Orams ruling..advice required

Stewart


Joined: 19/07/2008
Posts: 1107

Message Posted:
04/05/2009 11:20

I understand that Mr Apostolides won the case as the Orams were the Occupiers / Using the land ( not neccessarily the owner )...is this correct?



What happens if I am renting a villa...am I not the occupier?



What if I am a occupier for only 2 weeks a year?



What if a development is built with 200 apartments on Mr Apostolides land, all rented out to holiday holidaymakers....who will be taken to court? the various "occupiers" or the 200 owners of the apartments?



Could / Would Mr Apostolides be capable of taking this number of people to court?....would each one of them have to be successfully evicted before the land be taken back.



What if the property is owned by a Israel person...could / would Mr Apostolides take court action?



PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, Sensible answers only required..from both sides

jay76


Joined: 17/07/2008
Posts: 532

Message Posted:
04/05/2009 11:29

Apparently the ipc deal with all property matters ie gc claims

Geoff


Joined: 25/06/2008
Posts: 1370

Message Posted:
04/05/2009 11:32

My understanding, from my friendly TRNC Legal Eagle, is that as a tenant you could not be prosecuted for anything. But of course you might find yourselves evicted at some stage. So don't pay too much rent in advance!

Regards,

Geoff

canyavuz


Joined: 22/02/2009
Posts: 363

Message Posted:
04/05/2009 21:34

the land owner will be taken to court, not the tenants. The gc's have no interest in the tenants as tenants donot have rights to knock down houses, represent landlords, sign over deeds etc.

Your safe.......but your landlord is otherwise!

pilgrim



Joined: 11/05/2007
Posts: 1404

Message Posted:
04/05/2009 21:39

2 weeks a year, and concerned about orams ruling, apologies but get real!

Middle Easter


Joined: 13/06/2007
Posts: 146

Message Posted:
05/05/2009 11:11

Jay 76 (msg 2)



Do you have any more details re the IPC? And indeed the link/referral/acceptance of the IPC by the Euro Court of Human Rights. I asked the same question yesterday, lots of views & no replies. All I can assume is that people are either a) don't know b) know but can't be bothered telling me becuase it has been answered so many times before (likely) or c) my questions were unclear (..more likely!)



I was interested to read on another post (so the info could be right or wrong) that the IPC was set up after the Orams issue went to court. But now as the IPC is set up, new claims would be referred there as opposed to via the law courts & ultimately the ECHR.



Appreciate any feedback...from anyone

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
05/05/2009 14:11

Dear ME re msg 6



I believe you are quoting my viewpoint re the Apostolides v Orams and the time scales and possible future "defence" that could be adopted - not that the "rump" RoC might accept it.. but I BELIEVE that would be a "mistake" for them..



A unofficial translation



note it refers to the decision as if "TRNC" is the body that must provide the local remedy.. it is TURKEY'S responsibility..





http://www.mfa.gov.tr/_p_no_194---december-22nd_-2005_-press-statement-regarding-the-echr-judgement-concerning-the-application-of-a-greek-cypriot-national_-ms_-xenides-arestis-_unofficial-translation___p_.en.mfa

TheSaints



Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 1369

Message Posted:
05/05/2009 14:31

Greek Cypriots continue applying to the Immoveable Property Commission in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus which was established with the aim of finding local remedy to the property issue through domestic law.

The number of Greek Cypriots applying to the Commission for their properties left in the northern part of Cyprus after 1974 has reached up to 390.

The Immoveable Property Commission, with its local and foreign experts, acts as a court.

The Commission has already concluded 59 cases.

52 of those were resolved with compensation, 2 with both compensation and exchange, 4 with return and compensation, and 1 with return after the solution of the Cyprus problem.

All cases have been resolved through mutual agreement.

Cases resolved with exchange belong to two Greek Cypriots who also brought their cases to the European Court of Human Rights.

Officials from the Immoveable Property Commission do not provide information about the amount of compensation but note

TheSaints



Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 1369

Message Posted:
05/05/2009 14:34

that immoveable properties concerning the return consist of lands.



According to the Property Law, properties, which are not owned by juristic people having the right of use and do not present any threat to public order and national security, are subject to return.



If return is envisaged for other properties which are in use, then the return is postponed after the Cyprus political settlement.



Equivalent properties are not subject to return.



Property Law states that the compensation is to be paid by the Ministry of Interior and the right of property of the Greek Cypriot who receives the compensation is ceased.



The Immoveable Property Commission was established in December 2005 which aimed to provide local remedy to the problem of property through compensation, exchange and return

canyavuz


Joined: 22/02/2009
Posts: 363

Message Posted:
05/05/2009 18:24

if the roc makes it so difficult for tc's to have full possesion of their properties in the south, then what makes the stuck up roc think that the trnc would be so reluctant to do the same?



And the fact that the ROC is behaving like this, is what is turning tc's more and more against the idea of reunification (not that it would ever happen of course).





thankgod for their stupid approach to reunification, talks will soon end, with the tc side rightfully pulling out. A nation of take take take.........never learning to give a little.

WAZ-24-7



Joined: 18/10/2008
Posts: 695

Message Posted:
05/05/2009 22:37

Msg 8,9, and 10.

Thank you for your informed comments.



It is most unfortunate that the IPC has not been more sucessfull. Perhaps the time scales taken to resolve cases as well as its lack of awarness has hindered its success.

It is further unfortunate that the ROC administration has failed to seek a Cyprus property solution via the IPC.

It is my opinion that the ROC agenda has always been to subject the TRNC and the Turkish Cypriots to anialation by stealth. It is clearly the case that the ROC administration is set upon total control over the whole Island at almost any cost. The very recent civil litigation victory will be capitalised upon to maximise political advantage.

The ROC, with its EU protective halo is well positioned to inflict an untold onslaught upon the TRNC and indeed its fellow EU citizens that hapen to either live there or have invested there.

BillBarnacle


Joined: 20/04/2009
Posts: 167

Message Posted:
05/05/2009 22:46

Perhaps the TRNC should begin advertising the benefits of the IPC in the RoC and elsewhere.A mass campaign about the comp.available or restitution would up the anti.



All this b**lks about still being able to smell the lemon groves from 40 years ago is claptrap.For most people a substantial sum of money in the pocket focuses the mind especially in these recession hit times

WAZ-24-7



Joined: 18/10/2008
Posts: 695

Message Posted:
05/05/2009 23:29

BB.

Thank you for your comment.

I suspect that the TRNC still has some pride rather than resort to advertising the IPC in the ROC. I suspect the reliable ROC veto would prohibit such an incentive regardless.



The ROC have little political asspiration to promote the obvious IPC route to property settlement.

My opinion is that now the litigation route has been both sanctioned and is proving sucessfull. The IPC will fade into oblivion labelled as a useless tool for acheiving political victory.



Only the EU,UN and other world political powers can overcome the clear asspiration via litigation of the ROC administration.

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
05/05/2009 23:59

Dear Waz, re msg 11



"Msg 8,9, and 10. Thank you for your informed comments. "



Well, I'm "hurt".. what was wrong with 7 ? Ah, you didn't like the FACT that I corrected the legal standing of the IPC - i.e it is a local remedy that is TURKEY's responsibility..



You appear to forget that I have always championed the IPC route - and criticised the RoC administrations who try to discourage GCs from a route suggested by the ECHR !



You also seem to overlooked my suggestion of a sound defence to any repeat of a Mr Apostolides action ..



Your advice to "Horse" - on another thread - suggests the *real* reason you talk up the "vibrancy" of "TRNC" - at a time when the whole of Cyprus' property market is flat .. I think you have a vested interest... so perhaps the expression "well you WOULD say that, wouldn't you? " is appropriate ?!

canyavuz


Joined: 22/02/2009
Posts: 363

Message Posted:
06/05/2009 00:22

i cannot take the european court seriously anymore. How can they demand for the lemon trees to be replanted?

This is the most amount of gc produced crap i've heard in my life!

Lemon trees to be replanted? Is this a joke? How can you reunification supporters expect us to live with a nation of people who are so stupid to think about lemon trees!

Lemtich



Joined: 15/02/2007
Posts: 1487

Message Posted:
06/05/2009 00:31

Its lemon tree, my dear Watson.



On behalf of Sherlock Holmes.



Lem

Bradus


Joined: 25/02/2007
Posts: 2641

Message Posted:
06/05/2009 00:43

Canyavuz,



It is nothing to do with a few lemon trees. He is fighting a principle here. Mr A has done this purely to make the point that the land is HIS and he can do whatever he wants on his own land. Nobody can or should have ever built and lived on it, so please return it to its original state.



He wants all foreign purchasers to get the message that you will never own this land, despite paying for it. His ultimate aim is for people to witness the demolition of the Oram's house so that no one would ever consider buying on GC land again.



That is the message he wishes to send. Why else would you pay such huge legal bills if all that was at stake was a lemon grove worth a few thousand pounds at the most?

WAZ-24-7



Joined: 18/10/2008
Posts: 695

Message Posted:
06/05/2009 00:47

mmmmmmm

Msg 14,

Yes your posting is indeed in support of the IPC.

However the input from Turkey is most likely financial. I disagree that Turkey call the full tune on the IPC.



I refer to the vibrancy of the TRNC in general and not soley to its construction and property recession.



The region bustles with young people of many nationalities. Many now reside by choice in and around Girne.

My experience tells me that the basis for sound social prosperity is to have a thriving young and vibrant social structure. My experience is that TRNC has this pre-requisite in abundance. Younfg people continue to come to the TRNC from all over the world. There is no exodus as the ROC would like to believe.



I am not ashamed at all to admit a vested interest in the prosperity and success of the TRNC.

Lemtich



Joined: 15/02/2007
Posts: 1487

Message Posted:
06/05/2009 01:11

Bradus. Message 16.



I don't doubt his Mr A's principles or his claim on his land.



What I do doubt is your last sentence about payment of legal bills.



Did he pay all these bills or did another interested party?



If it is who we think it is, the whole question of land ownership moves from the legal arena to the political one.



Muddy waters, Bradus.



Be careful what you wish for.



Lem

Stewart


Joined: 19/07/2008
Posts: 1107

Message Posted:
06/05/2009 11:36

Re: 2 "the land owner will be taken to court" if I do not have my deeds, I presume it will be the developer who will be taken to court....and he resides outside the EU?

BillBarnacle


Joined: 20/04/2009
Posts: 167

Message Posted:
06/05/2009 11:47

Stewart



No that is not the case.



The land OWNER is the GC according to the RoC it is the occupier or user of the land that is at risk



BB

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
06/05/2009 12:09

Dear Waz re msg 19



"However the input from Turkey is most likely financial. I disagree that Turkey call the full tune on the IPC. "



Don't tell THAT to the ECHR... ;)



"I refer to the vibrancy of the TRNC in general" .."The region bustles with young people of many nationalities. Many now reside by choice in and around Girne. "



.....and near Famagusta and Nicosia - they're there to be educated - I regularly meet folks from the Former FSU "stan" republics en route to their studies.. but they are mainly transitory - in the same way the Poles, etc might be in Limassol or Paphos... but WHAT has this to do with the CY prob or the Apostolides v Orams !?



"There is no exodus as the ROC would like to believe. "



No that happened pre and post 74 and around the time of the TR banking collapse 9 yrs ago... If there was no exodus - why was there a need to "polulate" "TRNC" with folk from Anatolia?

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
06/05/2009 12:12

re msg 23 ( cont)



Waz: "I am not ashamed at all to admit a vested interest in the prosperity and success of the TRNC."



Thanks, Waz... I note the order you put them in ;) - but seriously - you often attempt to belittle my points - reasoning that my knowledge is second hand or acquired by reading up.. this SO weakens you case... as it is patent nonsense..



Perhaps you should try another way ?



Take care



M

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
06/05/2009 12:14

re msg 1 Stewart



"I understand that Mr Apostolides won the case as the Orams were the Occupiers / Using the land ( not neccessarily the owner )...is this correct? "



on second reading...simple answer



They lost because they didn't defend the case in the RoC courts and a judgement was entered in default.



Now the defence would be " the ECHR has a prescribed route to resolve this matter"

harryroberts


Joined: 05/05/2009
Posts: 117

Message Posted:
06/05/2009 13:57

For what i can understand of the ruling is that it is final and there is no right of appeal which is very worrying.

however i do not see a huge amount of greek cypriots lining up in the courts to take action but i think there will be a steady flow over the next 5 years who will if there is no solution to the cyprus problem.



what this has done is basically made any property with post 74 deeds worthless and made the property a liabilty rather than an investment.



we will have to see if the british courts will enforce the judgement.Personally i think they have no choice when the case was first heard in the uk the british court asked for a directive from europe they now have it.



unfortunately according to law the displaced greeks are and always will be the legal owners no matter what any estate agent or lawyer tells you.

canyavuz


Joined: 22/02/2009
Posts: 363

Message Posted:
06/05/2009 14:27

msg 17 (Bradus)

Why is this only one way? Turkish cypriots can't seem to get full possesion of their land in the south. Only very FEW people have got this full possesion so far.



You said that "He wants all foreign purchasers to get the message that you will never own this land, despite paying for it".

Foriegn purchasers buying land on the island, does not mean they own the island. It's exactly this type of talk about "who owns the island" that lead to to the Turkish 74 intervention.



Dear Bradus....do you remember the Louizidou case?

She was given her compensation, and the house was emptied by their inhabitants, just as she wanted but Louizidou's excuse for not living in the house was "she doesn;t feel safe around the Turkish forces".

Her land was given back, but now she doesn't want to use it!!!

If you give their land back, they open up other excuses.........which is why fighting in the courts does not work.

An overall solution should be found, not fighting in the courts!!

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
06/05/2009 14:29

re msg 25



HarryRoberts



I think you have been a little over-simplistic in your conclusions:



1/ A TC living in what is STILL a GCs property / land is likely to have a property in the south and no assets in the EU - other than the aforesaid property- will the GCs sue a TC knowing the TC has land / property in the south - NO....



2/ Please - the displaced folk you refer to are G.Cypriots and T.Cypriots - they are not from Greece / Turkey.

girne


Joined: 14/01/2009
Posts: 438

Message Posted:
06/05/2009 16:07

Nothıng wıll happen. The case has been goıng on fo rtoo long and hey why are the greeks pıckıng on the Englısh lets see them go up to a Turkısh Cyprıot and ask for theır land back beleıve me there wıll another war between the 2 sıdes

Stewart


Joined: 19/07/2008
Posts: 1107

Message Posted:
06/05/2009 16:24

What if the exchanged property is currently "owned" by a company / person based in Israel / Turkey / Russia / India



How would the GC "owner" proceed through the courts for repossesion?

harryroberts


Joined: 05/05/2009
Posts: 117

Message Posted:
06/05/2009 17:56

do be so stupid mate what is war going to achieve? peole like you are why the cyprus problem has not be resolved you resort to crys of war instead of saying something constructive.



whether we like it or not th R.O.C is a member of the EU do you think they are going to stand bak and let Turkey take anymore of cyprus?

harryroberts


Joined: 05/05/2009
Posts: 117

Message Posted:
06/05/2009 17:59

yes sorry i stand correct the displaced people are both greek and turkish cypriots

harryroberts


Joined: 05/05/2009
Posts: 117

Message Posted:
06/05/2009 18:08

first of all what is exchange land because i cant find anything to say that land was mutualy exchanged



apart from estate agents who have lied to people telling them how safe it was to buy obviously they have mislead people how many purchasers of property in the trnc realise they have a pontential problem.



my blame is with the estate agents lawyers and to some extent the government of the north they have mislead the brits.

cronos


Joined: 26/10/2008
Posts: 2093

Message Posted:
06/05/2009 18:24

You are right Harry.....the Estate Agents played a large part in fostering the notion that "Exchange Land" meant that Mehmet and Stavros had sat down at the coffee shop,agreed to swap land,shook hands and both walked away happy !

Naive and gullible buyers went along with this.....little knowing that the "exchange" was an exercise engineered by the TRNC authorities without the knowledge or approval of the GC owner.

TheSaints



Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 1369

Message Posted:
06/05/2009 18:30

Can't argue with that one at the moment...........

Oleander


Joined: 03/05/2009
Posts: 302

Message Posted:
06/05/2009 19:02

#29 "What if the exchanged property is currently "owned" by a company / person based in Israel / Turkey / Russia / India"



According to this article Non-EU buyers will not necessarily be safe from long arm of ECJ ruling :



http://groups.google.com/group/HELLAS-GREECE/browse_thread/thread/55ea955126b7600c

girne 29


Joined: 06/12/2007
Posts: 1488

Message Posted:
06/05/2009 20:10

barryroberts.



Would you have joined this forum if the Orams had won.

Bradus


Joined: 25/02/2007
Posts: 2641

Message Posted:
06/05/2009 20:30

Canyavus,



I am in total agreement with you about a political solution being the answer rather than courts. If we go the court route the only achievement will be the increases in the salaries of the legal profession. Even worse, cases would roll on for years leading to uncertainty,stress and the crippling of the TRNC.



you said,

"Foreign purchasers buying land on the island, does not mean they own the island. It's exactly this type of talk about "who owns the island" that lead to to the Turkish 74 intervention"



This is not what I meant. I am suggesting that his aim, (and that of his financial backers) is to put people off from buying in the TRNC. To cripple the economy by ruining the construction industry and to enforce the message that exchange land is GC owned and the highest law courts in the land have agreed with this.

Mr. A had several options had he truly wanted his land back or compensation.



But he does not want his land back he simply wants to hammer home his mess

canyavuz


Joined: 22/02/2009
Posts: 363

Message Posted:
07/05/2009 00:22

understood Bradus.......got the wrong end of the stick. I thought they were your views.....



I agree with your last message........it's not the principle for him, it's bringing problems to the TRNC, which is why is TRULY TRULY believe that the Greek administration is paying Meletides a large sum of money just to go ahead with this court case, and to damage the TRNC's property sector, which our government relies on quite a bit.

The greek admibistration is behind alll of this. They are the sh*t stirrers in this. They are funding this case and Meletides just to bring legal implications into the game.



a nation of peace? I think not

Stewart


Joined: 19/07/2008
Posts: 1107

Message Posted:
07/05/2009 10:09

Many thanks for all the balanced comments.



Does anyone know if agents and solicitors are still advising that "exchanged land" is still 100% safe to buy?



If by taking their advice either now or in the past....you have a possible legal claim against them?

Oleander


Joined: 03/05/2009
Posts: 302

Message Posted:
07/05/2009 14:52

I am sure agents who are still desperate to sell property there are still telling people that the risks are exaggerated.



However, more agents warn against it than for it and the Foreign & Commonwealth Office has always warned of the dangers.



Link here to their current page re the situation:



http://ukincyprus.fco.gov.uk/en/help-for-british-nationals/living-in-cyprus/buying-property

harryroberts


Joined: 05/05/2009
Posts: 117

Message Posted:
07/05/2009 17:48

Msg 36



i have followed the case for quite a while because i wanted at one time to purchase property in the north fortunately i done enough research and decided the risks where too much.



even when the orams won the first hearing in the uk i read the decision by the court and concluded that they did not actually win anything it was more like a deferment however again the estate agents in the trnc proclaimed how safe it was to buy and mislead everyone into buying property.

the truth is no property with post 74 deeds is safe from legal action.

girne 29


Joined: 06/12/2007
Posts: 1488

Message Posted:
07/05/2009 21:00

harryroberts,



Apoligies for maybe casting doubt on your reasons for joining the forum.

You can see where I am coming from ,when one sees the amazing amount of other people who had never heard of this forum until 29/04.,but are now only too happy in advising us on how correct the present situation is.

We on this forum knew long ago that the Orams might lose and also knew what that would involve.What we might not have considered was that the ROC would have gone down this route before issue was decided by the negotiations.



Nobody has answered my question as to what is to prevent the TRNC from giving parts of NC in an agreement,then for the ROC to get another lot of land piecemeal through EU courts.Especially as after an agreement, in a federation ,everybody in the North will be a EU citizen.

The GC part of federation will then claim they have no control over the legal actions.

At least as things stand although the GC might stop use of his land ,he can never get it himsel

Raman


Joined: 01/06/2008
Posts: 10

Message Posted:
08/05/2009 00:03

Re mess 42

"Nobody has answered my question as to what is to prevent the TRNC from giving parts of NC in an agreement,then for the ROC to get another lot of land piecemeal through EU courts.Especially as after an agreement, in a federation ,everybody in the North will be a EU citizen".



I think because any comprehensive political settlement would have a clause in it to prevent any such legal actions from being able to be pursued - even any in progress at time of an agreed settlement. The Annan Plan contained such a clause so I guess any new settlement would have similar included - especially after the Orams situation.