ORAMS - Action needed by the TRNC Government

MartinMedview


Joined: 10/09/2008
Posts: 11

Message Posted:
28/04/2009 18:02

Although I am not a North Cyprus lawyer it seems to me that there are two things which the North Cyprus Government needs to do immediately to mitigate the effects of the Orams decision by the ECJ.



1. Access to the Deeds Registry must be made private so that searches can only be made with the written consent of the registered owner. In effect this was the system in the UK until a few years ago. This would stop Greek Cypriots discovering the identity of property owners or those who have registered contracts to purchase land or part of land as required under the Estate Agents Act



See separate post for point 2

rtddci


Joined: 29/12/2007
Posts: 842

Message Posted:
28/04/2009 18:14

Will EU 'owners' of exchange land properties think twice about visiting in case their identities become known? Will a new occupation of local private investigator spring up to find out their details?

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
28/04/2009 18:59

Isn't it interesting how many new members there are today ?!



Cyprus is a VERY small island... if a GC wants to find who someone is they will ... We knew a girl who's ex boyfriend ( he became her Husband - silly girl) traced her to Paris, the very hotel and room number..



The same girl got chatted up at the lights and received a phone call from her admirer - he had traced the car reg - then got her mobile number ...





So much for privacy of info ..

mikemans


Joined: 12/04/2009
Posts: 103

Message Posted:
28/04/2009 20:14

The possibility to convert all property into a trust with the government as trustee on behalf of beneficiaries, all land will be in TRNC government name for registration but beneficiaries will not be liable. Anyone seeking information will see this on any register without beneficiary names. Alternative is to transfer all property from freehold to say 100 year leasehold with the TRNC government holding the freehold and anyone attempting restitution will have to sue the freeholder and not the tenant. Both the above operate within EU law.

MartinMedview


Joined: 10/09/2008
Posts: 11

Message Posted:
29/04/2009 02:33

The second suggestion for action is that the Government should immediately permit foreign owners to own property through a TRNC company. Because of the separate legal identity of a company any judgment obtained in the South could only be enforced against the company and not its shareholders.

MartinMedview


Joined: 10/09/2008
Posts: 11

Message Posted:
29/04/2009 02:33

For a fuller version read this Friday's cyprus star!!!

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
29/04/2009 07:49

....and for those who can't see the article ?!..



*I* can't see it, but the idea is certainly "creative" .. I can just see it now.. RoC Court - "we don't own the property, your Honour ... it is owned by a "TRNC" "company" "



Cross examining "brief": "..and WHO are the "Shareholders" and "Directors" of said "company" in a "country" who's institutions we don't recognise..?"



*IF* one was taken to court in the RoC - you'd STILL be found to be the "occupiers" of a GC's land / property and you'd be the "beneficial interested party(ies)"...



NEXT idea ?

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
29/04/2009 07:56

As far as I understand the Orams ruling it has nothing to do with their trnc ownership of the property in the North. As far as the RoC is concerned it is solely related to their USE of the property. Whatever the ownership of it according to the TRNC was it would have no impact on the case brought in the RoC courts. If according to the TRNC they did not own, or Mikey Mouse owned it, the case in the RoC against the Orams would be the same.



I see no counter to such cases in the future based on changing ownership as far as the TRNC goes. If you USE a disputed property in the North and have EU assets you have a potential exposure to risk against those EU assets as far as I can see.

deecyprus4


Joined: 27/07/2008
Posts: 3452

Message Posted:
29/04/2009 07:58

Border with your over the top punctuation marks etc etc, it makes your postings very uneasy on the eye and annoying to read...morning btw. ))

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
29/04/2009 08:09

Dear Dee, re msg 7



Good morning !





You can't be very familiar with the use of punctuation, then .. ;)

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
29/04/2009 08:12

(Cont) re msg 10



If you read GC newspapers - you get used to writing in "pseudo" Soviet style English.... with lot's of inverted commas.



IF we had a quote facility - it would have looked "neater" ? ;)

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
29/04/2009 08:26

RE. msg. 1

Martin's suggestions:



1. The GCs do not recognize the title deeds iven by TRNC anyway and as Erol has sgtated they sue the person occupying the property. Hurma Restaurant in Famagusta is one such example. Hence avoidance of Searches at District Land Offices or putting the ownership into a trust or company is useless.



2. Stopping searches brings on other evils. How am I going after somebody who owns me money if I cannot search for his properties? Just not on.

ismet

deecyprus4


Joined: 27/07/2008
Posts: 3452

Message Posted:
29/04/2009 08:31

Border I am familiar with punctuation...and quite often can't be assed to insert an apostrophe..pure laziness on my behalf..bad I know but easier to read...



Very happy you didn't abandon the forum ))

fire starter


Joined: 19/06/2008
Posts: 3401

Message Posted:
29/04/2009 08:45

this is a double edged sword.

speaking to some local tc's last night, if the gc's still own the land in the north which they owned pre 74, then the tc's are looking forward to the return of their lands in the south.

maybe in a round about way this could pave the way for some sort of settlement regarding the property issues.

appart from that which has been sold on, but at least it may give some idea of the costs involved in doing some sort of deal. some basis for the claims.

it would be more financially viable to do a deal ,otherwise the lawyers just get riches.

joandjelly


Joined: 24/02/2008
Posts: 2953

Message Posted:
29/04/2009 09:44

So do you think there will now be a flood of TCs suing GCs in the RoC courts for the use of their property in the South for the past 35 years?

bootneck



Joined: 23/06/2008
Posts: 242

Message Posted:
29/04/2009 09:50

Why not would be interesting thou to see what sort of reception and judgement they would receive??

No1Doyen


Joined: 04/07/2008
Posts: 16617

Message Posted:
29/04/2009 09:56

Mark, message 7, you are not a Lawyer, therefore you are not able to comment on a legal argument. How do you know the view a Judge would take or what further legal arguments would take place. It's all hypothetical!

fire starter


Joined: 19/06/2008
Posts: 3401

Message Posted:
29/04/2009 10:00

joandjelly,

why not? if the gc's still own the pre 74 titles to the land , it must work both ways.



my feelings are that both goverments need to work together to stop this court action, the ruling has been made.

it would be in the interests of both sides to deal with it in an adult way.

sylvie


Joined: 12/03/2008
Posts: 1081

Message Posted:
29/04/2009 10:01

you need lots of money to sue ROC - we did enquiery because my husband family house, in limassol is occupied by a lady since the war - of course lots of people give up - only well off people can do it because it takes years and not sure of the results - the only offer we had is come and live in your house for 6 months in the year and it will be yours again - but it is ours already ! why should we be forced to be resident in my husband own country !!! non-sense !!! war never bring anything good so the best is to forget about it and keep the good memories -

No1Doyen


Joined: 04/07/2008
Posts: 16617

Message Posted:
29/04/2009 10:03

Will claimants on both side have the necessary funds available to proceed with a 'claim'?

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
29/04/2009 10:11

re 15 joandjelly



"So do you think there will now be a flood of TCs suing GCs in the RoC courts for the use of their property in the South for the past 35 years?"



OH Dear.... I think the msg will get through, soon



There is already a process in place for TCs wishing to return - it isn't entirely "fair" IMHO - requiring six months residency in the"south"..

fire starter


Joined: 19/06/2008
Posts: 3401

Message Posted:
29/04/2009 10:14

sylvie,

now this ruling has been made, i wonder how legal the 6 month rule is? after all as you said ,you still own it , it is yours!

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
29/04/2009 10:17

Dear Bill



re msg 17



"Mark, message 7, you are not a Lawyer"



Is that a statement or a question, your Honour?.. ;)



"therefore you are not able to comment on a legal argument"



I'll tell Ismet that, too



"How do you know the view a Judge would take or what further legal arguments would take place. It's all hypothetical!"



I've been in Court many times -even RoC ones - I'm the black sheep of the family as I didn't study law.. but like Ismet - I enjoy taking on paid "professionals" and living their clients wondering WHO was the "expert"... ? ;)





I read too many "Rumpole" book, may be ? ;)))

sylvie


Joined: 12/03/2008
Posts: 1081

Message Posted:
29/04/2009 10:22

i know it is still ours so what to we do with that old lady living inside for over 35 years, put her on the pavement !!! go to the court - too much hassle !!! that time is over, my mother in law died in 1999 in a car accident, my father in law during the 1963 war so now for my husband it is time to forget about all that, It will never change - even my GC friends married to TC livig there said it is hopeless - they want peace -i feel terrible , i was lucky not to know war in france and i can understand the way they feel - they lost everything but their lives is safe that is the most important !

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
29/04/2009 10:25

DUH "erratum" msg 23



or *leaving* their clients wondering ..

Rogerdodger


Joined: 24/04/2008
Posts: 271

Message Posted:
29/04/2009 10:26

The NC goverment will not take any action or comply with the ECJ ruling they will leave it up to all the people involved, will the TC start to claim ther land back in the south with the aid of the Turkish goverment, I don't think so, this will be a one way street.



RD

rtddci


Joined: 29/12/2007
Posts: 842

Message Posted:
01/05/2009 22:06

The thread is titled 'Orams' Action needed by TRNC government'. How right that statement is. Just what is the government doing to either allay fears or attempt to resolve the situation? It is not as if the result has come out of the blue. Did they not have any idea what their response would be to the possible result? Appreciate their is a new government but even so their should be something other than the waffle I've read so far i.e. the UK government should have a quiet word with the Court of Appeal! That might work in the TRNC but . A TC neighbour reaction was to blame the greedy Brits for believing what they were told about 'exchange land.' Will that be the governments stance?

TheSaints



Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 1369

Message Posted:
01/05/2009 22:08

msg 21



There is already a process in place for TCs wishing to return - it isn't entirely "fair" IMHO - requiring six months residency in the"south"..



There is a process in the North too for GC's who want to reclaim thier land, IPC is it getting used??

TheSaints



Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 1369

Message Posted:
02/05/2009 18:16

Is that the Turkish Army that was protecting the Turkish Cypriots that the GC's were murdering in an ethnic cleansing program??

dy1259


Joined: 10/08/2007
Posts: 357

Message Posted:
02/05/2009 19:34

How is it acceptable or fair for the GC government of South Cyprus only, to expect TCs who OWN the land/house in South Cyprus to go and live there for 6 months (is that every year?) before they can own their land/house that they already own? The deeds prove they own it and in the same way the GCs expect their land/house back + compensation, the same should apply to the TCs. The GC government of South Cyprus only, have STOLEN that land/house, they have no intention of returning TC property to its rightful owner. The GCs have made it impossible for TCs to claim it back.

girne 29


Joined: 06/12/2007
Posts: 1488

Message Posted:
02/05/2009 19:45

So basically all users of exchange land ,TC or foreigner,must vacate and leave the land. the land stays empty,as the GC can never return to it.

In a practical sense then , the only advantage the ROC has gained with its court case is in stopping the property market dead.However the market, as in most Medi places ,is dead anyway ,and will be for the foreseeable future.



I am at a loss as to why the ROC has probably scuppered the negotiations of the property issue for such a , admittedly large morale boosting victory, but tiny material gain.

Who knows how much of the land in the north would have been returned to the Greeks, if the negotiations had proceeded with out this.

If the ROC were then unhappy ,that would be the time to go the other route.

I cant really see the reason anyone would have for scuppering the talks at this time,unless the ROC was unhappy about their share,but didnt want to appear to be the ones to leave the negotiating table.

the butler


Joined: 22/06/2007
Posts: 1958

Message Posted:
02/05/2009 20:01

Hi all,



I read with interest MartinMedview's post. I think they have their own interests at heart here and not the interest of their clients or any other owners of property in TRNC. If the government did what he suggests and stops anyone other than the title deed owner from access to the land registry, they and any other developer could then take out as many mortgages as they want on property they have already sold without being found out. Nice one Martin.



The butler

dy1259


Joined: 10/08/2007
Posts: 357

Message Posted:
02/05/2009 20:28

If a GC tries to sue for their 'land' in North Cyprus, surely they can be legally referred to the property commision and take it up with them, I thought that's what the ECHR had endorsed?

TheSaints



Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 1369

Message Posted:
02/05/2009 20:52

msg 33,



Correct the IPC is the place for a GC to make a claim, people are panicking and forgetting this, the Orams did not have the benefit of refering the plaintif to the IPC as it was not in place then. Any future claims will/should be directed to the IPC and this route has been sanctioned by the ECHR. No more claims in the ROC courts.

TheSaints



Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 1369

Message Posted:
02/05/2009 22:10

As a point of interest does anyone know of a case where a GC in the South has tried to reclaim land or property off a TC in the North and what the oucome was??

TheSaints



Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 1369

Message Posted:
02/05/2009 22:11

Errr sorry folks Outcome was.....

jay76


Joined: 17/07/2008
Posts: 532

Message Posted:
02/05/2009 22:15

The saints msg34



I have not heard of that and if true thank you very much for the info.

joandjelly


Joined: 24/02/2008
Posts: 2953

Message Posted:
04/05/2009 00:49

Mark re msg 21 - no need to be sarcastic, my question was regarding a TC suing the current "user" of their property, e.g. a successful restaurant perhaps on the seafront in a sea-side area. As has already been pointed out, Mr Apostolides could have taken his claim to the IPC but didn't so what if a TC who maybe has a happy and successful life here in the North was to sue in the RoC for the use of his restaurant in the South?

Oleander


Joined: 03/05/2009
Posts: 302

Message Posted:
04/05/2009 09:39

Interesting to see Medview posting here so quickly after the Orams judgement. Medview having assured so many of their buyers that they have nothing to fear in the future, whatever happens and that, the worst way, Medview would guarantee them the return of what they paid 'off plan' for their properties.



I too think Medview have their own interest at heart and, if I'd bought from them, I would now be alarmed to see them posting on this issue so quickly - they are not famed for getting back quickly to their own buyers when they have problems.

maddy


Joined: 12/01/2009
Posts: 24

Message Posted:
04/05/2009 10:36

Morning all,



Must say found all your comments most interesting and also the fact that the land that most properties are built on is not it would appear a safe bet that the land is Turkish owned. How does one find out? Not living in TRNC at present but buying at Marina Park, Bahceli I would be interested in knowing as I am sure my neighbours would.



Any advice would be appreciated.



Regards

Maddy

ghurka


Joined: 31/03/2009
Posts: 21

Message Posted:
04/05/2009 11:10

I don't understand why there arn't any reverse cases regarding TC land in the south, surely that will shut them up!

Bradus


Joined: 25/02/2007
Posts: 2641

Message Posted:
04/05/2009 11:45

Saints message 35.



Yes there are TC's that have successfully claimed back their property in the South. The GC government has put lots of obstacles in the way but the ECHR's stepped in and this resulted in a successful outcome for the TC's. The GC's that were residing in the TC's property were evicted.



What I can't understand is why the TC's don't challenge the 6 months rule? It is unrealistic for a TC to move home, possibly have to find new employment, children settle into a new school and also pay rent on your house in the North if you intend to return. This makes it a no go area for many TC's. Why has this impossible situation never been challenged?

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
04/05/2009 13:06

re msg 38 - JoandJelly



Mark re msg 21 - no need to be sarcastic,..



>>> wrong emotion - I'm sorry - I'm EXASPERATED - my mailbox is full of folk asking me questions that

( sorry guys) I have answered MANY times..







But Mr A started his case against the Orams BEFORE the ECHR ruled that TR had to set up a local remedy and the RoC govt has discouraged it's ciitizens - foolishly - from using the IPC. <<<<



Re suing a GC is the South with a "successful restaurant" .. I can think of a family in Larnaca with a sea front restaurant - that had a place in Famagusta - judging by their photos on the wall - they'd like to go home, still.. How can you sue them, when they had to flee the TR army?



There has ALWAYS been a route for TCs to claim back their properties - only the "reside in "rump" RoC part of the process sems unfair.





The whole point of the "issue" is that there was no way to discourage the non Cypriot current occupier in the north. There is now...

rtddci


Joined: 29/12/2007
Posts: 842

Message Posted:
04/05/2009 14:24

"Re suing a GC is the South with a "successful restaurant" .. I can think of a family in Larnaca with a sea front restaurant - that had a place in Famagusta - judging by their photos on the wall - they'd like to go home, still.. How can you sue them, when they had to flee the TR army?"



Isn't that double standards? What on earth do you mean by 'How can you sue them?

What for taking over and running a TC's restaurant (who merely fled from EOKA terrorism)? Why the hell not? How come it's ok according to your theory for a GC to sue for their property in the North but not the other way round then?

joandjelly


Joined: 24/02/2008
Posts: 2953

Message Posted:
04/05/2009 14:43

So Mark the family that owns the restaurant in Larnaca just upped and left of their own volition and should be grateful that they were given a paltry bit of land in the North and a bungalow and if they were stupid enough to try and make a life for themselves in, say, the UK then they can look forward to being sued by the poor hard done by GCs who have had to put up with being given a seafront restaurant in Larnaca.

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
04/05/2009 14:44

Dear rtddci re msg 44



WHAT is double standards..? The ECHR have ruled - repeatedly - that the GC does own the land "exchanged" - that there was no agreed exchange..





The only weakness in the RoC law is asking a TC to live in the "rump" RoC six months- a TC has ALWAYS been able to claim his/ her title...



I have often said more should - and challenge the unfair RoC six months rule...



Could you explain to me how a GC could - until the ECHR cases - seek redress from Turkey? Please tell me a case at the IPC whereby a GC claimant has been allowed to re occupy an occupied premise..





I can tell you of cases where GCs have to move out to make way for returning TCs... I hope you can show me where I'm mistaken..

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
04/05/2009 15:15

Dear JonJelly



re msg 45



"So Mark the family that owns the restaurant in Larnaca just upped and left of their own volition and should be grateful that they were given a paltry bit of land in the North"



What was that you were saying about sarcasm?!



I don't know the circumstances of their moving to the north - but I do know why there was a huge sudden bout of ethnic cleansing and homeless people...



I also know that the displaced TC has long had a local legal remedy ( unlike the GC) and recourse to the ECHR.

Aussie


Joined: 17/06/2007
Posts: 657

Message Posted:
04/05/2009 16:35

MMMMMM



The ROC itself hasn't even abided by the 6 month residency restriction in giving property back to TC owners



There have been cases of TC's who did not exchange their land in the south for GC property in the North but have still been denied access to it by the ROC, such as the case Arif Mustafa. He had to appeal to the UCHR and finally won a case in the ROC Supreme court 2006. The ROC eventually stopped fighting this decision (after initially appealing) giving his house back.



In April 2007, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) also endorsed a friendly settlement between Greek Cypriot refugee Mike Tymvios and Turkey. The deal entailed a $1 million pay out to Tymvios by Turkey and a land swap. The ROC to the best of my knowledge is still refusing to acknowledge this and hand over the land



There was another case I read about a while back where several family members owned an ROC property but weren't allowed to reclaim it as one was a TRNC resident.



Aussie

joandjelly


Joined: 24/02/2008
Posts: 2953

Message Posted:
04/05/2009 17:50

Mark I apologise for my sarcasm but you know it is not that simple and you also know that the Turkish Army did not just turn up one day for the hell of it.

Tootie


Joined: 28/08/2008
Posts: 2037

Message Posted:
04/05/2009 20:03

Mark re msg 21: "There is already a process in place for TCs wishing to return - it isn't entirely "fair" IMHO - requiring six months residency in the"south"..





Do you have a link or more info to this please??









Tootie

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
04/05/2009 21:46

re msg 48



"the case Arif Mustafa. He had to appeal to the UCHR" [ do you mean ECHR? ;) The U might stand for ultimate- and perhaps we could all do with a ruling from him ! ]





"and finally won a case in the ROC Supreme court 2006."



I think you'll find they case was settled out of court - therefore no precedent ! ?



"The ROC eventually stopped fighting this decision (after initially appealing) giving his house back. "



Which of course, was correct .

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
04/05/2009 21:47

Dear JoandJelly



re msg 49 Accepted- and I'm well aware there is much more to that intervention / invasion that most folk are aware - it was planned WELL in advance...

joandjelly


Joined: 24/02/2008
Posts: 2953

Message Posted:
04/05/2009 21:54

...and that was the fault of the TC people and they should be punished for it?

Tootie


Joined: 28/08/2008
Posts: 2037

Message Posted:
04/05/2009 22:01

mmmmmm... Well can you give me a link please? Yes/No???







tootie