Oram judgement explained

niftyduo


Joined: 27/04/2008
Posts: 230

Message Posted:
18/05/2009 09:51

Turkey says ECJ ruling on Cyprus property case hurts peace talks



ANKARA - Turkey rejected a decision by Europe's highest court for the return of land which remained in Turkish Cyprus after 1974, citing it as "hurting" ongoing peace talks.

"Attempts to hurt the peace process in Cyprus by individual court decisions, such as the Orams case, are unacceptable," Turkish Foreign Ministry said Friday in a statement.



The European Court of Justice ruled in favor of a Greek Cypriot, Meletis Apostolides, who in 2004 appealed to a Greek Cyprus court for the return of land his family abandoned after Turkey's military intervention in 1974.

By that time, the property in a village in Turkish Cyprus had been bought by a British couple, Linda and David Orams.



see next part:

niftyduo


Joined: 27/04/2008
Posts: 230

Message Posted:
18/05/2009 09:54

"The 'Cyprus Republic' does not exist anymore as a partnership state which was founded in 1960, and the Greek Cypriots do not have any jurisdiction over Turkish Cypriots nor authority to represent the entire island," the statement said.



The heart of the Orams case was whether the decision given by a Greek court was applicable in the United Kingdom, referring to all other EU-member states.



The British High Court applied to the ECJ on the grounds that the final decision would affect all similar cases in the member states of the EU.





Origin: http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/english/domestic/11659312.asp?gid=244



The ECJ's ruling implied the Greek Cypriot judiciary had also authority in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and the decisions to be made by Greek Cypriot judiciary should be implemented in all EU countries

ilovekibris


Joined: 18/05/2009
Posts: 394

Message Posted:
18/05/2009 22:54

niftyduo wrote:

The ECJ's ruling implied the Greek Cypriot judiciary had also authority in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and the decisions to be made by Greek Cypriot judiciary should be implemented in all EU countries



Well that IS what the ruling is all about isn't it? That's what is causing people so much worry...

Lemtich



Joined: 15/02/2007
Posts: 1487

Message Posted:
19/05/2009 01:28

Krawpy. That may be, that may be.



But the zeitgeist of it is that for 36 years these people have lived in their homes that does not fall under ROC rule.



I'm not talking about British purchasers here, I'm talking about TC's living on ex GC land having lost their's in the south.



The GC's can deliver judgement after judgement in their GC courts and try and



get various EU national courts to issue similar judgements.



But it will not be. The ROC cannot enforce its judgement on the TC's but only



against EU citizens who have "used" ex GC owned land through their own



national courts, and the British High Court knows this.



This amounts to descrimination, if your a TC you're safe from enforcement of a GC court judgement, if you are a Brit, you are not as the ROC are using EU legislation against specified EU citizens.



Unless a judgement can be seen to be enforced equally and fairly within the EU acquis, it will fail.



Lem

niftyduo


Joined: 27/04/2008
Posts: 230

Message Posted:
19/05/2009 13:52

In my view, the GC's are making the same mistakes as they did throughout the troubles in trying to manipulate world opinion too much in their favour and, at the same time, apply pressure to the TRNC. This judgement, made in a Greek court to favour a Greek, and now applied to all EU citizens is a step too far. As Lem points out, other nationals, and there are plenty of Russians now buying, the Turks and the TC's themselves remain unaffected. Add to that that some land and houses have changed hands two or three times. It is too complex a problem to solve in such a simplistic way.

There has to be a political solution to the land and property issues otherwise the GC's will lose out again. This judgement will have elevated the issue to still higher diplomatic circles now and Turkey's voice strengthened.

Let's hope the UK government do the right thing for a change and declare it against public interest to bring it to a close, at least for the time being.

millzer


Joined: 12/04/2007
Posts: 978

Message Posted:
19/05/2009 14:27

Whilst it may be true that no one else but Turkey recognizes the TRNC it is a fact nevertherless that the ROC does not contain any TC's in its government in the way that the 1960 constitution said it should, the Akritas plan made sure of that and therefore that is why Turkey (legitimately and morally in it's own view) states that it does not recognise the ROC as the legitimate government for the whole of the island and thios is exactly why those STUPID EU bureaucrats made a BIG mistake by allowing Cyprus to enter the EU as a divided nation.

ozzieTC


Joined: 15/05/2009
Posts: 48

Message Posted:
19/05/2009 14:56

millzer: you can put southern cyprus' ascension to the EU down to the greeks - they threatened to veto the ascension of the other nine countries who joined the EU in 2004. Also back in 1995 the griks continually blocked the EU-turkey customs union until ascension negotiations with Cyprus were opened. Once opened, the only real barrier was the TRNC issue, which the griks managed to overcome with the force of their veto, but ordinarily would've meant that southern cyprus' entry into the EU would not have been possible. It's ironic, because apart from tiny Malta, Cyprus was the least important of the countries that joined the EU in 2004. Turkey also made threats to the EU to not include Cyprus on account of the TCs being excluded from the political process on the island, but the EU was wedged by the griks. A big showdown is looming at the end of this year, when Turkey will either have to open her ports to gc ships or face the consequences.

stewy


Joined: 18/10/2008
Posts: 279

Message Posted:
19/05/2009 15:02

Lem

I read your post with interest.

But you seem to think that two wrongs make a right.

Howmuchlonger


Joined: 08/11/2008
Posts: 61

Message Posted:
19/05/2009 15:39

Lemtich

You said 'Unless a judgement can be seen to be enforced equally and fairly within the EU acquis, it will fail.'

Unfortunately I think you are probably wrong there. The fairness of it is not the UK's courts decision, it's simply a question of its being required to implement a decision in another EU court. They will not be required to look at the bigger picture.

taraspring


Joined: 25/01/2009
Posts: 571

Message Posted:
19/05/2009 15:48

The CoA could always depart from the "direction" of the ECJ, and use Judge made law....the maxims of equity (Common Law)

ozzieTC


Joined: 15/05/2009
Posts: 48

Message Posted:
19/05/2009 16:04

In this case, the CoA would have to re-interpret a treaty signed by the UK Government. I doubt that the CoA can refuse to implement this particular ruling because it thinks that the ruling is incorrect - only a GC court and perhaps the ECHR can overturn the original gc court ruling. There is a slim chance that the CoA will decide that actually *applying* the ruling is incorrect for some reason or another.

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
19/05/2009 16:13

msge 10 "They will not be required to look at the bigger picture."



so true, and that is the massive failing and the fatal flaw of the legal system

taraspring


Joined: 25/01/2009
Posts: 571

Message Posted:
19/05/2009 16:26

As I understand it, it is not a "ruling", it is a direction on a point of law.

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
19/05/2009 16:45

As far as Orams is concerned, the COA does not even have to consider the Public Policy side although I am sure they will. The initial court in UK found that Orams were not given sufficient time to defend themselves. This is a ruling "on a point of fact". The comments of ECJ on these facts was beyond her jurisdiction and therefore not binding on the COA. Even on this simple point the COA can and will refuse to apply the judgement of ROC court in this instance.



ismet

taraspring


Joined: 25/01/2009
Posts: 571

Message Posted:
19/05/2009 16:56

The ECJ were not asked for directions on "on a point of fact", they were asked for directions on a "point of law", and therefore any comments that the ECJ made on on these "facts" was beyond their remit, and should not be taken into consideration by the COA.



The ECJ's task was very simple. It was not a matter for them to comment further on matters that they were not asked to consider, and thus, any comments they did make in relation to "facts" have to be ignored.



Just my view for what it's worth.

Howmuchlonger


Joined: 08/11/2008
Posts: 61

Message Posted:
19/05/2009 17:23

Ismet

You said ' Even on this simple point the COA can and will refuse to apply the judgement of ROC court in this instance. '



How can you be so sure as to state the above? I really really would like to know!!

karakum5c



Joined: 18/03/2008
Posts: 1021

Message Posted:
19/05/2009 17:34

To allow this process to continue would lead to anarchy accross Europe including Cyprus and any hope of an eventual peace settlement, common sense in end always prevails.

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
19/05/2009 17:37

How much longer,

How can I help you? I have explained my reasons, so which part is not clear enough for you?

ismet

Howmuchlonger


Joined: 08/11/2008
Posts: 61

Message Posted:
19/05/2009 19:10

Sorry Ismet, I see now that you were speaking specifically about the 'not sufficient time to defend themselves' point rather than the bigger question of whether a ruling in a ROC court should be applied in the UK. It was wishful thinking on my part that you knew of a reason why the UK court would definitely not apply any ruling in any case.



You do however have a lot more faith in the COA than me that it will not to apply it due to public policy! I hope you are right though.



HML

ilovekibris


Joined: 18/05/2009
Posts: 394

Message Posted:
19/05/2009 20:50

Lemtich wrote:

This amounts to descrimination, if your a TC you're safe from enforcement of a GC court judgement, if you are a Brit, you are not as the ROC are using EU legislation against specified EU citizens."

Sorry I beg to differ. The Orams case and all the others in the pipeline are civil cases the party suing the other side to right a wrong. The judge will take no account of anything other than the facts in the case.

kavenkoy


Joined: 10/04/2008
Posts: 1787

Message Posted:
20/05/2009 07:34

just to get opinions or facts here as im not quite following this.



in a case like many of "exchange land" now being built on and i take it not all exchange land is questioned ,as some will be correctly exchanged ?.



who now after 35 years is the claim against ,the original exchange land lord who has now sold part of the land ?,the governemnt who granted permission to buy ,build and then sell off the land ?



who as deprived the "rightfull" owner the chance to live on it for 35 years ?



so as many cases are now talked about as scare monger tactics what if .....



what if the land owner has sold some land off and say there are 100 homes now on it ?

who pays compo ?the developer who still has the deeds?,the governement who gave permission ?the land owner who sold it ?or the individuals who have bought or buying and only had it for a year?



suggest that it cant be individuals and therefore can only be solved in mass politically,or it would be another 40 years b4 papers arrive

kavenkoy


Joined: 10/04/2008
Posts: 1787

Message Posted:
20/05/2009 07:46

23 continued ....



so in the case of 100 apprtments or villas ...on 1974 prices of land .



100 villas x 5k each would give "rightfull owner" if still alive half a million without any need to sue anybody ,and a long legal case .....cos reverse side is 100 owners with 5k(500k) could fight the "right full land owner" and frustrate the life out of him .



so all is not as it appears for me ,



all these situations are hyperthetical and therfore cant be solved by individulas ,get the efes out and enjoy some sunshine ......only seems to be some people panick more than others and like to talk doom and gloom .



your more likely to be killed on the road in NC ,so look left and right before you cross



kav

Jimmyboy63


Joined: 16/03/2009
Posts: 400

Message Posted:
20/05/2009 16:18

Excellent post Kavenkoy .....just about sums it all up!!!!

girne 29


Joined: 06/12/2007
Posts: 1488

Message Posted:
20/05/2009 16:21

ilovekibris



"The Orams case and all the others in the pipeline are civil cases the party suing the other side to right a wrong. The judge will take no account of anything other than the facts in the case."



The facts that are part of the case.



1.The ECHR was not about who was right or wrong, it was about the legal authority of the ROC in EU.they could not make any other decision.



2,The party are not suing to right a wrong, as they cant get their land back, only get the other people off it.

The "wrong" was that they were denied use of their land.The TRNC are the ones doing that.



3.The financial backing needed for such court cases, and where the paper chase leads, The hundreds of thousands in the Orams case, would certainly be construed as "political".

If I were the lawyer for the Orams when the UK case comes up, thats the paperwork I would want .