Exchange Land Help wanted please!

Lincsman



Joined: 02/04/2008
Posts: 117

Message Posted:
20/05/2009 12:47

OK I'm confused. I know more than some but a lot of the land issues remain unanswered. For example if say Mr Ali(TC) owned 1 donum of land in what is now ROC and fled north after 74, he was given exchange land in the north previously owned by say Mr Charalambous(GC). This transaction was as far as the TRNC was concerned an exchange, the deeds/title for the land in the south were to be held by theTRNC government pending a settlement. This transaction as we know was not with the agreement of the orignal GC owner of the land. So say if Mr Ali doesn't build on the land, but sells it to Mr Smith(English) post 2000, who also doesn't build on the land, but instead keeps it as an investment. So my question is who owns the land in the south? If I understand it correctly, as far as the ROC are concerned Mr Ali still owns the land, but he must have had to sign over the title to the TRNC governement when the "exchange" took place, so in light of the Oram's case, does Mr Smith have any entitlement?

tattlad


Joined: 13/12/2008
Posts: 479

Message Posted:
20/05/2009 13:38

That's the exact point I made a while back, the TC who sold you a villa/house/land, has got to be accountable for the sale, so if some GC comes knocking at your door wanting to take you to court, then you should have the right to take whatever land in compensation the TC has in the south, if he has any, failing that you should be able to take the TC's house in the north, it's a mine field alright, and that's wht the TRNC government need to have a plan that will not backfire, if all those people with PTP's have problems with the GC side then there will be some lawsuits flying about, that is why I do not think there will be any re unification, as it would be an almighty can of worms for the TRNC goverment, anyone harbouring hopes of re unification is dreaming, but hey, dream on, it will never happen, trust me.

zcacmxi


Joined: 30/11/2008
Posts: 388

Message Posted:
20/05/2009 13:52

The international community USA/EU/UK etc are saying that they desire the Cyprus Problem to be resolved. A major part of the Cyprus Problem is property ownership, and any solution to the problem must deal with claims from dispossessed owners from both sides, both TC & GC.



The last internationally sponsored attempt at a settlement was the UN Annan plan. It proposed a solution to the property issues. It was put to referendum, and the TCs accepted whilst the GCs rejected.



In the Annan plan, current users of GC property were given the same rights as the original TC that was given it as exchange.

Codger


Joined: 03/04/2009
Posts: 153

Message Posted:
20/05/2009 14:28

All the talk about exchange land is mostly rubbish.

The last plan the Annan plan made no distinction between the various so called title deed names. All land which may have a claim by either a GC or a TC was known as Effected Property. Definition 1 of Part V etc

There was also no distinction on the person using it whatever their nationality, they were all called Current Users.

Definition 3 of Part V etc

There is also a load of rubbish being peddled about the pre 74 value. That was known as Current value and I quote:

Current value - value of a property at time of dispossession, plus an adjustment to reflect appreciation based among other things on increase in average sale prices of properties in Cyprus in comparable locations in the intervening period up to the date of entry into force of the Foundation Agreement. Part V Amendment Article 1 Definitions number 4.



Codger

It was anticipated that this value would be more than the Market Value to encourage the taking of compensa

Aussie


Joined: 17/06/2007
Posts: 657

Message Posted:
20/05/2009 14:42

Codger



Unfortunatley the online links to the Annan plan I had have now been closed down, but there was a distinction between ëxchange land" and non exchange land. for non exchange land ther had to be improvements for the current owner to have a claim for either compensation or continued ownership otherwise the "GC owner" had priority.



I think the terminology referred to dispaced owners or something simliar.



The mechanics of this were more complicated than this however and subsequent owners could assume the same rights as the original displaced owners in most cases.



Aussie

Codger


Joined: 03/04/2009
Posts: 153

Message Posted:
20/05/2009 16:21

Aussie



There was no such thing as exchange land in the Annan plan.



What you may be thinking of was the item in Article 1 Definitions number 1 Affected Property, and I quote.

Affected property shall not include any property which was voluntarily sold, transferred or otherwise permanently disposed of by the owner, to a natural or legal person who was able to gain effective control over the property or for which compensation due to compulsory acquisition has been accepted.

Note the terms " voluntarily " and " able to gain effective control over the property " this means that there is no such thing as exchange land as there is no person to exchange with. Or how is the land' Exchanged ' when one party, the GC did not consent to the exchange of his property on a voluntary basis?



The idea that a TC and a GC have voluntarily exchanged property is a myth and was invented to fuel the property boom in 2002 onwards.







Codger

Codger


Joined: 03/04/2009
Posts: 153

Message Posted:
20/05/2009 16:37

Aussie



In reply to your " improvements by the current user " again there is no mention of exchange land only effected property. I quote from Article 1 Definitions section 15.



Significant improvement - an improvement ( including any new construction on vacant land ) to an affected property.



It then goes on to mention building approval for the improvement and that the market value of the improvement must be more than the than the market value of the affected property in its original state. There is no mention of exchange land and only mentions effected property which covers all property which a GC or a TC may have a claim on.

Exchange property is a myth there is no such thing, the only thing is pre 74 Turkish or Foreign title and affected property.



You may also mean that the owner of an affected property had a better chance of getting it back if it was not improved.



Codger

ilovekibris


Joined: 18/05/2009
Posts: 394

Message Posted:
20/05/2009 16:54

tattlad wrote: , the TC who sold you a villa/house/land, has got to be accountable for the sale"

Why so? The deal was done according to TRNC law and the property was sold to a foreign non-citizen. Foreigners should show a bit more understanding and respect to TCs, at least they should realise TCs are untouchable over this as they are protected by law.

vincehugo


Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 208

Message Posted:
20/05/2009 16:58

Codger,



You are right that the Annan Plan does not specifically refer to Exchange land, but you are wrong when you say that all types of land were treated equally under Annan. Annan talked about "current users" and "dispossessed owners". Anyone owning Exchange land inherits the right of the dispossessed (TC) owner as well as the current user. Whereas those with TMD land (for example) have only the rights of the current users. In this way Annan acknowledged that land in the South had already been given up in order to take ownership of the property in the South. Essentially Annan ratified the approach already taken by the TRNC with Exchange land and proposed a similar solution for the RoC, where possible.

Lincsman



Joined: 02/04/2008
Posts: 117

Message Posted:
20/05/2009 17:03

Thanks for your feedback on this, however the point I was trying to get answered was who owns/has rights to the land which was left by the TC's in the current ROC. Whilst Annan was important at the time, the current issue seems to be focused on the ECJ ruling which states the ownership of the land in the north belongs to the displaced GC. Following on from that, this would mean the land left in the south belongs to somebody. Is is the original TC who fled north? the TRNC government? or the person who bought the land in the north by default. I know it is a complicated issue and the press will have us believe that all the properties built on GC owned land in the north will be bulldozed, but surely the flip side is the value of the land in the south (which will be worth considerably more per donum)

Lincsman



Joined: 02/04/2008
Posts: 117

Message Posted:
20/05/2009 17:09

To Vince Hugo,



Are you saying that under Annan, the purchaser of the "exchange" land in the north took over the rights of the disposessed TC for his land left behind in the south? I know this is all academic because Annan was not adopted, but it is another factor that would have to be taken into account in the re-unification talks.

ilovekibris


Joined: 18/05/2009
Posts: 394

Message Posted:
20/05/2009 17:42

lincsman wrote: "who owns/has rights to the land which was left by the TC's in the current ROC."



Answer is whatever the Cyprus Land Registry (as the lawful holder of records) says, i.e. the original TC owner still owns the property left behind. A TC cannot be conned out of his property by anything a foreigner did after 1974, esp if the foreigner's government was warning him not to buy property in the north. What Turkey did in TRNC is between Turkey and Cyprus and their citizens, not outsiders.

tattlad


Joined: 13/12/2008
Posts: 479

Message Posted:
20/05/2009 17:45

tattlad wrote: , the TC who sold you a villa/house/land, has got to be accountable for the sale"



Why so? The deal was done according to TRNC law and the property was sold to a foreign non-citizen. Foreigners should show a bit more understanding and respect to TCs, at least they should realise TCs are untouchable over this as they are protected by law.



Because in most countries it is illegal to sell something that does not belong to you, and if it has been sold it must have been done with the TRNC blessing, so someone has to be accountable.

Dixie Normus


Joined: 22/02/2008
Posts: 820

Message Posted:
20/05/2009 17:56

I was led to believe that the GCs never had anything to do with the exchance land scheme. Points were given to TCs from the TRNC gov on production off deeds they held for land in the South these points were then cashed in for land in the North, the points for the land scheme was then abused and corruption took its usual course, on a who you knew sort of basis, backhanders and a genral free for all began. Then the goverment in an attemt to repopulate the North gave land to settelers from Turkey and Army types who fought during the troubles a few donems here and there. When land / constrution was on the up, the goverment said they would guarantee exchange/ gifted/ TMD land to grease the property boom and thet leaves us where we are now, waiting for the trnc gov to get us out of a hole they dug a few years back.



D.N

ilovekibris


Joined: 18/05/2009
Posts: 394

Message Posted:
20/05/2009 18:01

tattlad,

Nobody is accountable apart from the person who bought the disputed property, that's what i'm trying to say. The TRNC can't be taken to court anywhere in the world because no country apart from Turkey recognises it. You could try suing the TRNC in a local court but i think Turkey would order your arrest if you caused any bother, or deport you. So far nobody has dared. The UBP are a hardline Turkish nationalist party and have no time for foreigners.

tattlad


Joined: 13/12/2008
Posts: 479

Message Posted:
20/05/2009 18:05

DN, Well it will be the TRNC/Turkey to be held responible then, personally speaking if any GC comes knocking on my door I will be knocking on the door of my Builder who sold me the land with Mr Liatsos (lawyer) standing behind me.

vincehugo


Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 208

Message Posted:
20/05/2009 18:11

Lincsman



Re Msg 11 Absolutely, yes.



Re Msg 10 The RoC Land Registry will show it as owned by the TC, but the TC has agreed an exchange with the TRNC government which, as I understand it was a legal agreement under TRNC law. So the TC signed away their rights to this land. I would say that the deeds to this exchange land in the South are therefore held by the TRNC government "pending a settlement". The difference is that the TRNC government have created a legal process for sale/transfer of the land in the north, so the only option left to them is to "return" the land in the South as part of a settlement, should a settlement be reached.



If the RoC legal claims for land in the north are successful then it would seem to me that the "right" thing for the TRNC government to do would be to transfer the TC deed to the ousted "foreigner" recognising that the legal arrangement which they established had not delivered the intended result. But this is a torturous way to a "solution".

Troodo


Joined: 12/06/2008
Posts: 1002

Message Posted:
20/05/2009 18:12

Well you lot are a bundle of laughs I must say.



Troodo.

AlsancakJack



Joined: 14/08/2008
Posts: 5762

Message Posted:
20/05/2009 18:20

Troodo

So what can you bring to this debate?

vincehugo


Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 208

Message Posted:
20/05/2009 18:21

ILK Re Msg 12 and 15,



Sorry but the TC entered into a legal arrangement offered by the TRNC government for exchange of their deeds. They were not "conned out of their land" but they were provided with land under the TRNC legal system. And one ultimate test of whether you own something is whether you have the right to sell it. Which some did (whether to foreigners or locals is somewhat immaterial). All these transactions are underwritten by the TRNC government. There is a recognised legal system in TRNC and if it turns out that there is a problem with Exchange land then a purchaser (whether TC or "foreign") would be well within their rights to go back to the TRNC courts and seek redress.

Codger


Joined: 03/04/2009
Posts: 153

Message Posted:
20/05/2009 18:41

Vincehugo



Current users are and I quote A person who has been granted a form of right to use or occupy property by an authority under a legal or administrative process established to deal with property belonging to a dispossessed owner,or any member of his/her heir or successor in title. The definition does not include any person who occupies or uses a property without any legal administrative or formal basis. Section 3 Article 1 Definitions.



The same rights as the dispossessed are only for the successors in title of the dispossessed person ie family and refer to the affected property to which they were dispossessed not the mythical exchange land. It does not confer any rights on the current user.

The TC has not exchanged any land with a GC and the land he was granted is affected property which is still the property of the GC

Again exchange land is a myth, The TC still owns his land in the South and the GC still owns his land in the North.



Codger

vincehugo


Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 208

Message Posted:
20/05/2009 19:22

Codger Re Msg 21



I am working from the same definition of current user that you quote.

Do you agree that this term covers the arrangement for a TC given land in the TRNC, as a result of being dispossessed of land in the South? Whilst I accept that the GC involved has not agreed to it would you also agree that this describes the TRNC Es Deger process?



The definition used by Annan for "dispossessed owners" is, and I quote, a natural or legal person who at the time of dispossession held a legal interest in the affected property as owner or part owner, his/her legal heir, or successor by title, including by gift. Note that this definition allows for dispossessed owners to be successors by title, which is not just family, as you suggest.



The Annan Plan also accepted the legality of existing transactions in the TRNC.



(continued)

vincehugo


Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 208

Message Posted:
20/05/2009 19:30

(cont) Thus, in the Exchange scenario, whilst I agree that the TC has not exchanged land with a GC the TC has transferred title for their land in the South to the TRNC government, and the TRNC government in return has provided them with property in the north as a "current user" which they are in turn entitled to sell on, transferring their title and the rights of a current user to (for example) a "foreigner". As a result, this foreigner has inherited the rights of a dispossessed owner (in the south) to become a current user (in the north). Which is a different scenario, under Annan, to a current user with no inherited rights as a dispossessed owner. Annan said that if the current user was also a dispossessed owner (including by inheritance) then they would retain their current property, whereas a current user without any dispossession would have different test applied to determine the outcome.



(continued)

vincehugo


Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 208

Message Posted:
20/05/2009 19:39

(cont) So UNDER THE ANNAN PLAN the affected property in the North would have gone to the current user (TC or "foreigner") if he/she was a dispossessed owner or inherited these rights. The affected property (previously TC) in the South would be treated to similar tests and assigned to a GC (or foreigner) if it could be shown that they were, or had inherited the rights to be, a dispossessed owner.



You say "exchange land is a myth, The TC still owns his land in the South and the GC still owns his land in the North."



Firstly it is not a myth - it happened. The issue is that it was the TC and the TRNC government that exchanged - no GC involved. Accepted.



The ECJ may say that the GC still owns his land in the North, but Annan's plan (if it had been accepted) would have said that it now belonged to the TC or foreigner. And that's the problem.

I fully accept that this is not the same in a similar way, so it would depend on the status of the "current user".

vincehugo


Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 208

Message Posted:
20/05/2009 19:41

(continued ignoring the last sentence included in error)

So UNDER THE ANNAN PLAN the affected property in the North would have gone to the current user (TC or "foreigner") if he/she was a dispossessed owner or inherited these rights. The affected property (previously TC) in the South would be treated to similar tests and assigned to a GC (or foreigner) if it could be shown that they were, or had inherited the rights to be, a dispossessed owner.



You say "exchange land is a myth, The TC still owns his land in the South and the GC still owns his land in the North."



Firstly it is not a myth - it happened. The issue is that it was the TC and the TRNC government that exchanged - no GC involved. Accepted.



The ECJ may say that the GC still owns his land in the North, but Annan's plan (if it had been accepted) would have said that it now belonged to the TC or foreigner. And that's the problem.

Codger


Joined: 03/04/2009
Posts: 153

Message Posted:
20/05/2009 20:36

Vince hugo



It appears that we are both singing from the same sheet but different songs. Your interpretation of the Annan plan is not mine. If we can put this into plain language is this your interpretation ?

The TC was granted GC land in exchange for giving up all his rights to the alleged land he left behind in the South.

When the TC sold the said land he handed over in effect the title deeds to his land in the South to the person he sold the GC land to. So this person in effect owns the land the TC left in the South.

If this is so I think it will be news to the TC.

In 2003/2004 just before the vote the TC were selling off their land here as quick as they could and the reason given was that if it is a yes vote the GC will get the undeveloped land back. Hardly the action of someone who knows he is signing away the rights to his land in the South.

The story of exchange land is wishful thinking and a feel good factor for people looking for a glimmer of hope.



Codger

vincehugo


Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 208

Message Posted:
20/05/2009 21:33

Codger,



I'm saying that the TC gave over his rights to specific plots of land to the TRNC government in exchange for deeds in the North. I'm not saying that the person that buys the land in the North of him/her also owns the land in the South (that would mean they own two plots, which is clearly unfair). But what I am saying is that, if it turns out they don't own the land in the North (because TRNC approach is rejected) then the TRNC government still have the right to the plot of land in the South which was given up by the TC. It's difficult to see how the TC could argue that having given up his rights to this land and then profited from the sale of an equivalent piece of land in the North he/she could then argue that they deserve the land in the South. If that's news to the TC then I wonder why.



(cont)

vincehugo


Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 208

Message Posted:
20/05/2009 21:35

(cont)

As for the selling off of TC land in 2003/2004 it's not unreasonable to think that some TC's decided not to opt for the Exchange offered by the TRNC government and retained the deeds to land in the South. In this event I could easily understand why they might have looked to sell it ahead of a settlement rather than risk loosing it - unlike those who had opted for the xchange offer and already secured a solution for themselves.



Vincehugo

TheSaints



Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 1369

Message Posted:
20/05/2009 22:03

Eligable to aproach the IPC

TheSaints



Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 1369

Message Posted:
20/05/2009 22:22

The statistics I read stated that out of the ongoing 390 cases some people had already had thier property in the north reinstated?

Anyway I hope they come up with a solution that firstly satifies both Cypriot communities.

Moover321


Joined: 11/04/2009
Posts: 649

Message Posted:
20/05/2009 22:28

Let's get some perspective.



1. The question is not of any plan be it UN or otherwise as to date there is no agreement. Discussion about any plan is at best speculative.



2. The legal issue about the exchange land is one of 'Jurisdiction'. The TRNC may have given TC refugees and others (army) land which belonged to GC in the north. The point is outside of the TRNC And Turkey it is not recognised therefore any agreement is unenforceable!



3. If the TRNC gave land to a TC in exchange for land he lost in the south, if then the TC sells this on to anyone including an expat the ownership of the land has outside of the TRNC / Turkey exactly the same outcome! It will not be recognised.



4. The point is simple. The original issue of an exchange title still remains invalid outside of the TRNC. Any buyer of that land has exactly the same problem. Internationally the land still belongs to the GC in the north and if the TC lost land in the south that land belongs to him!



Continued...2

Moover321


Joined: 11/04/2009
Posts: 649

Message Posted:
20/05/2009 22:38

Cont'd..2



5. The harder issue is what will happen now that expats and others have purchased 'exchange titles'. Though the TRNC have said that they will 'guarantee' such ownership, it is hard to see anyone owning such land being able to take a TRNC politician to court to enforce such a 'guarantee'.



6. It is for this reason that I asked on an earlier posting why the TRNC government's action concerning the sale of such land to expats et al - is at best ambiguous and at worst a deliberate attempt to deceive any potential buyer!



As a thought - could this be part of the rationale for the TRNC not issuing the PTP promptly? Or transfer of title deeds taking years as opposed to weeks?



I don't know the answer.



But it would appear that whether it is deliberate or otherwise the TRNC government is not doing anything to realistic protect a foreign buyer. Conversely, if they stopped the sale of such land they would simply get turfed out by the TC people!



Catch-22 for foreigners!

Moover321


Joined: 11/04/2009
Posts: 649

Message Posted:
20/05/2009 22:56

I hope the above helps! The issue is NOT one of 'two equal' rights that of the TC and GC land owners! The point is one of the legalities regarding jurisdiction.



The argument can be made that the TRNC government is the 'de facto' government in the north. However, to date that has not been accepted anywhere outside of the TRNC / Turkey.



Some have asked the question why don't the TRNC or the TC take the GC in the south to court in the south for land lost by TC. The answer is that they can do it. They have to simply follow the GC process which means having to have lodge the papers in the Southern courts. However, if they have 'sold' their land to the TRNC then they would need to get the papers to be notarised in the south. However as the TRNC is not recognised, nor would such an 'exchange of title'.



Catch-22 for foreigners buying in the TRNC and also for the TC who may want to reconsider his / her sale of land under the exchange programme!



Caveat emptor!

Moover321


Joined: 11/04/2009
Posts: 649

Message Posted:
20/05/2009 23:03

I am NOT being overtly gloomy!



I am merely pointing out the pertinent issues of a legal nature that surround property in the TRNC.



I believe, that in the end the solution WILL BE POLITICAL. There will be an outcome which may mean compromises by all sides.



I am optimistic for the TRNC in the medium to long term.



I just cannot see how the present situation is one in which foreigners can feel comfortable buying exchange title deeds in the north.



There is a need for the TRNC government to take some proactive steps to outline the EXACT status of property purchased by foreigners.



Their failure to do so in a format that is capable of being incorporated in to any negotiated plan is mystifying to me!



That is why I would suggest that in the current market more pressure is applied for such action both from the expat owners groups as well as the property businesses in the TRNC!

vincehugo


Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 208

Message Posted:
20/05/2009 23:04

To be clear I posted on this thread in response to Codger saying that "There was no such thing as exchange land in the Annan plan" to make the point that, whilst it didin't mention Exchange land, it very definitely embraced the principles of the TRNC exchange system as part of the solution to the property problem.



I accept that the Annan Plan is no longer on the table.



And I accept that outside Turkey and the TRNC the Exchange system has no legal standing.



But I do object to this "exchange is a myth" stuff. It happened, albeit between TC's and their government. And it was integrated (pretty well, I thought) into the last attempt at finding a negotiated settlement. Does anyone have a better, practical and implementable suggestion for resolving the property issue because I don't believe wholesale return is a flier and I certainly don't believe that picking off individuals through the courts will lead to a satisfactory outcome for either "side".



Vincehugo

Moover321


Joined: 11/04/2009
Posts: 649

Message Posted:
20/05/2009 23:22

The exchange titles are NOT a myth. They exist in the TRNC. The question is what will the TRNC do in the negotiation process. The legal cases brought by GC with or without the help of the government in the south has one purpose - to have a stronger hand in the settlement process!



Vincehugo, there will ultimately be a settlement and a solution. The only problem is that the foreign buyers are not a priority for the TRNC at the negotiating table. The foreigners have been and are valuable to the TRNC in the past and present period because they brought in revenue. Once a settlement is reached no one can say what the final outcome will be.



In the shrt term ask yourself these questions:



1. Why does it take months or years to get a simple PTP?



2. Why does it takes years to get your title deeds?



3. Why is the system so opaque?



4. Why are the 'guarantees' given to foreigners by the TRNC government not put in to a legally enforcebale format and part of the settlement process?

vincehugo


Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 208

Message Posted:
21/05/2009 00:08

Moover,



I wish I was as confident as you that there will be a settlement and a solution. (Unless you include partition as a solution).



With regard to your questions 1 to 3, could it not just be incompetence/relaxed attitude. The processes for property purchase in TRNC are no worse than those for obtaining a telephone or electricity connection. Put another way, what do you think they have to gain by this - on the face of it, it is just more reasons why people wouldn't buy property in TRNC, which is not what you are suggesting their objective is.



As for question 4, given all the comments about the non-recognition of legal arrangements outside Turkey/TRNC what sort of guarantee do you think they could give which would stand up in International courts?



Maybe I'm being naive but I don't think your questions allow any conclusions to be drawn.

Moover321


Joined: 11/04/2009
Posts: 649

Message Posted:
21/05/2009 00:30

Thanks for your reply Vince!



Questions 1-3 could be as you have said complacency. However, looked at it this way - if you had 99% of the world against your existence you would do all you could to encourage investment. Well, at least I know I would. If the rules were clear and well drafted you would have more potential investors. It would give you a competitive edge over other potential destinations in the Med including the south! You have 35 years to get this right and you still make a mountain out of a molehill? It is as to my mind either deliberate or negligent.



As to question 4. If the rules for 1-3 were clear they would be able to provide a detailed register of the properties to enable a proper negotiation to take place. In that way they could easily say to those foreigners who have bought property in the TRNC provided you followed the proper rules, paid your taxes etc., any negotiations would include the protection of your rights as if you were a TC citizen!

Lincsman



Joined: 02/04/2008
Posts: 117

Message Posted:
21/05/2009 12:12

Thanks for everbody's input. Obviously it does prove there is no straightforward answers to the property issues, but I do concur with most people that the problem will have to be resolved politically. If it's left to be purely sorted out by court action then you would have a situation(say in the case of the Orams)where they have been sued, demolished their property and given the land back, then suing the TRNC government, etc etc etc.

ilovekibris


Joined: 18/05/2009
Posts: 394

Message Posted:
21/05/2009 12:33

The Saints wrote: "Anyway I hope they come up with a solution that firstly satifies both Cypriot communities."

if you are prepered to hand over the property you bought or compensate a refugee that's a very noble thing to say.

Lincsman



Joined: 02/04/2008
Posts: 117

Message Posted:
21/05/2009 14:01

"This transaction was as far as the TRNC was concerned an exchange, the deeds/title for the land in the south were to be held by theTRNC government pending a settlement. This transaction as we know was not with the agreement of the orignal GC owner of the land"



To arbee, the above is from my first post, nobody is disputing that no "exchange agreement exists between North & South Cyprus, what we are discussing is the legal and political implications of the situation that exists.

Stewart


Joined: 19/07/2008
Posts: 1107

Message Posted:
21/05/2009 14:39

What legal rights do the Israelies have to occupy Israel?......is this not a simular situation?

Lincsman



Joined: 02/04/2008
Posts: 117

Message Posted:
21/05/2009 15:36

"More than 30 years since the conflict, the displaced no longer have humanitarian needs and have largely integrated in their new locations."



arbee, this is from the Un report link above. Whilst not disputing the fact that not everybody is "settled" IMO I think there is a difference of opinion between the 2 communities, I certainly believe in the main that the TC population does not want to move back to the "south" to reclaim their lands. The Annan plan whilst not accepted by both communities did take this into account and recommmended no mass exchange of population.

Lincsman



Joined: 02/04/2008
Posts: 117

Message Posted:
21/05/2009 15:52

The Turkish Cypriot property policy was designed to anchor the displaced in their new homes in the north, while the policy of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus has been to maintain the possibility for displaced people to return to their original homes (Scott, 1998 p.142). Turkish Cypriots displaced to the north received points for their land and property in the south and with these points could apply for a newly created “TRNC” deed for the abandoned Greek Cypriot property allocated to them. In gaining a title for their new property in the north, Turkish Cypriots forfeited their claim to their land and property in the south to the Turkish Cypriot administration (Scott, 1998 p.142; ECHR, 10 May 2001; Cyprus Mail, 8 March 2007). Greek Cypriots displaced to the south, on the other hand, received use and possession of abandoned Turkish Cypriot property, the title for which remains with the original owner.



arbee, again from the UN report.

Lincsman



Joined: 02/04/2008
Posts: 117

Message Posted:
22/05/2009 15:34

arbee, I am also not disputing the recognition of the different ways the respective governments have dealt with dispossessed properties/land and I also accept the UN report does in no way endorse the actions taken by the TRNC Government, however IMO it does certainly highlight the difference in attitude towards re-settlement. On the TC side they accepted with "exchange" that they were never going back to their previous properties, whereas on the GC side they fully expect to do so. Whatever settlement is made will have to take these differences into account.