.

Hey I am a firm believer of "Supremacy of Law" and I believe that in trying to find a solution the closer we get to legality the better it is for us for further implementation of the problem.

I mean I know that at the end this will be political solution, and law should be bend to some degree to accommodate the sensitivities of societies (both GCs and TCs) but the less we deviate from law, I believe the better the chances of the implementation of the solution in the future.

In the particular issue of whether the right to exchange gets transferred to the "buyers" of those properties as well, let's not forget that the right to exchange is itself not legal, it is a humanitarian measure which can only be arrived at by bending the law (which law simply says, original owners have full rights over all their properties). Now, to take this humanitarian measure and call it a legal right, or even to say that because of this measure then various transactions that took place before the solution (between TCs and foreigners) are themselves also legalised ... No. I think this goes too far! If the foreign buyers have a right to anything, it is to the original property which the TC owned, which was the only property that he had a right to sell (according to international law, not according to TRNC law). So, the british tourist who has now cosily settled into a Greek Cypriot house in Lapithos or Karmi, overlooking the bay of Kyrenia, can pack all his things and move on to the property he really bought, in the Turkish neighbourhood of Larnaca or Limassol or Paphos or wherever. If he doesn't like that, it is his problem.

I am not sure about that. In law, I am sure I can find plenty of precedent court decisions, that grants the right to use the "illegally obtained property" if the fair market price and the time value of money is paid by the user to the person who illegally lost the property.

It is kind of "forced selling" and courts agrees to that granted certain conditions are met. But again, knowing that this is a political issue which needs to accommodate the wishes of as many people as it can, I am willing to discuss any proposal. Otherwise I would have simply just said, let's turn back every refuge to their properties fully, and compensate the GCs for the last 30 years, and compensate TCs for the last 40 years.(compensation does not just involve compensation for the lost property, but also compensation for the not used constitutional rights)

But I know that this is politically not feasible neither TCs nor to GCs. Hence we are talking here to understand each other sensitivities to find a lasting political solution.

So if you are saying that foreigner should not be extended those rights. Then I say "amen" to that, but you should say "amen" to TCs having those rights on the bought property.

Well, I am not suggesting that people should have the right to go to ECHR as an alternative to going to the property commission, I am just saying that if through the property commission they do not get what they have a right to (in accordance with the terms of the settlement) then they should have the right to go to the ECHR, against the constituent state (TC or GC) which has failed to take measures to rehouse current occupants so that their property would be vacated on time, or against Turkey if she fails to withdraw her troops from areas subject to territorial adjustment as agreed, thus making it impossible for them to reclaim their property.

Have a nice day, my friend

Dear Alex,

The right to go to ECHR can not be taken away from anybody when the country signs the agreement to be bound by the ECHRs decisions. No matter what Annan Plan says, you can not take that right away from any people.

So the people can go to ECHR no matter what. But they have to exercise all the local venues first. So before ECHR people should expend all the local avenues like going to property commission, then to local courts, and then all the way to supreme court if necessary before they go to ECHR.(Even ECHR asks this)

That is why in Annan Plan it is proposed that "the newly established constitutional order will be responsible for these cases" and furthermore Annan Plan says that "The government should ask the ECHR to turn these kind of brought cases down".

The critic wording here is, "turning the applied cases down", meaning everybody has a right to go to ECHR after their expend all the local venues, and ECHR decide which case to take on merit by merit basis, but Goverment of united Cyprus prefers that ECHR upholds the decisions of the local authorities. There is no way anybody can force ECHR, and independent body, to turn any case down, just simply the government has asked them to do so, if the case has a merit. Turkey has been trying to tell ECHR that they should turn all teh Kurdish cases down, because they have lost in the local venues, but ECHR keeps on declining this request.

In a nutshell, everybody no matter what Annan Plan says has a right to appeal to ECHR, but he/she must first use all the local avenues first. And there is nothing wrong in new republic asking ECHR to uphold the decisions of its courts. Otherwise nobody will be happy with the decisions of property commission anyway. Who would like to accept some of their property going to TCs, while they can get it all, in ECHR. So everybody will eventually would want to apply to ECHR. So I think it imperative that the government says that I am the responsible party on this matter and ask ECHR to turn the cases down.

Have a great day

[Alexandros Lordos]

Dear turkcyp,

concerning the petitions to the ECHR:

I am all for the new government asking the ECHR to turn down a certain category of claims that individuals might bring before it - particularly, all claims that have to do with "wrong-doing" (if I may use this crude expression) that occurred before the date the solution was signed. With the solution, the slate should be wiped clean, and no one should have any claims from anyone that will not be resolved directly through the terms of the agreement. So the government should ask the ECHR to turn down all pending claims, up to that present day, that much I acknowledge - and also turn down any future claims that may arise which concern pre-solution disputes.

However, in the same letter to the ECHR, it should be made clear that this abrogation in no way implies that Cypriots will not be entitled to seek recourse at the ECHR regarding claims that arise through post-solution disputes. More specifically, claims which arose because the terms of the solution were not respected by one of the parties involved. I am certainly not implying by this that someone who is not happy with the ruling of the property committee should then have the right to move his claim up to the ECHR, in the hope of getting a "better deal": No, certainly not. If the property committee had acted according to the guidelines set forth in the terms of the solution, then its ruling should be final. If, however, the property committee swerved away from its mandate, for whatever reason, then the individual should have the right to appeal all the way up to the ECHR, and demand that the terms of the solution be upheld. And this right of appeal should be clearly spelt out in the letter that the co-presidents will send to the ECHR, as soon as a solution is agreed upon.

This is the spirit in which I meant that we need the ECHR for the purpose of guaranteeing the implementation of the solution. How does this sound to you now?

concerning the exchange of properties:

I am sorry, I wasn't aware that Turkish Cypriots would also have been affected by what I am proposing. This is certainly not my intention. However, I can think of at least two reasons why your house would be unaffected:

a. Don't you have property in the south that you can exchange the land on which you built your home with? Even if you don't,

b. Haven't you increased the value of your property by at least 50%, so that you can keep it as a significantly improved property? To that, I am sure the answer is Yes, since building a home on an empty plot automatically doubles or triples the value of the property. So, you would not be at risk.

Having said that, I still respect that you might have cause for concerns for other TCs, who perhaps bought a GC ready made house from another TC, and who don't have equivalent property of their own which they can use to exchange. To cover such cases, perhaps the overall arrangement should be as follows:

- The right of exchange should not on the whole be transferrable to subsequent buyers of the property.
- In cases where the subsequent buyer is a Cypriot citizen, an exception can be made to the above rule, so that the right of exchange may be transferred to him.

In this way, we can filter out the foreign tourists who bought GC houses, without affecting TCs who - I agree - should not be disturbed.


May I say once again, turkcyp, that I very much value our conversations here. By challenging each other, we develop a more thorough and sensitive understanding of the issues involved.

[turkcyp]

This is the spirit in which I meant that we need the ECHR for the purpose of guaranteeing the implementation of the solution. How does this sound to you now?

If I understood you clearly, you want the ECHR to stay as an open venue for those whose the decision of courts and commision is failed to be implemented by one of the affected parties.

I have no problem of using ECHR as the enforcer of the commisions or ocurt decisions. But quite honestly I think you have very high expectations out of ECHR.

If the united Cyprus republic with its own police force can not enforce the rules of its courts then, I guess we are in trouble and no court order including ECHR can be enforce by the state. But I have no problem with that. But let's just hope that when the commision and courts in Cyprus decide on issues the decisions are obeyed and if are not obeyed are enforced by the police.

concerning the exchange of properties:

I am sorry, I wasn't aware that Turkish Cypriots would also have been affected by what I am proposing. This is certainly not my intention. However, I can think of at least two reasons why your house would be unaffected:

a. Don't you have property in the south that you can exchange the land on which you built your home with? Even if you don't,

b. Haven't you increased the value of your property by at least 50%, so that you can keep it as a significantly improved property? To that, I am sure the answer is Yes, since building a home on an empty plot automatically doubles or triples the value of the property. So, you would not be at risk.

Having said that, I still respect that you might have cause for concerns for other TCs, who perhaps bought a GC ready made house from another TC, and who don't have equivalent property of their own which they can use to exchange. To cover such cases, perhaps the overall arrangement should be as follows:

- The right of exchange should not on the whole be transferrable to subsequent buyers of the property.
- In cases where the subsequent buyer is a Cypriot citizen, an exception can be made to the above rule, so that the right of exchange may be transferred to him.

In this way, we can filter out the foreign tourists who bought GC houses, without affecting TCs who - I agree - should not be disturbed.

It is not just if the property is safe in Annan Plan or not. Because lets say I am in one of the two scenarios you have mentioned above. If I am using my own land (left back in south) to justify for a GC land I have bought from another TC then wouldn't I be paying for the land twice. One to the fellow TC that I have bought the land from and paid for, and the other to the property commision that in terms of my claim on my land in the south.

And wouldn't that guy who sell me the property has right to go back and claim his southern property again because teh property he sold actually turns back to pre GC pwner. Actually now that I think about this is very interesting question.

Let's say a TC got a land for his own property in the south and sold it to a Brit. But Brits has no claim for that land after the solution as you have suggested but the prior GC owner has, then this means that TC that have sold the land to Brit have got money for essentially selling nothing and can turn back and claim his land that he got the GC property in excahge for back in the south. Don't you think that this is a real possibility.

Or another scenario is a TC that have not left anything in the south goes and buys this property from the TC. What then?

I mean scenarios may be abundant. That is why I insisted that the exchange regime should be applied for the people who bought the land from the TCs as well.

But I guess you are saying that I am willing to make this property exchange on one condition and that is the current user of the land is a TC. I guess I can live with that, although I believe it will cause tons and tons of legal cases in the courts and in ECHR.

But anyway I think we are getting carried away. I guess if the TCs are not affected by your proposal then we can restrict foreign buyers of GC land from exchanged TC parties.

May I say once again, turkcyp, that I very much value our conversations here. By challenging each other, we develop a more thorough and sensitive understanding of the issues involved.

Likewise Alex, likewise

If we were able to talk like this as a society in the last 40 years we would not be in this mess right now I guess. But anyway, let's just hope that past mistakes tought us something.

High regards