Orams decision next week

Aussie


Joined: 17/06/2007
Posts: 657

Message Posted:
23/04/2009 12:02

http://www.cyprus-mail.com/news/main.php?id=45280&cat_id=1

juliet


Joined: 11/01/2009
Posts: 612

Message Posted:
23/04/2009 15:32

great article... not long to go...

Amber


Joined: 26/09/2008
Posts: 561

Message Posted:
23/04/2009 15:39

Juliet,



Can I just ask you one question? why did you join this forum???

juliet


Joined: 11/01/2009
Posts: 612

Message Posted:
23/04/2009 15:46

why? a good question Amber.. you see i live in Cyprus, am Cypriot, have land in the north & also many tc & english friends who live over there... this BB is very useful keeps me informed about the everyday goings on...



hope this anwsers your question?



Why have you joined this forum?

Amber


Joined: 26/09/2008
Posts: 561

Message Posted:
23/04/2009 15:58

Juliet,



I joined prior to moving here as I wanted to find out as much info as possible. Whilst I am staying here I try to provide help to those that require it - where I can give it.



I asked you as it it just seems to like to antagonise as many people as you possibly can.

juliet


Joined: 11/01/2009
Posts: 612

Message Posted:
23/04/2009 16:07

Amber



you should try & put yourself in my shoes... imagine you had to flee your home with just the clothes on your back & after 35yrs you visit your home to find some one else living in it or its been knocked down & you find a new house & some one else liiving in it...what would you do ? just walk away? or would you try and get back what is rightfully yours? its been a long road for all tcs & gcs & its about time some people got there just deserts ie, the orams... & hopefully soon the Cyprus problem will be solved....

Remli


Joined: 15/04/2009
Posts: 27

Message Posted:
23/04/2009 16:17

Ehm..... if the Orams lose does that mean that, in turn, Turkish Cypriots can claim against land they owned in the south??



I was told at one stage that Larnaca airport was built on land owned by Turkish Cypriots. Is that correct and if so, will the airport owners be told to demolish the building and return it to the land owners with rent to be paid for the time they operated the airport there? ("should demolish their house, return the land and pay rent for the time they lived there")



I am not trying to antagonise, but I am very curious about what will happen on both sides.......

juliet


Joined: 11/01/2009
Posts: 612

Message Posted:
23/04/2009 16:49

Hi Remli



This subject has been posted lots of times, as it now stands the tcs are entitled to come & claim back there homes & even live in them as some already do, yes some of larnaca airport is tc owned & the compo will be payed to the owner, but the airport land is another story. NO tc land has been sold on the south to anybody & in fact is protected by the roc goverment.

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
23/04/2009 16:57

Dear Remli



re msg 7



1/ The Orams' case was a case brought by a GC who owns land in the "north" and observed someone had built a house in his Lemon grove - the new "owners" thought that having "TRNC" deeds meant they were "legal"..



They were served a writ from a RoC Court - were ill advised and a judgement was obtained in default for rent and damages



The case before the European Court of Justice is : Can the judgement ( from another EU Court ) be enforced in a UK Court ?



Part of Larnaca Airport WAS built on land own that TCs own. It was compulsorily purchased as most Cypriots ( GCS ) lost their airport in 74 - The comp offered in too low.



Hope that helps

Remli


Joined: 15/04/2009
Posts: 27

Message Posted:
23/04/2009 17:01

I would like to think this is true.



I was also under the impression that compensation had already been paid to any Greek Cypriot who could prove ownership of land on the North side?

If so how can they claim against the Orams now? Were they given a choice of their land back or the monetary value of it? Will the Orams be compensated for land they bought in good faith and in turn will the original sellers of the land be made to refund the money to the Orams?



Is there a similar claim system in place for the Turkish Cypriots who were displaced from their homes in the South?

vincehugo


Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 208

Message Posted:
23/04/2009 17:07

Out of interest, if the Court Ruling does go against them what exactly will the UK Courts do? The GC Court ruled that the Orams should demolish their house, return the land and pay rent for the time they lived there. As TRNC is outside their jurisdiction I don't think they can enforce the demolition or return of the land. Can they assess the cost of demolition and the value of the land? If not I guess that they can only come after the Orams for the unpaid rent (which I recall was the situation with Loizidou). Or is it all about the costs?

Dusterbruce


Joined: 03/08/2007
Posts: 1125

Message Posted:
23/04/2009 17:15

Juliet Mssg 6



If the Greek Cypriots had behaved themselves between 1960 and 1974 and treated the Turkish Cypriots as equal human beings instead of trying to make them second class citizens and even anihillate them, then the Turkish army would not have had to intervene and you would not have had to flee with just the clothes on your back.



Why did you flee? What were you afraid of? Were you afraid that the Turkish Cypriots would treat you like you had been treating them?

TheSaints



Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 1369

Message Posted:
23/04/2009 17:30

Juliet Msg 6



You will get no sympathy here, think of the TC's being oppressed by the GC's for hundreds of years, think of the TC's that had to flee to the North leaving everything behind with nothing but the clothes on thier backs scared for thier lives, sound familiar?

Get a life and get on with it.

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
23/04/2009 17:36

re msg 10 Remli



"I was also under the impression that compensation had already been paid to any Greek Cypriot who could ..... "



:o Where did you get that idea.. ?! The old line - before the European of Human Rights put Turkey straight -was that they had "exchanged".. !



"If so how can they claim against the Orams now? Were they given a choice of their land back or the monetary value of it? Will the Orams be compensated for land they bought in good faith and in turn will the original sellers of the land be made to refund the money to the Orams? "



1/ How - easy -the ECHR keep ruling if it was their land in July 74 - according to RoC Land reg - it is still - unless there has been a documented - both parties agreed - sale..



2/ No choice..



3/ Let's see what happens next week. Expect a "fudged" / delayed decision - as the timing BAD for negotiations !



4/ TC should live in the "south" for six months before they *can* claim- not fair , but more "fair" than for GCs

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
23/04/2009 17:37

Cont



GCs Can now use the ECHR "local " method of redress - Turkey had to set up Property Commissions in the North - but not many GCs have used them - feel it is "recognising" the "north"..

deecyprus4


Joined: 27/07/2008
Posts: 3452

Message Posted:
23/04/2009 17:57

Border stop bordering on the boring my dear

gooligan


Joined: 30/01/2007
Posts: 1591

Message Posted:
23/04/2009 19:19

MM,re msg 9



If the land on which stands Larnaca airport has been compulsorily purchased then why has no money changed hands?

Can you provide any proof it has been compulsorily purchased?

WAZ-24-7



Joined: 18/10/2008
Posts: 695

Message Posted:
23/04/2009 21:43

Msg 12,

Absolutely right.

I am afraid that Juliet seems to think that the Greek Cypriots of the 70,s had some sort of patent upon the suffering seen on the Island during that dark time.



The time has long gone for people to move on. Many thousands of GCs moved to the UK and made a success of their lives on the back of British support.

These people that now feel that they can inflict such distress upon people like the Orams should bow their heads in shame. Live and let Live.

rtddci


Joined: 29/12/2007
Posts: 842

Message Posted:
23/04/2009 21:50

mmmm

' Expect a "fudged" / delayed decision - as the timing BAD for negotiations ! '



I really don't think there will be, not if the AG opinion is anything to go by.

charb


Joined: 17/03/2009
Posts: 188

Message Posted:
24/04/2009 01:02

juliet is right; she has the right to claim her property. And she -and the rest of the world- is right to think that northern part of Cyprus is under Turkish invasion. But at May 20, 1974, it was not an invasion. Juliet, if you think like that, then you are wrong. Here, dusterbruce re msg 12 is right. TCs were stuck in their villages for 11 years. As my father-in-law tells me, GCs hadn't got the courage to attack and wipe TCs off the island.

To me, it is time to put all those stuff aside, and try to go to a solution as a federation of two equal states. After the solution; Juliet, if you will decide to live in your property under TC rule, then, personally, I am fine with that. But, to me, the best solution will be to accept a compensation.

Lemtich



Joined: 15/02/2007
Posts: 1487

Message Posted:
24/04/2009 01:21

The issue of property rights in both North and South Cyprus will always be a political question and not a legal one.



No matter what you say, no court either solved a political argument.



Legal precedent is fixed in time, decisions taken centuries before and passed into law rule human behaviour.



Realpolitik, or an awareness of political reality is flexible and a means to overcame stalemated situations.



One does not demolish airports, roads, factories, houses because they are allegedly illegally built on land hastily registered in dubious circumstances some years ago by displaced TCs in the south Nicosia Registry Office.



This is true, there was drive to register land owned in the north, checks on these claims and documtary evidence was minimal.



One negotiates compensation for loss and settlement to those involved in that bleak exodus from north Cyprus in 1974 for the suffering caused.



There is no going back, its far too late. If the poor sods who lost their homes in 1974 are still alive, them let them have compensation and due recognition for their loss. Many still live in vacated TC properties, let that also enter the equation in recompense for lost land on both sides.



This issue is a double edged sword, not some clear cut legal land issue, as other dear friends posting from all over the world may take issue with.



In the Oram's case especially, if I could be wise, I'd warn their funded Republic of Cyprus prosecutors,



Be careful for what you wish for.



Lem

clarets



Joined: 08/01/2009
Posts: 752

Message Posted:
24/04/2009 01:42

I would suggest that when Juliet fled 35 years ago she was 13 years old and did not own a house! Maybe her parents did ! She has spent 35/48 of her life living in the South,I suspect......precisely why would you want to go back to living in a place 35 or more years later,when everyone you knew,also fled died or got bored of the idea that they want to live in a house that their parents once owned !

fire starter


Joined: 19/06/2008
Posts: 3401

Message Posted:
24/04/2009 08:17

clarets

juliet has every right to have her family land back, and live where ever she chooses on the island, after all she is cypriot.



juliet,

i hope justice prevails for you! i'm sure it will!

clarets



Joined: 08/01/2009
Posts: 752

Message Posted:
24/04/2009 08:51

Firestarter, and I have every right to live where my ancestors came from..... in Northern France.... a little place we owned called Brittany ! Unfortunately, it became part of someone else's country after invasion. Think about what happens when one group is protected from another group, that is trying to ethnically cleanse it !

fire starter


Joined: 19/06/2008
Posts: 3401

Message Posted:
24/04/2009 09:18

clarets

if someone holds the internationaly recognised title deed for land/property then it is still theirs.

i'm sure the orams case will confirm this.

if someone was on my land, i would be the first to take action to remove them as i'm sure you would. why should the cypriot people be any different??

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
24/04/2009 09:20

Dear Gooligan, re msg 17



"If the land on which stands Larnaca airport has been compulsorily purchased then why has no money changed hands?



Can you provide any proof it has been compulsorily purchased?"



Hi ! Yes.. this subject of this case has been aired in the media - the TCs concerned are being offered a derisory amount and have to live in the "rump" RoC for six months to claim..

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
24/04/2009 09:57

re Clarets 22



"precisely why would you want to go back to living in a place 35 or more years later,when everyone you knew,also fled died or got bored of the idea that they want to live in a house that their parents once owned !"



Simple: Because it IS their family home and they have been prevented going back - having had to leave.



I'm surprised you ask !



Of course this should apply to all effected folk in Cyprus - going back to the sixties.

girne


Joined: 14/01/2009
Posts: 438

Message Posted:
24/04/2009 13:57

İf the courts favour the GREEKS there wil be mayhem and another WAR between the the cypriots

Aussie


Joined: 17/06/2007
Posts: 657

Message Posted:
24/04/2009 14:07

Whatever happens with Orams it won't be the end of the matter. There is the possibility of appeal to the House of Lords and a potential of avalanche of TC land claims in the South.



These claims will be much easier to win and enforce as they will be against a solvent Government rather than thousands of overseas individuals with major problems in getting judgements and hoping they have enough claimable assets to get a result.



Whatever the GC claims of necessity in using TC properties there was no excuse for them not paying full market rate compensation and the idea that such an occupation is still necessary over 35 years latter with the land and money available to the ROC is simply laughable.



Aussie

Aussie


Joined: 17/06/2007
Posts: 657

Message Posted:
24/04/2009 14:23

I also forgot to add it would be a simple matter for the ownership of all contested policies to be transferred to a nominee holding company or other entity removed form the individual purchasers denying any practical means to get an enforceable judgement.



The phrase Pyrrhic victory victory would best describe a GC Orams win. As a historical note Pyrrhis famous ancient Epirus/ Greek King General who several times defeated the Romans (particularly at battle of Asculum in Apulia) but at such great cost he lost most of his army and never succeeded in checking the growing power that was the Roman Republic.



Aussie

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
24/04/2009 15:11

Dear Aussie, re your msgs on Orams'



WHAT an interesting perspective you have on life..



You refer to using the RoC courts re TCs claiming their properties backs and in the next breath suggest how to "avoid" paying up IF the Orams' case sets a precedent )))))





It's VERY simple... IF a judgement in obtained against someone in the UK - and they are made bankrupt the OR can undo deals made to avoid creditors.... BEFORE the bankruptcy.



What you forget is - this mess could have been sorted YEARS ago - Mr Denktash was advised that allowing the sale for private gain of land / property STILL owned by Cypriots - let's NOT forget that - would cause HUGE problems later....



The passage of time shouldn't erode ownership claims for anyone.



This is all pure conjecture..



Your talk of pyrrhic victories in NONSENSE... ask the GCs who have already won payouts from TR and that's only for loss of use. !

TheSaints



Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 1369

Message Posted:
24/04/2009 15:20

Interesting but it all seems to be GC's, a TC friend and businessman in TRNC had a nice home and business in the south, he visited the place where he used to live, the village the house and the business only last year and was told by the GC who occupies HIS house and HIS business that he will die before giving it up.

Seems that not all GC's are up on this giving back bit.

Stubs


Joined: 01/07/2008
Posts: 641

Message Posted:
24/04/2009 15:38

Clarets re msg 24



If your family are still the legal owners of the land in Brittany then you could always go back and claim it. It has already been established in various courts who the "legal" owners of GC land are.

Aussie


Joined: 17/06/2007
Posts: 657

Message Posted:
24/04/2009 15:38

MMMMMM



I am just pointing out that this is a two edge sword and the composition of ownership/ control of the properties in the north verses south leaves it more exposed. If ROC citizens pursue such claims it is logical to retaliate in kind.



The successful claims you talk about have been against the Turkish government not individuals.



I favour a universal property solution providing fair compensation for all and any legal actions that goes against this should be vigorously resisted.



You also completely missed the point that there are ways to prevent future Orams style cases.



Also the idea of appeal to the house of Lords is not mine but was reported previously in commentary on this case. I am not an expert in British law and can't say what the prospects are but courts often intervene to overturn agreements getting involved in such things as extradition cases etc and it would not bee stretch to see something similar here.



Aussie

fire starter


Joined: 19/06/2008
Posts: 3401

Message Posted:
24/04/2009 17:08

my personal feelings are that what ever the e.u courts say, is how it will be in the uk.

i don't think the house of lords will want to know.

people were warned by the uk goverment about buying gc property here.

rtddci


Joined: 29/12/2007
Posts: 842

Message Posted:
24/04/2009 17:19

I see that the 'Read about the Orams case Land dispute judgement' link at the top of the page is hopelessly out of date, last entry is announciing the Orams winning the case in September 2006!

TheSaints



Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 1369

Message Posted:
24/04/2009 17:21

it can be updated on the 28th then can't it

punktlich


Joined: 25/12/2008
Posts: 50

Message Posted:
24/04/2009 18:32

While the ECJ may well enforce the Cyprus judgment, it is not obvious that will help many Cypriots claimants. I have written earlier about the use of USA legal entities (LLCs, LLPs and the like) to force action in US courts which would likely be hostile to an enforcement action. While the Uniform Foreign Country Money-Judgment Recognition Acts usually respect foreign judgments I don't think they would in the Orams case. Many with UK assets will have impoverished themselves or will be in negative equity. While a bankruptcy receiver can seek transferred asses, such assets rarely remain in the jurisdiction. A wise N Cyprus landholder would move assets to a foreign trust. Really wealthy deadbeat debtors routinely get away with it (think: Robert Maxwell's trusts); it's the middle-classes who get caught... I know that the Accession treaty drafters didn't intend this result, but they left wording vague in order to get all member states aboard, and this is what they got.

punktlich


Joined: 25/12/2008
Posts: 50

Message Posted:
24/04/2009 18:59

Note the remark in today's Economist concerning the "nationalist's" victory in the N Cyprus elections: "If he [Eroglu] sticks to his campaign pledge to scrap a commission set up under Mr Talat to return occupied properties to Greek-Cypriots, the talks [between Talat and Christofias] may collapse altogether."

http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13527550



One has to hope that Orams helps promote a political settlement. Only extremists want GC claimants to keep GC compensation property and get their NC property back too; likewise the reverse. Blatant discrimination in favour of Southern claimants ignoring the losses of those chased to the North by terrorism would make a laughing stock of the courts.



I find that the best, and sometimes the only, way to win a case when you are politically outweighed is to have facts and law on your side such that any judge finding against you would be ridiculed out of town.

rtddci


Joined: 29/12/2007
Posts: 842

Message Posted:
24/04/2009 19:24

TheSaints

From your comment can I take it that you think it's ok to have out of date, innaccurate and misleading information on this website re this case? A commercial website that amongst other things advertises property in NC?

A lot has happened since September 2006 don't you think? Would you not expect information to be as up to date and accurate as possible? Or am I just being picky and a touch cynical?

TheSaints



Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 1369

Message Posted:
24/04/2009 19:30

I did not say that at all, I said that it can be updated on the 28th.

canyavuz


Joined: 22/02/2009
Posts: 363

Message Posted:
24/04/2009 20:08

the most important day of the trnc property sector...........it shall determine the future of 80% of the TRNC Brit's properties!

Good luck to all you Greek title owners..........Esdeger and pre'74 holders can now sit back and watch it all go by!

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
24/04/2009 20:53

Re msg 39 Punktlich,



"Note the remark in today's Economist concerning the "nationalist's" victory in the N Cyprus elections: "If he [Eroglu] sticks to his campaign pledge to scrap a commission set up under Mr Talat to return occupied properties to Greek-Cypriots, the talks [between Talat and Christofias] may collapse altogether."







The Economist needs to find a better researcher..



the IPC CANNOT be scrapped by the UBP / "TRNC" leadership - it is a body set up by TURKEY to effect a local remedy .. IF closed Turkey would immediately fall liable for all the 13K + cases on hold at the ECHR...



Your knowledge of UK Bankruptcy and the power of OR's *might* be a little "suspect"



"I find that the best, and sometimes the only, way to win a case when you are politically outweighed is to have facts and law on your side such that any judge finding against you would be ridiculed out of town."



Which is EXACTLY what has happened to Turkey at the ECHR re CY property

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
24/04/2009 20:59

re msg 34 Aussie



TCs have always HAD the option of a local remedy - the six month RoC residency rule is "bollox" and should be challenged.



GCs were constantly told - "your've exchanged" and had no local recourse - hence TR was "in the dock".



I think most of us are in favour of a political solution - but I feel the legal actions will have the effect of making thing happen....



Re msg 42, poor ol' Canyavuz- still not clued up on FACTS..

1/ very few "Greeks" involved in this - mainly Cypriots



2/ Wait until Monday - and we can have a sensible debate - Juliet got banned from here for being as "unrealistic" ...

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
24/04/2009 21:02

Dear the Saints, Mike



re msg 37/ 41



A few folk have pointed out that the info is WAY out of date and misleading .... why would Monday make any difference....?



Juliet's gone and I expect I'll be next... for pointing a few home truths out ... :(

TheSaints



Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 1369

Message Posted:
24/04/2009 21:08

I merely pointed out that on the 28th which is TUESDAY it could be updated with what ever news/update there is who said it would make any difference?

I can't recall typing that maybe because I didn't.

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
24/04/2009 21:11

Hi Mike, yes, of course 28th is TUESDAY.. DUH... on me... !

TheSaints



Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 1369

Message Posted:
24/04/2009 21:22

Some did exchange, the person I refered to in message 32 exchanged, only because he felt he had no other option. Worked nice for the GC not exactly a fair exchange.

TheSaints



Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 1369

Message Posted:
24/04/2009 21:24

No probs Mark, let's see what debating material Tuesday brings.

clarets



Joined: 08/01/2009
Posts: 752

Message Posted:
25/04/2009 00:39

Msg 25,title deed is one thing......living in the house can be something else!

clarets



Joined: 08/01/2009
Posts: 752

Message Posted:
25/04/2009 00:42

mmmmmm msg 27....it WAS their family home....NOT is...past tense by about 35 years I'd say!

clarets



Joined: 08/01/2009
Posts: 752

Message Posted:
25/04/2009 00:47

In the Orams case that is still to have final judgement passed in the ECJ.Other claims are likely to be far more debatable.No presedent will be set here!

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
25/04/2009 01:02

Dear Clarets, re msg 51



"t WAS their family home....NOT is...past tense by about 35 years I'd say!"





That's the "convenient" response..



The Truth of the matter is - if was theirs in 74 .. it STILL is .. unless there has been a mutually agreed sale or exchange...



Don't take my word for it.. ask the ECHR.. !

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
25/04/2009 01:06

re 52, Clarets



IF the ECJ follow the Advocate General's legal advice, the writs will be winging the their way via email / fax / or even in the hot tub ;)



If they get ignored, their just be more default judgements and more Orams' cases.



Let's wait until Tuesday..

punktlich


Joined: 25/12/2008
Posts: 50

Message Posted:
25/04/2009 15:40

Re msg 43:



"Your knowledge of UK Bankruptcy and the power of OR's *might* be a little "suspect"



I think that such an uninformed ad hominem attack labels you as a "troll".



It happens I am a retired bankruptcy lawyer with US & UK experience. I tried to make my posting non-contentious. You attack not just me but The Economist, suggesting you have no patience for those who don't share your worldview.



There is no statute of limitations for fraudulent conveyances in England, but it's less likely as years go by that assets can be recovered. Receivers tend to abandon efforts after 10 years. In France a Paulian action has a 33-year prescription. Do you really think tracing is possible then? In the USA limitations periods vary by state; in most it's 4; in NY 6. In the UK it's a crime to help hide assets so unlike the USA there are no "asset protection" specialists. The OR (or trustee) steps into the shoes of the debtor but if assets are abroad foreign law may apply.

punktlich


Joined: 25/12/2008
Posts: 50

Message Posted:
25/04/2009 15:48

To show how asset protection strategy works (and we're talking USA, not the Cook Islands) think of an annuity exempt in (say) Florida (after 3 years) or a foreign pension. An English court can only order an English debtor to turn funds as received. If the debtor moves to Florida the annuity is untouchable. If the debtor is a US citizen like OJ Simpson there is homestead protection.



Ownership of a NC property through (say) a Delaware LLC makes it difficult for a GC court to attack the occupant although it might be possible for the GC court to order the "tenant" to pay over the "rent" to the GC claimant. It's difficult though not impossible to frame a continuing court order, so a new lawsuit might have to be filed every so often. Other issues that come to mind: lis pendens, conflictiing court orders, US bankruptcy and so on.



My point is: once the Orams decision comes down, creative lawyers will devise new protections for foreign residents in NC. Lessons will be learned.

AlsancakJack



Joined: 14/08/2008
Posts: 5762

Message Posted:
25/04/2009 16:05

mmmmmm

Ref message 45:

'Juliet's gone and I expect I'll be next... for pointing a few home truths out ... :('



You know the score Mark, it is up to you whether you stay or disappear from this board.

AlsancakJack



Joined: 14/08/2008
Posts: 5762

Message Posted:
25/04/2009 16:15

clarets

Ref message 51:

'mmmmmm msg 27....it WAS their family home....NOT is...past tense by about 35 years I'd say!'



Unfortunately the GC's like to pass down 'refugee status' from one generation to the other and I think we now have GC's that are 3rd generation 'refugees' and have no real 'concept' of the Islands history or problems (apart from those perpetuated by GC education facilities).

It stinks in my humble opinion.

AJ

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
25/04/2009 16:20

Punktlich re msg 56



"I think that such an uninformed ad hominem attack labels you as a "troll". "







What was uninformed? - if you have the experience you claim - then your quoting the article - without pointing out the obvious "howlers" says to me that you are letting some sort of bias cloud your judgement...

BillBarnacle


Joined: 20/04/2009
Posts: 167

Message Posted:
25/04/2009 16:37

I dont see how the property issue is going to be solved by the ECJ.



If their ruling is anything that favours one side over the other then the future of the talks will be in doubt.

The EU and wider international community do not want that.



Futher even if the ruling is against the Orams the fact is i believe that the UK court has only asked for ECJ interpretation of EU law.The UK courts do not need to enforce the Judgement if there are other factors which make the RoC decision flawed of which i believe there are many.



I also dont believe that 6M s is correct in this opening the flood gates.This process has cost hundreds of thousands of pounds and there is still a very long way and more expence to go.This will place this option far beyond the reach of most normal people.



I would however be interested to hear how 6M s thinks the property situation will be resolved because if its the case of a return to pre 74 i think he is deluding himself and others.

MimoMar


Joined: 26/01/2009
Posts: 150

Message Posted:
25/04/2009 17:03

punktlich - seems to me like a really clever, well informed geezer.



mmmmmm - the great pretender

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
25/04/2009 17:09

Dear AJ, re msg 57



and I'll refer you to my very first post and the question I asked - you KNOW I'm a little too right, perhaps?

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
25/04/2009 17:11

Dear AJ, re 58



Luckily we have the ECHR who rule on "Smelly cases" - I suppose you forgot how they have ruled re WHO still owns what ?



AH... I hang by a thread - like "Juliet" for mentioning it ... !

WAZ-24-7



Joined: 18/10/2008
Posts: 695

Message Posted:
25/04/2009 18:35

I suspect that the ECJ ruling will not be the end of the Orams case. It will certainly not herald the solution to Cyprus property issues.

The very recent political shift to the right of the TRNC administration will render individual property issues less likely to resolution and settlement.

I fear that the emerging political landscape could hinder current settlement talks and we could see a divergence of the two sides that will only inflict economic and social damage upon the whole Island.



mmmmmm, with respect. I concur that you show little patience for those that do not share your worldly viewpoint. Many posters find your gleefull cynicism somewhat abrasive. It might be a suitable time for you to alter your style and perhaps remain on this forum.

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
25/04/2009 20:02

With respect Waz..



who is elected by mainly Turks - as to a lessor extent TCs in "TRNC" will have NO bearing on any property or political settlement.



It is Turkey and the ECHR who have made the main decisions influencing "TRNC".



Waz, my style has never changed - those that point out the obvious flaws in some posters misconceptions re "reality" re "TRNC" issues can easily get rid of descenting voices... that is the "risk" those who can see both sides and point out the frequent "howlers" take ..



You keep mentioning that the diverging viewpoints will harm "both sides" - I don't disagree - especially in this recession and esp. in the "north".



It may well take TR having to cut back on "TRNC" spending to bring about a repeat of the bad out days of the late 90's / early part of this decade to focus minds.

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
25/04/2009 20:11

Waz ( cont)



I will save my comment re the ECJ until AFTER Tuesday... but whatever the ruling it WILL effect things - the court / should can only rule on the legal rights / wrongs...

Tiggy


Joined: 25/07/2007
Posts: 1994

Message Posted:
25/04/2009 20:31

mmmmmm,



*Can* you really wait till/ after/ Tuesday, I will * be* impressed....- if you do!!



Whatever the verdict, I fear it will not go down well with the side that comes out worst off.....this will run and run for ever. Solicitors making a fortune out of a no win case.



Looking forward to the report and the views of our expert panel to follow on 44.

WAZ-24-7



Joined: 18/10/2008
Posts: 695

Message Posted:
25/04/2009 20:53

mmmmm

thank you for your comments.



It may well be that Turkey,with increasing pressure on its own fiscal state may possibly reduce its financial support for TRNC. With the ensuing change in the political landscape, It will be for the EU and UN to get to grips with the TRNC problem. Remove embargos, allow free travel and release the people from their isolation.

It is most certainly the case that the TRNC will become an easier target for the ROC if Turkish support should decline. The EU in particular should get more involved with particularly financial support of TRNC and not allow the ROC to hold its neighbour to ransom and seige.

AlsancakJack



Joined: 14/08/2008
Posts: 5762

Message Posted:
25/04/2009 21:28

message 63

'AH... I hang by a thread - like "Juliet" for mentioning it ... !'



message 64

'It might be a suitable time for you to alter your style and perhaps remain on this forum.'



Both correct.

AlsancakJack



Joined: 14/08/2008
Posts: 5762

Message Posted:
25/04/2009 22:07

Mark

As per usual you skirt around certain issues and you have not given a reply to my posting/question No. 58

What is your take on this situation?

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
25/04/2009 22:39

Dear AJ, re msg 70



1/ "As per usual you skirt around certain issues" - AJ you know VERY well that is plain nonsense - I can think of one thread re the Annan plan where I perfused to repeat myself - the truth of the matter is you are removing members whose viewpoint is not akin with yours and if Juliet was "winding up" members - then I can only suggest they ( and you ) must be very easily upset ! ;)



2/ "you have not given a reply to my posting/question No. 58 - What is your take on this situation?"



I would have thought that my response to you comment that "it stank" was quite succinct - the ECHR have no problems with it - neither do I - is that clear, now?



3/ So I DO hang by a thread for mentioning the banning of Juliet !! AJ- I don't think I'm going to worry if I'm banned - you well know that if I want to post I will - and that you are getting protests from purveyors of Pirate satellite broadcasts to "silence me" - it will be VERY convenient ;)



(cont)

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
25/04/2009 22:42

(cont from msg 71)



'It might be a suitable time for you to alter your style and perhaps remain on this forum.'



As I already said to Waz - I see no reason to change either my style and viewpoint to suit - if you feel the need so your worst... I again refer you to my first ever post.. and you'll find the board will be a lot "quieter" ;)

BillBarnacle


Joined: 20/04/2009
Posts: 167

Message Posted:
25/04/2009 22:52

mmmmmm



Re msg 60



You have not answered yet.I would like to hear you view before you are banned if indeed you will be

Bradus


Joined: 25/02/2007
Posts: 2641

Message Posted:
25/04/2009 22:54

Why must people be banned for simply holding a different view?

There are many on the forum who are down right rude but I see no one threatening to ban them.



Lets face it the one and only reason people are banned on this forum is because they refuse to become part of the happy clappy everything is all right in paradise gang.



Is it just me or do others feel that debate and discussion is being muffled because only one view point is tolerated? Is this what forum members actually want to happen?

proger1



Joined: 18/04/2009
Posts: 2919

Message Posted:
25/04/2009 23:26

I am in complete agreement, if you give people the right to thier own opinions then there will always be differences in the said opinions. From what I percieve of the information on this Forum which I am admittedly new to, there are several statements of beliefs and then there are the contradictions to those statements. I for one enjoy 6M's comments most of the time as well as the replies, there will always be the possibility of causing offence to someone but that is in the nature of having a personnal opinion. I believe it is unfair to ban Mark for offending someone in a debate about opinions as this should surely mean that whovere disagrees should be banned for dissagreeing with him. As I am hoping to be moving to Girne in the near future I appreciate that there are several possibilities for the future and would like to be updated on both sides

cronos


Joined: 26/10/2008
Posts: 2093

Message Posted:
26/04/2009 00:03

AlsancakJack......I can't recall us personally ever having a problem before....but I get the impression that your style is becoming very dictatorial and heavy handed.

This is not a comment about moderation per se......it is about your use of the Board to promote your own views and silence those that conflict ,with threats of banning.



"You know the score Mark, it is up to you whether you stay or disappear from this board. "



I for one would like to know what the score IS AJ.

Is it "Agree with me , don't rock the boat ,sing from the same hymnsheet , don't present an alternative viewpoint , don't dare consider the rights of ALL Cypriots..not just TC's etc etc "



I hear that you have banned Juliet , and are now wielding this power as a threat to others who don't wear the rose-tinted specs.



This is not a Board for you to air your personal grievances against certain members and quash their firmly held beliefs.It is a Board for us all.....and I have serious concerns about it's dir

cronos


Joined: 26/10/2008
Posts: 2093

Message Posted:
26/04/2009 00:05

direction and whether it truly serves its members anymore.

vincehugo


Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 208

Message Posted:
26/04/2009 01:55

I agree that it would be a sad state of affairs if people were banned from this site for holding different viewpoints. My frustration with people like Juliet and mmmmmm is that they love to repeat the same old stuff but run a mile when anyone tries to enter into a rational discussion on their favourite topic of property return.



I would love to understand how they really think things will pan out if the Orams "lose". I would have thought that they would then be very well positioned to go to the TRNC government and ask for the deeds for the land in the South which the TRNC government exchanged for their plot in the North. With these deeds they could then go and demand the return of their land (and as mmmmm has already said, I don't think the GC stance of having to live in the South for 6 months first would stand up to ECHR scrutiny). If other suffered the same (potential) fate as the Orams then they too could follow the same course of action. (continued)

vincehugo


Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 208

Message Posted:
26/04/2009 01:59

(continued) The ultimate result would be an awful lot of displaced GC's, displaced through the actions of their fellow countrymen. A sort of domino effect. I would welcome some rational debate exposing the flaws (if indeed they exist) in my thinking, but all I seem to get back from those with a different perspective is either more bluster, silence or diversionary tactics.

vincehugo


Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 208

Message Posted:
26/04/2009 02:09

PS: Has Juliet really been banned or is she just resting? She still appears on the list of members.

fire starter


Joined: 19/06/2008
Posts: 3401

Message Posted:
26/04/2009 09:40

well said bradus!

punktlich


Joined: 25/12/2008
Posts: 50

Message Posted:
26/04/2009 13:15

Ref 56:



Look up "ad hominem" in the dictionary. It relates to a personal attack. I have no need to defend my LL.B. or my Ph.D. to you. Others will realise that few non-lawyers could cite the references I gave; and I certainly don't give legal advice on any forum. So if you want to ciriticise you'll have to do better than toss about uninformed insults.



As for The Economist, I have nothing to say about the truth or falsity of what they write; it simply seemed interesting and relevant that a recent election has clouded the prospects for an economic settlement that could have made the Orams case moot.



I don't waste time on forums that tolerate trolls. I'll not be back for some time. Those who feel they are at risk for horrendous damages to be claimed by aggrieved GC heirs and former owners might research what victims of the Lloyd's of London scam did (or did not do) to protect themselves.

Bradus


Joined: 25/02/2007
Posts: 2641

Message Posted:
26/04/2009 14:38

Not quite sure that I have understood the connection with the Lloyd's of London scam and GC property ownership. Are you saying that the TRNC had no legal right to sell the property in the first place so therefore the buck lies with them rather than the buyer?

OR

That the bank accepted no liability and the settlement was eventually reached in order to put an end to the distraction and expense of litigation?



In other words the TRNC will "pay up"

girne 29


Joined: 06/12/2007
Posts: 1488

Message Posted:
26/04/2009 14:41

Punktlich



Please dont be offended by what mmmm etc say, they have no choice, and is not done, I am sure, with malice.

I and others appreciate the information and arguments you supply, and are quite capable of arguing for and against without being offensive. If people like you go then it just gives power to those who, when unable to match ones experience or intelligence, resort to insults in order to close the debate down.

Ignore those guilty, and direct your observations at the majority.

TheSaints



Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 1369

Message Posted:
26/04/2009 14:51

Where's the Oracle when you need him, MAAAAAAARK what is this Lloyds scam stuff in msg 82?

Come back and argue er I mean debate wth the guy and let us in on it.

WAZ-24-7



Joined: 18/10/2008
Posts: 695

Message Posted:
26/04/2009 15:51

I suspect that the Lloyds of London scam relates to the lloyds list of high profile names that were finnancial underwriters for the Lloyds consortium of insurers.



These people were able to sidestep and avoid their financial obligations to meet shortfalls in the Lloyds money pot that was needed to meet the unprecidented volume of insurance liabilities brought about by natural and unforseeable disasters.



The example, I assume, is that it is indeed possible to sidestep financial burden for unforseable events by taking a legally but complcated series of measures involving trusts, overseas registration of assets and clandestine movement of assets and money.

TRNC property assets held by EU citizens may well choose a similar strategy should circumstances lead to a need.

TheSaints



Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 1369

Message Posted:
26/04/2009 16:22

Thank you WAZ I reckon that would just how Mark would of explained it too, totally beyond me.

rtddci


Joined: 29/12/2007
Posts: 842

Message Posted:
26/04/2009 17:32

"I would love to understand how they really think things will pan out if the Orams "lose". I would have thought that they would then be very well positioned to go to the TRNC government and ask for the deeds for the land in the South which the TRNC government exchanged for their plot in the North."



Unfortunately as I understand things, there was no actual exchange of land. The NC government carried out a paper exercise granting TC's who had land in the south, vacant GC land in the north. This 'exchange land' is the source of the problem as the original GC owners had no part in it.

TheSaints



Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 1369

Message Posted:
26/04/2009 17:41

Not entirely true I do know one TC who has a documented exchange with a GC but he only done the deal as he felt he had no other option.

vincehugo


Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 208

Message Posted:
26/04/2009 17:45

Rtddci Re Msg 88



I appreciate that the GC's were not involved in this exchange but as I understand it any TC wanting to take up the TC government offer of land in the North had to handover their deeds for land in the South to the government and waive their rights to this land in return for their new "exchange" deeds. It may have been a paperwork exercise but who are we saying now holds the deeds for this land in the South. I think the answer is the TRNC government. So if it became apparent that, through legal actions outside the TRNC, the deeds they had issued in the North were invalid despite their much talked about "guarantee" then the alternative could be to hand over the deeds for land in the south that they hold to those they regard as the legal owners of property in the North allowing them to at least pursue ownership of the original plot in the South.



Put another way, if the TRNC government don't "own" the land in the South, who does?

rtddci


Joined: 29/12/2007
Posts: 842

Message Posted:
26/04/2009 17:53

vincehugo

Good points. Trouble is as in the Orams case, the original owner wants their land/home back, not what land was exchanged for it. If only it was that simple. This is an emotional & political issue. The south actively did everything to try and stop any such agreement between owners happening although as TheSaints points out, a few have done. To answer your question re who owns the land in the south, I've no idea. Depends on which side you ask I presume.

vincehugo


Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 208

Message Posted:
26/04/2009 18:11

Rtddci Re Msg 91



I don't think I've explained myself very well. I'm saying that if the Oram's lose their house in the North then, under the Es Deger arrangement, they could and should go back to the TRNC government who set Es Deger up and demand the deeds to the property in the South for which their land was exchanged. Assuming they get them, they could then attempt to reclaim that land in the South for themselves (through the courts if necessary). I appreciate that this is a less than ideal solution for the Orams and it would probably involve them in having to evict a GC from a house in the South but at least they would end up with some legally owned property in Cyprus.



My underlying point is that taking a legal route to a solution can work both ways - every "owner" of Es Deger land evicted from a house in the North should be entitled to recover a property/plot in the South. And that sounds like a recipe for serious discontent for both communities. (continued)

vincehugo


Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 208

Message Posted:
26/04/2009 18:18

On the question about who owns the land in the South, my understanding is that the GC government would accept that it belongs to the original TC owner (and that they are "looking after it" for him/her). But if that TC entered into a legally binding agreement with the TRNC government to accept land elsewhere instead I'm thinking that it now belongs to the TRNC Government. Whilst I appreciate there are no guarantees of fairness in this situation it would seem unreasonable for a TC to end up gaining from two plots of land - one in the North and one in the South as a result. And I'm sure that GC's would have something to say about this!

rtddci


Joined: 29/12/2007
Posts: 842

Message Posted:
26/04/2009 18:24

vincehugo

A very good argument. I see your point entirely. Neat idea. I have'nt read that idea before. Was this considered in the Annan plan?

What's to stop the original TC owner reclaiming his land in the south and then reselling his land to an unsuspecting buyer in the meantime?

vincehugo


Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 208

Message Posted:
26/04/2009 18:45

Rtddci Re Msg 94



Annan had definitions for "Current Users" and "Dispossessed Owners" which could be applied equally well to the GC and TC situation. In essence it said that if you've been dispossessed of your original land but somebody else is living there now who was also dispossessed of their land then we will aim for a resolution which allows the current user to stay (a gross simplification which I hope nobody will take me to task for!). Interestingly enough Annan also recognised successors in title as having the same rights as the dispossessed owner, so buying Es Deger land off a dispossessed TC gave non-TC's equal rights to compensation if they couldn't return. Essentially, Annan supported the Es Deger arrangements already put in place by the TRNC Government.



On your second point, I think the only thing preventing this in the current climate is the protracted process the TC would first have to go through to reclaim their land in the South!

WAZ-24-7



Joined: 18/10/2008
Posts: 695

Message Posted:
26/04/2009 19:25

It is very possible that the ECJ will indeed find in favour of Mr Appostolides. Should this be the case.

He ,will, with little doubt, with the aid of his financial backers and lawyers, seek to take a charge against Orams UK assests in order to cover the back rent and monies owed which I believe is circa £13.

The demolision of the property is another issue which is likely to see another round of litigation.



It is the case that the financial investment needed to pursue Mr Appoostolides's case has been massive.Circa £400,000 to date. This type of litigation is outside the scope of most ROC citizens. The soft targets will be those TRNC properties that are easily identifiable as specific pre 74 land with easily identifiable owners. Even these will by example require significant funds to pursue litigation. A far better proposition and likelyhood would be to seek recourse via the International Property Commission.

The issue remains very far indeed from mass demolision and asset ceasure

keithcaley



Joined: 13/06/2008
Posts: 2521

Message Posted:
26/04/2009 19:40

WAZ-24-7,

Seems like a lot of bother, all for the sake of 13 quid

Keith.

vincehugo


Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 208

Message Posted:
26/04/2009 19:49

Waz Re Msg 96



I'm guessing that the amount in question is £13K, not £13!!



But I agree with you that if/when the ECJ find in favour it is just one more step in this protracted legal route. Even if Mr Apostolides succeeds in getting money from the Orams, the point I was making earlier is that there are still other legal routes to travel, which will impact both sides of the island. So a solution for Mr Apostolides is not a solution for the island but the beginning of a new set of problems for all. (be careful what you wish for).



As has been said many times before, a politcal, not a legal settlement is the only real way forward.

pilgrim



Joined: 11/05/2007
Posts: 1404

Message Posted:
26/04/2009 20:16

Vin,cehugo,

Like your logic, could be good if TRNC had beneficial title to all ex TC land in South , with current price differentials ie much higher value, would provide substantial compensation pot!

Whether they would compensate foriegners who have had to pay off GC's is probably unlikely bearing in mind track record to date. Can only hope.

Good idea though.

terrypen


Joined: 30/03/2009
Posts: 3

Message Posted:
26/04/2009 20:47

I am new to the forum, and very interesting and informative it is with this being my first incursion; however i do have a question after reading so much about the Orams and with a vested interest of wanting to live there within the next 2 years and some obvious discouragement from some:

Has no one read the "Genocide Files"?

pilgrim



Joined: 11/05/2007
Posts: 1404

Message Posted:
26/04/2009 21:05

Yes many of us have and there are quite a few challenges as to its accuracy by one sector of our members.

TheSaints



Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 1369

Message Posted:
26/04/2009 21:08

Msg 100



Has no one read the "Genocide Files"?



And your point is??

terrypen


Joined: 30/03/2009
Posts: 3

Message Posted:
26/04/2009 21:48

pilgrim,

Would you please elaborate for one who is uninitiated but wants to know?



TheSaints,

Are you not reading the previous messages? No offence, just puzzled! Please be gentle it is a minor incursion into your world - I have to learn.

TheSaints



Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 1369

Message Posted:
26/04/2009 22:05

Of course as I posted e few of them, still "Has no one read the "Genocide Files"?



And your point is??

AlsancakJack



Joined: 14/08/2008
Posts: 5762

Message Posted:
26/04/2009 22:14

Re the Orams case'

I would like to have thought that they have had decent legal advice and put their UK property into trust.

AJ

terrypen


Joined: 30/03/2009
Posts: 3

Message Posted:
26/04/2009 22:37

TheSaints,

You are right you have posted a few of the reply's but I am trying to stick to the point of the Orams case; and the point is:

Why does the situation seem to be so loaded against one side when there is so much evidence to say otherwise?

I also have a funny feeling we are on the same side.

WAZ-24-7



Joined: 18/10/2008
Posts: 695

Message Posted:
26/04/2009 22:52

woops! yes all msg 96 should be £13K.



It is very clear that political moves are underway to resolve the Cyprus problem. Progress has been made and one would hope that in 2009 a settlement will be reached.



However, It is also very clear that the ROC administration consider the civil litigation route a viable format with which to further persecute the estranged TRNC.

Without doubt. Should the ECJ find in favour of their nationalistic citizen Mr Apostolides. The ROC administration will take no time at all to capitalise on the advantage of such a legal victory.

I am afraid that it will be EU citizens that will be the targets. Once the judgment has been issued then certainly measures can be taken, if necessary,by EU property owners to keep their assets out of the range of ROC litigation radar.

Lets wait and see.

WAZ-24-7



Joined: 18/10/2008
Posts: 695

Message Posted:
26/04/2009 22:59

tomms msg,

Tuesday may well be judgment day for the ECJ.

I sincereley hope that the wash will not be completed for TRNC/EU citizens and property owners for some time to come. Particularly the wash cycle relating to the significance of the Orams case.

fire starter


Joined: 19/06/2008
Posts: 3401

Message Posted:
27/04/2009 08:53

unless you have your assets protected now, i think tomorrow will be to late!

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
27/04/2009 12:21

Dear Vince Hugo re msg 78 (onwards)



"My frustration with people like Juliet and mmmmmm is that they love to repeat the same old stuff but run a mile when anyone tries to enter into a rational discussion on their favourite topic of property return. "



)) I don't think ANYONE will agree with that one..







Finally, *I* have NEVER ducked a question - I merely refused to keep repeatedly answering the same questions you phrased in a slightly different way ... something QUITE different.



The subject matters were concerning why I joined and the Annan Plan - just in case you "forgot"..



A good reason to BE a member on here is to ensure the TRUTH or a "mistake" is corrected - you just made ( a BIG) one.....



Juliet got banned as she got "carried away" as responded in kind .. she most certainly WASN'T ducking the issue. What I find strange is her behaviour was just as "bad" as the many posters who joined in , too - one of which was the forum admin who banned her ?!

karakum5c



Joined: 18/03/2008
Posts: 1021

Message Posted:
27/04/2009 12:23

Boring !!!!!!!!!!!

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
27/04/2009 12:30

Punktlich re 82



"Look up "ad hominem" in the dictionary"



It's OK, I remember my Latin from school..



for the second time you have threatened "not to return" when I questioned you bias..



Let's deal with the facts as we both have some legal background....



You you highlighted an article that was factually nonsense - I pointed out WHY - you didn't respond..



Let me remind you..



""Note the remark in today's Economist concerning the "nationalist's" victory in the N Cyprus elections: "If he [Eroglu] sticks to his campaign pledge to scrap a commission set up under Mr Talat to return occupied properties to Greek-Cypriots, the talks [between Talat and Christofias] may collapse altogether."



Again - Turkey had to set up the IPC - not the TRNC" govt - as part of a local remedy - following ECHR cases finding TURKEY responsible for loss of use, etc.



How did a man who must surely be able to stand up to more severe cross-examining than a "troll" ..?...... (cont)

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
27/04/2009 12:40

( from 113

cont)



Punktlich,



I repeat - IF - the Ormas' can face enforcement in the UK - I VERY much doubt that that their affairs will be difficult to examine - and any move to avoid creditors would be relatively easy to set aside.



We should all wait until tomorrow..

AlsancakJack



Joined: 14/08/2008
Posts: 5762

Message Posted:
27/04/2009 12:57

Mark

'Juliet got banned as she got "carried away" as responded in kind .. she most certainly WASN'T ducking the issue. What I find strange is her behaviour was just as "bad" as the many posters who joined in , too - one of which was the forum admin who banned her ?!'



If you have issues with moderation then please address them off board.

AJ

No1Doyen


Joined: 04/07/2008
Posts: 16617

Message Posted:
27/04/2009 13:02

Can I just add that appropriate transitions stem from zealous elements of communications that are void of valid content.

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
27/04/2009 13:11

Dea AJ, re msg 115



Normally I would agree with



"If you have issues with moderation then please address them off board."



but you are the "problem" in this case... you were one of the people having sport with Juliet... and who were behaving just as "badly" as she was...



It is precisely the sort of communications I get in pms from a forum admin- whom you know better than anyone - that ARE the problem...



I believe the members have made it QUITE clear that they DO want to be informed of such things as some seem to want kept "quiet"..



Mate, I'm directly questioning your ability to moderate..

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
27/04/2009 13:14

Try not to take that personaaly - we go back a LONG way - I think we both get carrried away and you have overeacted re me and Juliet...



I guess the normal "punishment " will be a ban for daring to ask you to dwell on what I said in public - as I said I don't WANT to be banned.

vincehugo


Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 208

Message Posted:
27/04/2009 14:34

Mark Re Msg 111



I do not want to divert this thread but I will not let you get away with this.



The important word you missed in my message was "RATIONAL" - that's not the same as rhetoric.



As for ducking questions, I repeatedly asked the same question, phrased exactly the same way, and you repeatedly avoided answering it. That is the truth of the matter. I am therefore unclear as to what my BIG mistake is (unless it is having the audacity to disagree with you!).



I find it intriguing that you are prepared to bang on for ages with reasons why you are not going to answer the question (again) when it would be a lot quicker (if you had already answered it) to point us to your reply or even cut and paste it in (after all you are no stranger to cut and paste).

bachelibelly


Joined: 04/09/2008
Posts: 275

Message Posted:
27/04/2009 15:21

So ,forgive my lack of legal background ,is it not so that in the event of an Apostalidies victory at ECJ is the word "precedent " set as to possible GC owners of T/C land in the South selling/sold to Brit Expats, given the dubious Title deed fiasco in the South( that i know is denied by Gc government as possible as they are saving all the T/C land for their previous owners and would never cook the books via their sole control of the"Land Registry Files")that is more suspect than the Title deed problems in the North.



Please reply only with flaws in my statement and not for a copy of my legal C/V.!!!!!!!!!!

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
27/04/2009 15:55

The "precedent" would simply that RoC court orders can be enforced in third party EU states - that Protocol 10 - appertaining to the RoCs joining the EU - and not being able to administer / enforce laws throughout Cyprus - should not preclude third party EU courts being able to enforce judgements from RoC Courts concerning areas beyond effective control.



The Court of Eng and Wales ( I believe) wrongly interpreted Protocol 10 - but AGAIN - we should wait until tomorrow.



It's nothing to do with Title Deeds .



The Orams' lost the case in the RoC as they didn't file a defence in time .



Does that help?

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
27/04/2009 15:57

Dear VinceHugo re msg 120



hoping for rationality and the TRUTH here :



http://www.cyprus44.com/forums/14446.asp



There's your new thread..;)

bachelibelly


Joined: 04/09/2008
Posts: 275

Message Posted:
27/04/2009 17:51

mmmmmm's thanks for the clarification, it all seems to be a prelude to a lot of people earning a lot of money from a lot of people on both sides of the coin (without govt aid) that cant afford it ,i.e. council and clients, regds.

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
27/04/2009 18:19

Hi BacheliBelly re msg 124



Again, this should prob wait until tomorrow, but depending on the outcome - it shouldn't cost and arm and a leg to get the equiv of a RoC Country court judgment , have it enforced in the UK - if judgement is obtained in the RoC.



But this is all pure speculation,...

clayton


Joined: 30/11/2008
Posts: 1143

Message Posted:
27/04/2009 20:59

if a gc comes knocking for his so called land back .give him a ouzie sorry i mean ouzzo.only joking

Littlenige



Joined: 24/12/2006
Posts: 3594

Message Posted:
27/04/2009 21:05

well we will all know what happens tomorrow.

WAZ-24-7



Joined: 18/10/2008
Posts: 695

Message Posted:
27/04/2009 22:32

Regardless of the ruling that is due.

It is a certainty that the TRNC administration will respond to the potential of civil litigations against its citizens and visitors.

At worst the borders will be closed to eliminate the possibility of writ serving. There are many other alternatives that would hinder the ROC in its pursuance of political advantage. Legislation could prohibit ROC citizens or their agents from crossing the border with intent of serving litigation papers. Of course the owner of any property must first be very clearly established. I suspect that the hoops that must be jumped through for potential little gain will deter most rational citizens. The IPC would be a better option for most.



Furthermore, to take any litigation through the ROC and then ie the UK courts will take many years and would again lead to punitive reward. Such reward would hardly meet the legal costs.

It is the few nationalistic ROC citizens intent on political victory remain the threat.

MUSIN M


Joined: 26/06/2008
Posts: 1352

Message Posted:
28/04/2009 00:11

spot on waz ,that,s exactly what will happen.









musin



long live the kktc

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
28/04/2009 00:46

Oh Dear, Waz and Musin hasn't been paying attention in class...



1/ We don't know the ruling, yet



2/ The GREEN LINE can't be closed as Turkey had to open it or face huge fines for breaches of HR rights - it was a TC that won the case against TURKEY March 2003.. Turkey ordered Mr Denktash to open them !



3/ No doubt the "TRNC" will try and make it some sort of offence to serve a writ - but there'll be plenty of volunteers to serve them.



4/ It doesn't take long to prove who is the owner of a property - the plaintiff will have evidence from the Land Registry BEFORE serving the writ. It is easily checked..





YES, the GCs should have used the IPCs - but there are those who claim they are some sort sort of "TRNC" institution and that is precisely WHY the GCs won't use them.... :(



WHY can't we wit until the ECJ verdict ?

WAZ-24-7



Joined: 18/10/2008
Posts: 695

Message Posted:
28/04/2009 01:10

mmmm



I am well aware of past history and events that have led us to where we are now.

What you continually fail to do is to look forward present solutions and see what is possible.



The closure of the border is very possible though my feeling is that it would certainly cause a negative divergence of the factions. The TRNC will certainly not take any ROC attempts to seek recourse via civil litigation lightly.



The ECJ ruling could have a very negative effect on the current talks and indeed prospects of a settlement.

Mr Apostolides should bow his head in shame for his nationalistic crusade against the TRNC.



I suspect that even you Mark cannot be positive about an ROC victory and how it may be beneficial to the Islands future. Perhaps you might present some solutions of your own rather than the usual listing of quotations. Regurgitated legalities and factual events that most posters can easily find for themselves with a bit of basic tinternet scrolling.

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
28/04/2009 07:56

Dear Waz, re msg 131



1/ "even you Mark cannot be positive about an ROC victory" - mistake 1 - it would not be a "victory" for the roC it would be the ECJ ruling on the interpretation of Protocol 10 - and thus whether the RoC court ruling can be enforced in a third party EU state. You continue to assume some sort of GC bias.



2/ Of course the GCs should be using the IPC and "TRNC" supporters should stop referring to it - as if it is some sort of body giving their"state" legitimacy. It is TURKEY's "local remedy". If GCs "piled in" , I'm sure we would see the ECHR having to take back control - as historically , Turkey has not ruled fairly in cases where the GC wants compo for loss of use - TR offers less and compo for the property ( which the GC doesn't wish to accept - as they wish to retain ownership)



(cont)

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
28/04/2009 08:05

(cont 132)



3/ "The ECJ ruling could have a very negative effect on the current talks and indeed prospects of a settlement" .. Yes, there is that danger, but let's not let emotion/ bias cloud legalities. It may also bring home to folk the reality of the inherent "fault lines" of "buying" a property still legally owned by someone else in an unrecognised "country".



4/ "What you continually fail to do is to look forward present solutions and see what is possible. "





) I'm sorry, Warren - you forget I wanted GCs to say YES to Annan, I want a solution that is equitable for Cypriots first, then "settlers" and finally second home owners. Legal actions by GCs and TCs have PROGRESSED matters in Cyprus .. I'll let you think about that - and I'll revert with examples - if you dispute my opinion .





STILL think we should wait until later today...

WAZ-24-7



Joined: 18/10/2008
Posts: 695

Message Posted:
28/04/2009 09:44

mmmmmmm

Thank you for your comments.

I think that if you asked Mr Apostolides and his supporters they may differ from your stance upon victory. Not withstanding the judgment has not yet arrived.

My view is that the IPC, with all its faults represents a far better path to a property solution than the litigation route. I know that you are aware of High Court Justice Jack's comments regarding the property issue being ill suited to civil litigation. It is very clear for most that litigation is an ace card that ROC hold to attain political victory and subversion of TRNC.

Buying property in TRNC has always held risk.As it has in Spain, Bulgaria, Romania etc. One assesses the risk and makes rational decisions. Success in life is all about risk, failure and success.

I am very familiar with your support for Annan. However, this, once again is history. I see very litte in the way of solution that you bring to this board. Perhaps this is why you often appear targeted as a scaremonger.

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
28/04/2009 10:05

Dear Warren, re msg 134





"I see very litte in the way of solution that you bring to this board. Perhaps this is why you often appear targeted as a scaremonger."



Then you must ignore the fact I often point out GCs SHOULD use the IPC.. see what I mean about bias..?!



" I know that you are aware of High Court Justice Jack's comments regarding the property issue being ill suited to civil litigation"



Yep, and you mighty be aware that I told Ismet that I feel he has interpreted Protocol 10 incorrectly and made a political decision - not a legal one. But we will see soon !



"Buying property in TRNC has always held risk." MUCH higher risk - you forgot to mention that .. THAT is why the prices are so much lower...