Orams decision on 19th January 2010 at 10am

malsancak


Joined: 23/08/2009
Posts: 2874

Message Posted:
14/01/2010 20:47

NOTICE

Take notice that on TUESDAY, 19 JANUARY, 2010 in COURT 72, at 10 O'CLOCK, Judgment will be given in the following.

APPEAL

From The Queen's Bench Division

FINAL DECISIONS

A2/2006/2114 Orams & Anr -v- Apostolides

cooper


Joined: 23/10/2007
Posts: 3386

Message Posted:
14/01/2010 20:48

Thanks for the update.



Cooper

rowlo



Joined: 12/10/2008
Posts: 4796

Message Posted:
14/01/2010 21:01

i hope justice prevails

newlad



Joined: 02/03/2008
Posts: 7819

Message Posted:
14/01/2010 21:03

Tight arses till Tuesday then.Cheers Mal.

malsancak


Joined: 23/08/2009
Posts: 2874

Message Posted:
14/01/2010 21:09

Justice will prevail, although some may not like the decision

newlad



Joined: 02/03/2008
Posts: 7819

Message Posted:
14/01/2010 21:33

Decision goes against the Orams so trnc pull out of the talks,

Paul.

Jetski


Joined: 21/07/2008
Posts: 584

Message Posted:
14/01/2010 21:38

Interesting timing eh? - the talks LOOK like they're going down the tubes and this will put the lid on it. Who's been talking to who eh?...... and with Mrs Clinton now in the fray - methinks big plans are afoot.

malsancak


Joined: 23/08/2009
Posts: 2874

Message Posted:
14/01/2010 21:53

If the Orams lose the case it will be irrelevant to the trnc as very few Brits will be thinking of having a SECOND home here. The estate agents will just look elsewhere for customers and local TCs will start snapping up cut price bargains.

Maz


Joined: 29/03/2009
Posts: 1924

Message Posted:
14/01/2010 22:17

Where did you get the info Mal? As to who buys property here, we know that Israeli's are putting in big money and Russians, so what the heck! It is those of us who ARE Brits who may have an interesting 'future'. But as no one has any idea which way it will all fall - roll on Tuesday. The decision may well affect the fortunes of many as well as the future of TRNC.

No1Doyen


Joined: 04/07/2008
Posts: 16617

Message Posted:
14/01/2010 22:28

I think the judgement will be deferred.

Maz


Joined: 29/03/2009
Posts: 1924

Message Posted:
14/01/2010 22:29

Why No.1????

Birdsong


Joined: 14/05/2009
Posts: 43

Message Posted:
14/01/2010 22:34

Malsancack, forgive me if I'm being thick but whose side are you on?

For whom do you think justice will be done - The Orams or Apostolides and his ghastly side-kick Candounas?

Please enlighten me.

Moover321


Joined: 11/04/2009
Posts: 649

Message Posted:
14/01/2010 22:53

When "Man" invents a new mouse trap - nature invents a better mouse



There is little doubt if any that the UK courts will have to follow the European Court - it may refer some technical point to the same court again but that would be seen by the Greeks as 'political' as they had a chance to refer all questions at the initial referral



What will that mean? Simply a status quo.



This was a 'test case' and it cost a huge amount both in terms of money and time. Each case in the future will turn on its particular facts. Courts have more than enough room for manouvre when push comes to shove and the GC know this! So unless a case is on 'all fours' (identical) it should not set a clear precedence!



The key is what impact it will have on investment from EU nationals. Psychologically - it will affect anyone who as UK assets - who may be afraid of the same treatment.



There ways around it - Trusts, Limited companies etc., but how many will adopt such a tedious route?



Cont'd..

malsancak


Joined: 23/08/2009
Posts: 2874

Message Posted:
14/01/2010 23:02

Justice doesn't select sides, it supposedly makes decisions based on evidence. The Orams will probably lose and I'm on the Oram's side even if they have broken the law according to the UK courts.



MarieB, it's not information it should be common sense (mmm) that if the Orams lose then you wouldn't buy in the trnc if you already had a home in the UK. Then all Brits who are currently in that situation will probably panic and sell at whatever price they can get before the GCs can get hold of their UK home. Calling off the talks would be irrelevant as Brits would still be taken to UK courts if they had assets there.

Moover321


Joined: 11/04/2009
Posts: 649

Message Posted:
14/01/2010 23:06

My guess, given the already tedious route to owning a property in the TRNC - PTP, Planning Permission, Title Deeds etc., to add another layer of uncetainty would have a negative impact.



The upshot?



"A better mouse".



The TRNC depending on how the faltering talks develop will have to come up with an alternative. It could be the following or a combination of the same



1. Assuming the talks fail - they could simply abolish all 'differences' between titles - and make them all 'Turkish Titles'. Charge a special tax to cover compensation to GC who may have lost property from 1974, and make it clear that GC can claim against this fund through the courts or the existing compensation board. It could then allow British homeowners to claim against the fund when sued by GC in the UK.



2. They could look to explore alternative markets which has been the underlying trend for the last 2 or 3 years - Russians, Israelis or even look at other non-EU investors



Cont'd...

No1Doyen


Joined: 04/07/2008
Posts: 16617

Message Posted:
14/01/2010 23:07

Marie. I think they'll find an excuse to defer judgement whilst the talks continue.

Maz


Joined: 29/03/2009
Posts: 1924

Message Posted:
14/01/2010 23:10

Yea but..... Mal......panic never benefits everyone. What I want to know and what no one is answering is how on earth Britain would put its citizens onto the street. And all for a few misplaced tears from a greedy Greek! Now I have some lovely GC friends, but Mr A is being a bit 'unecessary'. In any case, we don't know the outcome and we don't know if anyone will want to dig in even deeper (if possible). But as far as the TRNC is concerned, it doesn't matter if Brits don't buy, as loong as someone does. And maybe that will be a good thing. And of course, there is always trhe possibility that TC's or Turks can buy up at cheap prices and then sell dearly to Russians. The mind boggles.

Personally, I will wait and see. It just seems rotten that there are always wolves standing by to pounce and make something out of the sorrow and misery of others. But, that's life.

Oh dear, I just realised - some one I know could lose their caravan!!!!

Moover321


Joined: 11/04/2009
Posts: 649

Message Posted:
14/01/2010 23:18

3. Become an offcial part of Turkey - allowing Turks to buy here if they so wished without restrictions and remove all the layered process which was designed to control the number of foreign owners coming to the TRNC



The fact remains that in the short term the impact maybe as Mal has suggested a desperate fall in prices as confidence in the market will have been shaken. Confidence is the psychological element which is hard to quantify - but in general terms it tends to overshoot in one direction before finding a new equilibrium. So there may very well be 'bargains' for those with the ready cash! The fly in the ointment is that this comes at a critical time for Cyprus i.e. the talks, elections in TRNC and we are still a long way from being 'out' of the financial crisis of the last 18 months!



If you have the confidence that as the TRNC held its own from 1974 to date - it will come through this too - then you may want to 'bet' on the outcome will be positive....Cont'd

Moover321


Joined: 11/04/2009
Posts: 649

Message Posted:
14/01/2010 23:22

...after all 'betting' is second nature here in the TRNC!!!



It looks like the TRNC government is preparing for a 'velvet divorce' (see earlier thread) - and if it can get its act together it may well be able to provide that better mouse that all supporters of the TRNC would like to see!



Enjoy

malsancak


Joined: 23/08/2009
Posts: 2874

Message Posted:
15/01/2010 00:40

MarieB, the caravan is on its last legs and wouldn't pay for more than a couple of hours of a barrister's time.

basheer



Joined: 22/12/2008
Posts: 949

Message Posted:
15/01/2010 03:51

Tell me if the house in london is in my name and the villa in lapta is in my wife's name surely there is no grounds for the kind of action the oram's may go throu maybe I found a loophole or did I not

cammy


Joined: 04/12/2008
Posts: 91

Message Posted:
15/01/2010 06:38

Come on we are talking about the british goverment here, does anyone really think that the Orams are going to win their case? If our goverment can find a place to sit on the dike they will be quite happy to do so.

Will be interesting to read the court extracts.

smithy


Joined: 17/07/2008
Posts: 5301

Message Posted:
15/01/2010 07:05

I say lets wait until Tuesday then we can give our opinions, good luck to them

sporty


Joined: 06/12/2007
Posts: 685

Message Posted:
15/01/2010 09:11

If it goes in favour of mr apos. the TRNC could change all title deeds en bloc and everyone become long leaseholders with automatic rights to renew long lease at end of the term ie, 999 years!That could work.

Rottolover



Joined: 21/06/2009
Posts: 519

Message Posted:
15/01/2010 09:19

I can't help but ponder on just what the legal situation would be if the Orams' land had been large enough for say half a dozen villas, which were then sold to a mixture of EU and non-EU nationals...



Who would Mr GC sue, and how would a court decide who should pay what?

sporty


Joined: 06/12/2007
Posts: 685

Message Posted:
15/01/2010 09:45

Likewise,a complex of apartments,it would just be impossible to sort out!Many owners from different countries etc etc.

malsancak


Joined: 23/08/2009
Posts: 2874

Message Posted:
15/01/2010 09:55

Rottolover, now that's an interesting thought. It reverses the current logic and says buy a villa on land which is parcelised as it is too complicated to take several people to court, especially if one buyer is a TC!



Basheer, they would pursue your wife for her assets in the UK and marriage automatically gives her your house in London. But this would be a more awkward case to pursue as, if your wife was taken to court, you could dispose of the UK assets and this would probably not be automatically seen as an attempt to avoid paying anything the court awarded. However, if she is made bankrupt then they could go after your assets, I believe.

Rottolover



Joined: 21/06/2009
Posts: 519

Message Posted:
15/01/2010 10:38

Yeah Mal, technically a TC is simply a non-EU national, but they DO seem to have some sort of immunity from prosecution...

walkerscott


Joined: 13/08/2009
Posts: 901

Message Posted:
15/01/2010 13:05

I would like to see the Orams retain their property in Cyprus with all rights and somehow not have their Uk assets put in jeopardy. There is no such thing as Justice. In such cases there is always a "behind the scenes" political agenda attached - obviously no one will admit that publicly!

The Turkish Government can change their stance on Title Deeds if they wish but i suspect they have refrained from this so as not to upset the long standing talks. The property market has been over inflated so much over the last 5 years, prices for many bungalows, houses, villa and apartments should only be at half their current prices but the european buyers, especially Brits and Germans have been willing to pay the asking prices. The same goes with the rental market. Many people, coming here have over inflated this sector as well. It's a vicious circle really, the Cypriot Greeks in the south have seen the Cypriot Turks in the north earning such large sums of money that they feel agrieved.

No1Doyen


Joined: 04/07/2008
Posts: 16617

Message Posted:
15/01/2010 13:26

Why does their UK property need to be in jeopardy? Just give back the house in the trnc.

Harold2555



Joined: 19/04/2008
Posts: 1139

Message Posted:
15/01/2010 13:32

I have every sympathy for the Orams. Personally I believe that they may have a chance of winning on grounds particular to their case. I believe however that the overall point of the enforceability of civil claims in the Republic of Cyprus will be acknowledged by the British Court (I cannot see that it has any alternative)



Let's be clear about this, it is the British Court not the British government making the ruling. As the case involves intra EU matters then the ECJ is the senior court and the British Court must abide by its ruling.



Harold

Brinsley


Joined: 04/04/2009
Posts: 6858

Message Posted:
15/01/2010 13:32

Bill

Because it belongs to the Romans!



Richard

Stubs


Joined: 01/07/2008
Posts: 641

Message Posted:
15/01/2010 13:38

I think almost everything has been said that can be over the years regarding this case.



There is an element of common sense which has to be exercised here though. Buying different deeds has always been risky hence the differences in prices between turkish/foreign pre 74 and esdeger and tmd. Many have been taken in over the years by gossip from locals, estate agencies and the tc authorities.



Legally the owner of the land has always been the GC refugee

Activator


Joined: 23/12/2009
Posts: 44

Message Posted:
15/01/2010 13:39

All very interesting but as always there is just too much speculation here. It took us over four years to get PTP and that was refused initially (millitary) but was patient and that part is done. We are on parcelised land so expect another 4-5 years for the division/kojan if there are no further obstacles. Hope the Ormans are vidicated but we will see on Tuesday. Who knows what will happen next week, next year etc. In the meantime..........



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlBiLNN1NhQ

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
15/01/2010 13:43

After the Ercan decision I lost all hope from the British courts. Now they are firmly bound by the nonsense coming from the continent.

The housing market in north Cyprus is rock bottom, so it can only gett better but not worse.

ismet

No1Doyen


Joined: 04/07/2008
Posts: 16617

Message Posted:
15/01/2010 13:48

Richard, message 32. Which one - Abramovitch? )

basheer



Joined: 22/12/2008
Posts: 949

Message Posted:
15/01/2010 14:39

malsancak thanks my wife is turkisk cypriot and she got her Kimlit card last oct so lets hope no worse comes of this or any of you guys as I know how hard all of us have saved to own abit of sun and some that have sold everything they own or like myself borrowed to the hilt just to know you can retire and make life beautiful

MarkVPiazza


Joined: 14/08/2008
Posts: 530

Message Posted:
15/01/2010 15:27

I can't see this decission making the property market worse, though I would envisage new purchasers would look for pre-74 or TMD titled land



I know TMD land has always less valuble that Exchange, but as much of it was state owned land , and therefore doesn't have an individual owner , Oram's type decissions against it are not possible.



Mark

MarkVPiazza


Joined: 14/08/2008
Posts: 530

Message Posted:
15/01/2010 15:35

I can't see this decission making the property market worse, though I would envisage new purchasers would look for pre-74 or TMD titled land



I know TMD land has always less valuble that Exchange, but as much of it was state owned land , and therefore doesn't have an individual owner , Oram's type decissions against it are not possible.



Mark

Moover321


Joined: 11/04/2009
Posts: 649

Message Posted:
15/01/2010 16:14

Many here have discussed the variations to the Orams case i.e. owning a property in your wife's name in the UK and your name here or parcelised land with multiple villas or apartments etc,.



That is the point I tried to clear up from a 'legal' perspective - and it is this:



The court is likely to find against the Orams - though not certain.



However, and this is the important part - unless other property owners are in exactly the IDENTICAL situation this does NOT set a legal precedence in the GENERAL - but only in the particular i.e. any future case would have to be identical for it to apply - in legal speak "it has to be on all fours".



The main point of this case is PSYCHOLOGICAL and the likely impact is economical!



See messages: 13, 15 & 18.



There are enough ways for nature to invent a better mouse when the GC have a new trap!



The fact still remains which is that it has an impact on CONFIDENCE and the ECONOMY!



Which is the main goal for the GC

Moover321


Joined: 11/04/2009
Posts: 649

Message Posted:
15/01/2010 16:22

Cont'd...



For any GC to take the Orams case as a precedence they would have to show it was identical - which is highly improbable.



They would also face the high costs of such legal action and as we all know the wheels of the legal process takes much time.



Not many could therefore just use Orams as a basis for a claim.



The point of the GC taking this forward was to put more pressure on the TRNC and affect its relatively fragile economy and reduce the confidence that EU ex-pats who may wish to buy here would now think twice!



As such it will affect the prices in the short run - where they are likely to fall further but in time it will find a new equilibrium in a positive direction



Be patient and don't assume the worst. This is just one battle - it is not the end of the "war"



Enjoy

Harold2555



Joined: 19/04/2008
Posts: 1139

Message Posted:
15/01/2010 16:52

Moover

I am afraid you are wrong. Precedent will be set by different parts of the

judgement. The Orams may get a win but precedent could even be set by part of the judgement that goes against them.



Harold

Moover321


Joined: 11/04/2009
Posts: 649

Message Posted:
15/01/2010 17:52

Harold2555:



I beg to disagree. Every case has a 'ratio' the point on which it turns.



Perhaps you should read what I have actually said and maybe ask another lawyer



Or let's see the legal opinion once the judgement has been made public

No1Doyen


Joined: 04/07/2008
Posts: 16617

Message Posted:
15/01/2010 17:57

"Be patient and don't assume the worst. This is just one battle - it is not the end of the "war"



Moover, where is there to go after the Judgement is made (if it is made that is)?

Jovial_John


Joined: 31/01/2009
Posts: 1024

Message Posted:
15/01/2010 18:17

Message 31



Yes the court is making the decision but about the only reason they can now refuse the application is if it is deemed against the political interests of the UK. That requires some statement from the UK government - and they have a perfect excuse if they want it. They have only to say that the UK Government interest is in a settlement in Cyprus (which they have already said many times) and that a judegment against the Orams would make a settlement more difficult (which they haven't said but which we all know to be true) - but don't hold your breath.

malsancak


Joined: 23/08/2009
Posts: 2874

Message Posted:
15/01/2010 18:54

Delivering a judgement against the Orams is not the end of it, the Court has to decide the penalty paid by the Orams. I've a feeling that they're going to give something for everybody. For example, the Orams have to pay 10% the value of the land per year as rent (based on inflated 1974 figures) and when there is a settlement they have to return the land. That could be £3-500pa per donum. If everyone approached by GCs said OK, we'll do the same then there cannot be an expensive court case as it would be looked on as wasting court time.

andre 514


Joined: 31/03/2008
Posts: 1163

Message Posted:
15/01/2010 20:43

one point made several times here and elsewhere

is that an orams-type excercise makes a settlement harder-to-impossible



but I feel sure the orams claimant and clamouring supporters are not interested

in what idealists on our board call a "solution" which I guess is new-speak for compromise



so all people in the north have to do is hold the line for another 34 years

and the agression must eventually blow itself out, and the principal losers will be the gc's yet again



the uk government though assuming it actually believes what it says, can still be reminded

of its official support for a peaceful resolution



it does seem to me that british property buyers in europe/south have nearly died out as a race

beset by scandals and swindles wherever you look, think spain, bulgaria etc etc

while for north cyprus things are so bad, they can only get better, just as ismet says



though for buyers from outside the eu I think you'll find them very picky:

now they can afford to be

Hector


Joined: 26/08/2008
Posts: 2352

Message Posted:
15/01/2010 22:58

If the UK Government was going to play the 'against the interests' card it would have been made public by now.

This case does set a huge precedent. That is, a civil judgement made in a civil court in one EU country can be enforced in another EU country. Can't get much bigger precedents than that. It will be remembered in legal circles long after the details about the Oram's plight are long forgotten.



As for hurting the property market, it's crashed in the South by circa 80% so the North is no different. It's hardly bubbling in the rest of the world either. The many problems of property buying in Cyprus as a whole is hardly going to help it recover. Real shame as it could be so different if the TRNC government cleaned it up.

Moover321


Joined: 11/04/2009
Posts: 649

Message Posted:
15/01/2010 23:01

No1Doyen:



"Moover, where is there to go after the Judgement is made (if it is made that is)"?



1. The TRNC will still be here once the judgement is made.



2. The GC and the TC will still have outstanding issues.



3. The talks will carry on - whether they reach a conclusion is doubtful - but that has been the case for the last 35 years



4. It will not stop non-EU nationalls buying here.



5. If EU nationals want to buy they can use a Trust or other vehicle for the purchase



6. My belief is that the Orams case will be adjudicated on the facts - in other words any GC wanting to follow will have to prove it in the same way and that will take time and cost money. I also believe the court will put some kind of limit on future cases - don't be surprised if the judgement appears vague - it may be deliberate



There are many options for the TRNC (see above) - but it will mean the govt making some hard decisions - the law is always full of loopholes. Let's wait and see

BoTanica


Joined: 22/12/2009
Posts: 714

Message Posted:
15/01/2010 23:05

Don't forget that they have asked that their case is NOT discussed on forums!!

andre 514


Joined: 31/03/2008
Posts: 1163

Message Posted:
15/01/2010 23:08

well, at least the giant firm akai accepts that the island is already partitioned:

on their global website they list their distributor in "greece and greek cyprus"

Moover321


Joined: 11/04/2009
Posts: 649

Message Posted:
15/01/2010 23:09

Hector:



Spot on!



Legally it is a land mark decision by the European Court and will be important in many ways in the years ahead.



You are right about the property market too - and your implicit criticism is well founded - the biggets problem for the TRNC has been and still is the way it operates its legal and property purchase systems - not to mention the endemic corruption and legal malaise.



IF is a small word but with big impact - "only IF the TRNC could clean up its act...." Yes, IF only....

Rottolover



Joined: 21/06/2009
Posts: 519

Message Posted:
16/01/2010 05:47

BoTanica,



Do you mean that the Orams have asked that their case is not discussed on forums???



You're kidding, right?

Harold2555



Joined: 19/04/2008
Posts: 1139

Message Posted:
16/01/2010 09:25

Again just to clear up some misconceptions



The enforceability of Civil Judgements from one EU member in another is not being decided here, that is a given. decided by EU treaty long ago. The original point at issue (at least one of the points) was whether Judgements concerning land in TRNC (theoretically part of EU but where the aquis communitaire- the whole body of EU law is suspended could be enforced. The ECJ on referral said yes. There are reasons whereby the UK court can not follow this ECJ ruling, and as pointed out above the main one is that the ruling would be against the Interests of the UK.



There are other reasons that the Orams could win and that relates to their specific circumstances, questions over service etc. These would be case specific reasons and any future litigants seeking to rely on them would need to show identical or sufficiently similar circumstances to rely on them as precedent



(cont)

Harold2555



Joined: 19/04/2008
Posts: 1139

Message Posted:
16/01/2010 09:35

Judgements come in two parts, the Ratio Decidendi, the reason for the judgement, and this part forms binding precedent on that level of court and those below. The other part is Obiter Dicta, other things said. and these are persuasive on the same level courts and below. The Ratio can address all points of the judgement, i.e. it could say yes the ROC judgement as a rule is generally applicable but there are these reasons why it shouldn't apply in this case.



Lastly from me until the Judgement comes out, there is no deciding of the "penalty" here. The Court in the ROC has already awarded the damages. This case is just about whether those damages are enforceable in the UK and therefore whether the Orams' UK assets are at risk.



The outcome could be mixed. The Orams could win their case but the precedent could still be set that would be bad news for others.





Harold

malsancak


Joined: 23/08/2009
Posts: 2874

Message Posted:
16/01/2010 11:08

mover123, a Trust won't work. The Orams are being pursued for occupying the property. The cannot own it according to International law.

girne 29


Joined: 06/12/2007
Posts: 1488

Message Posted:
16/01/2010 14:41

Is the TRNC Govt aware of who the Orams are and what the case involves?

newlad



Joined: 02/03/2008
Posts: 7819

Message Posted:
16/01/2010 15:32

http://www.cyprus-mail.com/cyprus/uk-court-could-re-refer-orams-case-ecj/20100116





Just found this,

Paul.

measey


Joined: 07/02/2009
Posts: 1037

Message Posted:
16/01/2010 15:49

Paul. Did the Orams purchase the property/ land in the Normal Way Solictor representation etc, something tells me that maybe the deal they agreed to was far more risky than normal and they chose to ignore this because the Deal was so cheap. I stand to be corrected thought.



Keith.

Birdsong


Joined: 14/05/2009
Posts: 43

Message Posted:
16/01/2010 16:45

measey

What do you mean "Deal"?????

I am a close friend of the Orams and have known them all the time they have lived in North Cyprus.

I can absolutely confirm that the Orams did everything correctly and above board. Planning permission for the house had already been given to the Turkish Cypriot (who had bought the land from yet another TC) who had begun the building but he decided against completion and to sell it half finished instead. The Orams went to a solicitor to confirm that the land was Turkish and not pre1974 Greek owned. The solicitor told them it was Turkish land. They then purchased the land and half-built house at the asking price and paid a builder to complete. They went to all the official offices with the Turkish Cypriot and paid all taxes, transfer fees etc and were given their official Kocan.

They did not discover the land was pre-1974 GC until after the Border opened.

The rest is (often VERY inaccurately told) history.

cont/.....

Birdsong


Joined: 14/05/2009
Posts: 43

Message Posted:
16/01/2010 16:50

message 60 cont/....

and don't forget, in the 7 years since the Orams purchased the property the status quo in Northern Cyprus has changed almost beyond recognition.

The Orams respected all the rules and regulations and gained as much information as they could THAT WAS AVAILABLE AT THE TIME.

What has happened to them could have happened to almost anyone else who has bought property in the TRNC.

I hope this will put everyone right on the matter.

measey


Joined: 07/02/2009
Posts: 1037

Message Posted:
16/01/2010 19:04

Birdsong.As i stated in my thread i stand to be corrected no intention to offend anybody thanks for putting me right.



Keith.

Birdsong


Joined: 14/05/2009
Posts: 43

Message Posted:
16/01/2010 20:39

No offence taken, Keith.

It's just that the original true facts have become lost and altered over the course of time and I like to put them right. Lol

Maz


Joined: 29/03/2009
Posts: 1924

Message Posted:
17/01/2010 00:43

Birdsong and I have much in common in understanding of things here. Like the Orams, we understood we were buying into Exchange Land (a fact which Denktash himself spoke of recently 'I sat down with Mr Clerides and we agreed that I could have this, he could have that......' indicating that it was all O.K then and now.

But we are living in former Greek Cypriot property and no one at any stage said this could be 'dodgy'. The Estate Agent said it was O.K, the lawyer said nothing, and if you can't believe an established British estate agent here, and a qualified lawyer, who do you believe.

Also the other anomoly is that the Orams have only a tiny part of what was formerly Apostolides land but the TC's who own the rest are being left alone - presumably because they are not 'foreigners'. The Orams did no wrong - the wrong is the using of them as pawns in a political game.

Rottolover



Joined: 21/06/2009
Posts: 519

Message Posted:
17/01/2010 06:09

Hi MarieB,



That's something I wasn't aware of. Do you happen to know the areas involved? How much in total belonged to Apostolides and how much is under the Orams' villa?

yorkie58


Joined: 16/09/2008
Posts: 245

Message Posted:
17/01/2010 08:57

msg 28 ''Yeah Mal, technically a TC is simply a non-EU national, but they DO seem to have some sort of immunity from prosecution... ''



If they aslo hold a British passport like many do then they must also be EU citizens

malsancak


Joined: 23/08/2009
Posts: 2874

Message Posted:
17/01/2010 12:27

MarieB, it was always going to be the case that a GC would go after an EU owner and Brits belong to the largest group. It's a test case and it would be a waste of time pursuing more than one initially. BUT, it would be interesting to know what the situation would be if a single plot of land was parcellised, with several new owners from EU and Non-EU countries, and a TC thrown in for luck.

girne 29


Joined: 06/12/2007
Posts: 1488

Message Posted:
17/01/2010 12:38

MarieB

"the Orams have only a tiny part of what was formerly Apostolides land but the TC's who own the rest are being left alone - presumably because they are not 'foreigners'."



The case is being heard in EU,

Mr A and the Orams are both EU citizens,

The ROC, that is promoting the case is an EU member and

The TRNC is in,though not under the control, of the EU.



The whole case should have collapsed as being discriminatory, which is illegal under EU laws.and ROC fined for the offence.

I would have thought,given Cherie's track record, that this would have been right up her street. The more one reads of the case one comes to the conclusion that they were not well served by their defense team.



Also why did the defense team not point out that the compensation for the use of land should not apply as M r A could not have accessed the land whether the Orams had it or not.The TRNC should have been liable instead as they are the ones that denied access ,not the Orams.

Moover321


Joined: 11/04/2009
Posts: 649

Message Posted:
17/01/2010 12:45

Mal:



A property owned and leased through a "blind trust" has no occupants - that are visable for legal action.



Properties which have been parcelised - Would not prevent action taken against only those who have EU properties.



The issue in the Orams case is about the enforceability of a judgement from an EU member court in another members legal jurisdiction. The European Court has ruled it CAN be enforced in any member country.



So the question is what will the UK courts decide specifically on this aspect.



1. It could rule the judgement of the GC court should be enforced or

2. It requires 'another' point of law clarified by the European Court - kicking it in to the long grass for another 1 or 2 years.



Not too much scope for much else!



Just remember first step for any GC is to get a judgement in ROC. Cannot see the ROC courts too worried about parcelised land etc., as it can hold each 'owner' joint and severally liable.



Not too long to wait

walkerscott


Joined: 13/08/2009
Posts: 901

Message Posted:
17/01/2010 12:54

The EU cannot rule on any International property transactions. The only reason the GC went after the Orams (besides the political agenda) is that they have property in the UK, nothing else. The TCs do not have property in the UK and so there is nothing to get hold of. Any property held in Turkey would be classed as International.

Since the ROC joined the EU it has been easier for anyone to seek redress across borders about anything through the courts as if the EU were one country. Plaintifs can make any allegation they wish and it will be registered with the EU countries and customs + excise and immigration will have a note on their computers saying that there is a ongoing criminal or legal enquiry.

The Plaintif in this case should be going after the Turkish government and then the former TCs who sold the Orams the property. If i were the Judge i would say that a decision cannot be made in this case because the TRNC is not recognised and Turkey is not an EU member!

Tenakoutou



Joined: 27/07/2009
Posts: 4110

Message Posted:
17/01/2010 13:05

If potential buyers think they'll get their PTP/Kocan for genuine pre '74 Turkish Title property, they've got another think coming!



Not so long ago it was announced that the R0C is suing Britain.....people have short memories....



One wonders if the (Orams) judges even know about this act of outright GC hostility?



If so, it begs the question: will this influence their decision - hopefully in favour of the Orams?

Moover321


Joined: 11/04/2009
Posts: 649

Message Posted:
17/01/2010 13:14

Girne29.



This case is about the enforceability of a ROC judegement in another EU member state. This is what the UK courts had to rule on and why it was sent to the Europe.



The original decision was made in the ROC court and the Orams (for wahtever reason) to my knowledge did not defend it!



There is nothing that Cherie or the defence could do in raising this in the UK court though it was mooted at the High Court in the UK and the court ruled it was "only" and issue of enforcement.



The point is if the Orams lose - how will the UK actually enforce 'all' of the judgement. They can deal with the UK assets but not with the demolition order of the TRNC property. They may narrow the scope of enforceability to the specifics of this case.



It may mean that GC can take more TRCN residents to the ROC courts if they occupy GC property.



The point of the European Court ruling is it does NOT attest to the 'justice' of the original order - the assumption is all EU courts are equal

Birdsong


Joined: 14/05/2009
Posts: 43

Message Posted:
17/01/2010 13:21

Re: message re: the current division of "Apostolides land".

The Orams' house stands on 1 donum = 1/3rd acre. Turkish Cypriots live on the rest which must total at least 10 donums (I am not very good at judging size!) Apostolides has stated publicly that "he doesn't mind TCs living on "his" land, ...but objects to foreigners". Now considering England and South Cyprus are in the EU it's a bit rich therefore that A calls English people "foreigners" I thought the whole point of the EU was that member countries were no longer "foreigners". So much for harmony!!



The judges at the last Appeal Court seemed to know very little about the current on-the-ground situation in Cyprus, they were only interested in European law and how it affected the English court. They didn't actually seem to know much about European law either from what I could see.

European law now seems quite a separate subject and I don't think elderly judges who know very little about it should sit on cases like this.

Moover321


Joined: 11/04/2009
Posts: 649

Message Posted:
17/01/2010 13:29

Cont'd...



A 'daft' assumption if you ask the average EU citizen as certainly we are aware that courts in different member states have quite different procedures and scope of judgements not to mention actual justice!



That is one of the many reasons why the European Court ruling is a land mark decision. Its impact will be felt beyond Orams!

walkerscott


Joined: 13/08/2009
Posts: 901

Message Posted:
17/01/2010 13:31

In this case MOOVER321 is quite right, it is about enforcing a court ruling from another EU member state, not about justice or fairness ...



We had similar in Germany with the West and East when East Germany was not recognised ... there simply isn't any justice in Germany only rules and regulations!

walkerscott


Joined: 13/08/2009
Posts: 901

Message Posted:
17/01/2010 13:39

And may i say that if Harold Wilson and his government had not been weak they would have intervened against the GC coup and stopped them in their tracks.



They also knew of the Turkish Plans and allowed that to proceed. This was in effect "recognition" that the Turkish intervention was legitimate as one of the Guarantors for peace and safety of the people of Cyprus.



Does this not tell you something!

Moover321


Joined: 11/04/2009
Posts: 649

Message Posted:
17/01/2010 13:41

More specifically, it recognises the judgement of a member state in areas where it has no de facto control. This is the part of the decision which pundits did not expect from the European Court. The ruling is that the ROC courts can make judgements on the TRNC land / property issues and those judgements are enforceable in other member states and against assets of those found liable in other member states!

Moover321


Joined: 11/04/2009
Posts: 649

Message Posted:
17/01/2010 13:55

What the TRNC could do?



1. Abolish all the differences between titles. Just make them all one title - TRNC.



2. Abolish PTP save for security checks and ensure that this is carried out within 30 days from the date of application.



3. Create a tax of say 10% as a fund to compensate any claims GC have - and enact legislation that all such claims can ONLY be made against the state of the TRNC (I know it is not internationally recognised). If an owner is sued by a GC in ROC and enofrces a judgement against an EU citizen with property in the TRNC the TRNC government will 'compensate' the EU citizen from the fund set up to compensate the GC.



4. Allow an easy process to set up 'blind trusts' and keep all ownership / occupation information confidential.



5. Give up the negotiations. There is hardly ever going to be a 'consensus ad idem' (meeting of the minds) between the TC and GC.



Can't ever see the GC settling for anything less than having a TC free Cyprus!

walkerscott


Joined: 13/08/2009
Posts: 901

Message Posted:
17/01/2010 14:00

Good ideas Moover321.



But i suspect too simple for the GCs

girne 29


Joined: 06/12/2007
Posts: 1488

Message Posted:
17/01/2010 14:02

Im sorry I dont get it. If we are saying that breaking EU discrimination laws cant enter into the ruling because thats not what the case is about ,then should not the defense team, after accepting the decision , then counter sue the ROC for discrimination in a separate case. The law is clear in EU . The fact that TC's could not be touched in TRNC is neither here or there.Many are British and EU passport holders anyway.



The ROC brought a case supposedly to get any ruling made by the ROC binding in any other EU country.They have won that case That is EU law. Now the Orams defense team should likewise get the EU to enforce the discrimination laws in any other EU country,ie UK and ROC,as that is EU law also. It would be easy to prove discrimination,20 villas ,but the only one the ROC court brought to task was the Orams.In the same way if 20 equally qualified people applied for a job in ROC but only the single GC who applied was asked to interview,that would be cause for action.

girne 29


Joined: 06/12/2007
Posts: 1488

Message Posted:
17/01/2010 14:09

80 cont



Forgot to add ,Maybe if the ROC had to include TC EU citizens in the net then the TRNC govt might be more pro- active.

insider


Joined: 16/11/2009
Posts: 36

Message Posted:
17/01/2010 14:25

'' the case could be re-referred to the ECJ. ............the EU Commission, which claimed that international public policy would possibly be violated if the court ruled on Cyprus property disputes. According to the EU Commission, the international community has already come to the conclusion that Cyprus' property dispute should be resolved, not in the law courts, but through negotiations between the leaders of the Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities. ''



ref:

http://www.poten.com/NewsDetails.aspx?id=10309960

Activator


Joined: 23/12/2009
Posts: 44

Message Posted:
17/01/2010 14:28

I think newlad's posting says it all and we should all wait until Tuesday to see the outcome.

Bradus


Joined: 25/02/2007
Posts: 2641

Message Posted:
17/01/2010 15:12

To answer the question regarding TC's being taken to court and using the courts in the same way as the GC's are, watch:



http://aspectsofreality.blogspot.com/2009/03/apostolides-v-orams-case-update.html



The questions at the end of the video discussion probably say more than the talk given by Mr. Apostilodes lawyer.

Jovial_John


Joined: 31/01/2009
Posts: 1024

Message Posted:
17/01/2010 15:18

What name the TRNC government gives to a title is irrelevant - they can call it EU Title, TRNC Title or anything they want. What matters is that a GC has a title deed for the land and that title is registered in the South which is the only Land Registry recognised by the world. We are all at risk because we have bought land, whether English Title, Turkish Title , parcellated or not and the sale is not registered in the South and that is the only Land Registry that will count unless the TRNC Land Registry is recognised (for Turkish and English Title at least) as part of re-unification.

Moover321


Joined: 11/04/2009
Posts: 649

Message Posted:
17/01/2010 15:33

Jovial_John:



Just what do you think the GC have been doing with TC land in the South? They have allowed it to be developed, bought and sold! Now how is that possible? Because they have said until there is a settlement they will not pay any compensation.



There are several cases pending at the ECHR taken by TC but everytime it comes to a hearing the GC 'settle' out of court - afraid of a ruling from the court!



Ditto the TRNC: If they standardised the titles - had a tax to create a fund for compensating the GC - it would be the same situation. If the TC then gave a guarantee to any buyer (EU citizen or not) that if they get sued and have to 'pay compensation' it will be paid from this fund - they could go a long way to changing the dynamics of the dispute.



As for re-unification - I'm not that optimistic as you may be. The rejection of the Annan plan in 2004 told the TC what the GC really want - they want it all and on their terms!



A velvet divorce would be better

Jovial_John


Joined: 31/01/2009
Posts: 1024

Message Posted:
17/01/2010 16:16

Moover321



I agree with everything else that you said and I heartily agree that re-unification is unlikely to happen and I pray that it will not.

But I do not believe that changing the names of the title will make any difference. In fact I don't think that the current names (English/Turkish etc.) have any official recognition - they are just common usage. And the difference is not in the name - it is in who originally owned the land.

My other point is not about what the GCs do with TC owned land in the South - I am concerned that all the transactions that have taken place in the North since 1974 are not recorded in the only official (the South's) Land Register. So unless the North's register is incorporated into that of the South if re-unification does happen, everything we have bought will never be officially recognised whether it is English, Turkish or Exchange and parcellated or not. And even with a will, merging the two would be a nightmare exercise.

Rottolover



Joined: 21/06/2009
Posts: 519

Message Posted:
17/01/2010 17:10

Moover and any others who seem to be lawyers, you claim that it wouldn't matter if the land were parcellised, because each parcel would then be individually owned and therefore actionable. Much like Australia's strata title system I guess.



But if the land were NOT parcellised, and there was at least one non-EU member owner, how could a court decide on liability then? It would presumably be one whole property owned in part by a non-EU person, and therefore exempt from EU sanctions....?

malsancak


Joined: 23/08/2009
Posts: 2874

Message Posted:
17/01/2010 17:24

Mover123, "A property owned and leased through a "blind trust" has no occupants - that are visable for legal action"

I don't agree that this applies here. No local contract is internationally recognised. The people living in the property are the occupants. No piece of paper will change that. It's not about ownership it's about who is using the property.

Moover321


Joined: 11/04/2009
Posts: 649

Message Posted:
17/01/2010 17:25

Jovial_John:



I agree - a rose by any other name is still a rose!



The point is more political with legal ramifications. If there is no unity between north and south and if the international embargo continues the status quo remains.



If a person buys the TRNC title land and is guranteed by the TRNC to be compensated from the fund established to pay any GC claim in any EU court - then it matters little where the actual title resides or even in which office and calling the title TRNC will just negate the confusion.



The GC taking the Orams case know full well that the only part of the judgement of the ROC that will be enforceable will be monetary compensation and or damages. They will now be able to destroy the villa in Lapta nor gain access to the property.



Sometimes the law and the reality are poles apart. I cannot see how, for example, GCs will kick out 80% of the people living in Girne as 80% of the land and property was ostensibly GC as at 1974!



Cont'd...

Moover321


Joined: 11/04/2009
Posts: 649

Message Posted:
17/01/2010 17:32

Cont'd...



The point of this case is POLITICAL and ECONOMIC.



The GC are using the courts to try and leverage pressure on the TRNC to agree to lesser terms at the settlement. They are also keen to get as much monetary value as they can for these assets that they allege to own and at the sametime put pressure on the TRNC economy which is to a large extent dependent on the property sector.



It should be noted that the GC have 'chosen' to go after 'foreigners' as opposed to TC - why?



From my understanding it is because the TC can argue that under the 1960-63 constitution they can insist on a Turkish judge to hear the case in the ROC and that fact makes it hard for the GC to gain international favour on its rulings. Also, as there is TC land in the south they can get 'satisfaction' in law within ROC.



The upshot is that the Orams case is POLITICAL. Both sides are being funded directly or indirectly by the respective governments.



In the end the solution will be political.

Moover321


Joined: 11/04/2009
Posts: 649

Message Posted:
17/01/2010 17:35

Mal:



For the sake of clarity a "blind trust" is not something that has to be recognised anywhere internationally - it simply states that the trust occupies the property. There are no names of individuals The trust can be passed through a will and can continue in perpetuity

MUSIN M


Joined: 26/06/2008
Posts: 1352

Message Posted:
17/01/2010 17:37

moover 321



couple of points ,the reason the gc,s don,t mind us tc,s using their land is simple ,because they are using our

land in the south and with each passing year our properties are been destroyed and our land is getting smaller and smaller,they keep moving those boundaries.



second point ,you have pointed out that the only outcome for the gc,s is a tc free cyprus,well i was born in nicosia in 1955 and since that time ,this is all i have ever known,so good perception you have it spot on.



musin



long live the kktc

Moover321


Joined: 11/04/2009
Posts: 649

Message Posted:
17/01/2010 17:44

Rottolover:



Ask yourself two simple questions - 1. Does the EU court where the judgement is being enforced worry about how the land has been parcelised after 1974?



All what the EU court is doing is 'enforcing' the judgement of the ROC courts.



As far as they are concerned - 2. If the land was 'stolen' (in their eyes) by one or more people - if they can get satisfaction against one of them does it matter if the other 'theif' (in their eyes) was non EU-Citizen and could not be brought to book?



The GC are using the 'law' to make a very important political point and causing disruption to the TRNC property market as well as gaining monetary compensation.



Is it any wonder they rejected the 2004 Annan plan?



This isn't just about property. It is about the GC saying to the TC our law (they call it the law of necessity) is recognised by the rest of the EU even if it doesn't meet the basic tenets of justice you will have to 'pay' the economic price of separation!

millzer


Joined: 12/04/2007
Posts: 978

Message Posted:
17/01/2010 17:52

Moover, message 91



I saw an interesting comment made on another forum similar to yours;



"I am surprised that the Oram's lawyers did not base their defence on the fact that the RoC court's verdict was illegal, because the court trying the case was and is unconstitutional.



Under the 1960 constitution any court trying a intercommunal case must have three judges. One Greek, one Turkish and a independent judge."



So, whether a TC or not, the dispute is an 'intercommunal' one.

malsancak


Joined: 23/08/2009
Posts: 2874

Message Posted:
17/01/2010 17:55

sorry mover123, I can steal a car and ride around in it and no piece of paper will persuade the police that it's not me driving the car. The reason that this is important is if 20 people use 20 stolen cars from a car pool (they didn't steal the cars BTW and each was originally owned by a different person) then when one of the original owners tries to prosecute one of the people for using their car then if I do not use it regularly then, although in this example they can have the car back, they cannot easily connect me to their car and sue me in a civil court for using it.

Moover321


Joined: 11/04/2009
Posts: 649

Message Posted:
17/01/2010 18:04

Musin_M:



Thanks Musin.



I agree they have TC land in the south which they say they will relinquish when there is a settlement. As they seem to reject all efforts at a settlement it is their hope that that day will not come



If they keep on vetoing any settlement whilst making it harder and harder for the TRNC to survive they have the best of all worlds - plus they can sue foreigners in any EU court for a judgement that is easily obtained in the ROC!



I would guess they believe "poverty" in the end would push the TC to either leave the TRNC and go to other EU countries or Turkey and they can have Cyprus all to themselves.



Who knows what they are thinking!



What I do know is that the TRNC government could be doing a lot more to make the TRNC more self-sufficient and the TCs should sit up and take notice that if they bury their heads in the current 'wealth' they will lose perspective on the future! If you want a Mercedes it is better to build it and plan long term!

Lilli



Joined: 21/07/2008
Posts: 13081

Message Posted:
17/01/2010 18:15

Be jeausu they more I read the more confused I become. The EU Turkey The ROC and the TRNC. What can I go back to Ireland and steal my grannies land then through the EU . i wish the ormas the very best of luck . Idf you say all this is political how so when nobody regonises us. i am so confused by all the comments however fasanating i find them. Its a mine field xxxx it will have to be one hell of a lawyer

Moover321


Joined: 11/04/2009
Posts: 649

Message Posted:
17/01/2010 18:25

Mal:



I am sure if GC wants to sue somebody they need to have some proof that will stand up in court in the ROC! It may not be impossible for them to find out if they really tried - but that is the point - they would really have to try!



The upshot is not who has the better lawyers or the 'law' as it stands on their side.



The point is to make it clear that the only solution for Cyprus is political and NOT legal!



The Orams case to my mind demonstrate not so much that the GC are clever in using the 'system' to their advantage - but that the TRNC is doing very little to counter it!



P.S. Just how are the Israeli's stealing Palestinian land in the OCCUPIED Territories and getting away with it?

millzer


Joined: 12/04/2007
Posts: 978

Message Posted:
17/01/2010 18:40

About 'them' using TC land in the south, surely if the TC that was given the exchange land for his in the south then sells the exchanged land in the north to a foreigner then the 'ownership' of the land left behind in the south must then pass onto the new 'foreign' owner.

malsancak


Joined: 23/08/2009
Posts: 2874

Message Posted:
17/01/2010 18:53

millzer, unless the TC then decided to sell it again but this time via the Land Registry in the south. What if a TC living in the UK with EU citizenship decided to take to the RoC court a GC occupying their land in the south? This is all too bizarre for the Court of Appeal to be able to make a simple judgement on the case.

millzer


Joined: 12/04/2007
Posts: 978

Message Posted:
17/01/2010 19:07

Mal you are right, it's a complete mess and not the sort of thing that any court could sort out in reality. As you say, what if the TC that sold his exchange land in the north then went south and sold his land in the south!!!



One can only hope that the TC seller is obligated to surrender the rights to his deeds in the south to the TRNC authorities, but this also raises the point that IF the exchange land system was administered properly by the TRNC authorities, then WHY didn't they ensure that there was a system in place that would allocate that deed in the south to the new buyer of the land in the north, so that in the event of a settlement the new buyer has the rights to offset the value of that land in the south against any compensation claims that may come from the GC owner for the land he now occupies in the north? Who knows, maybe they do, but they certainly don't tell anyone about it!!

measey


Joined: 07/02/2009
Posts: 1037

Message Posted:
18/01/2010 12:53

Lilli . Your right is confuseing but best to wait and see outcome .



Keith.

malsancak


Joined: 23/08/2009
Posts: 2874

Message Posted:
18/01/2010 14:06

I'm not sure that the outcome is going to be as clear cut as we seem to think. If it is I'd love to see what the UK legal system believes is clear about a case which, if there is a loss for the Orams, would end up allowing GCs (EU citizens) to do what Brits (EU citizens) cannot do - i.e. occupy the land of displaced Cypriots without punishment.

MUSIN M


Joined: 26/06/2008
Posts: 1352

Message Posted:
18/01/2010 22:17

whatever the outcome it will not make much difference too anyone else ,as the turkish government will

tighten up it,s laws and bring in some new one,s ,stopping gc,s from coming over and approaching homeowners ,one of the concepts that has been spoken of on tv ,if a gc does approach any persons they will

be escorted back over the border and banned from returning .

early days ,so let,s wait and see.



musin



long live the kktc

karakum5c



Joined: 18/03/2008
Posts: 1021

Message Posted:
18/01/2010 22:22

A law is only a law if it is enforcable !

Vidal


Joined: 14/05/2009
Posts: 867

Message Posted:
18/01/2010 22:30

Well whatever the outcome, I'm thinking about them and how they must be feeling right now. I wish them well and hope they get some sleep tonight!

karakum5c



Joined: 18/03/2008
Posts: 1021

Message Posted:
18/01/2010 22:45

Well said Vidal---i am sure they have been through hell and back

Hatty


Joined: 13/07/2008
Posts: 260

Message Posted:
18/01/2010 22:59

Interesting, the wording of the notice has been altered in the last 48 hours or so to include a "cross appeal", don't know what this means but both parties would have been informed of the result some days ago.



COURT 72

Before LORD JUSTICE PILL

LORD JUSTICE LLOYD and

SIR PAUL KENNEDY

Tuesday, 19th January, 2010

At 10 o'clock

FOR JUDGMENT

APPLICATION

A2/2006/2114(B) Orams & Anr -v- Apostolides.



Application of Appellant for permission to amend which includes an application for permission to cross appeal.



APPEAL

From The Queen's Bench Division

FINAL DECISIONS

A2/2006/2114 Orams & Anr -v- Apostolides. Appeal of Respondent from the order of Mr Justice Jack, dated 6th September 2006, filed 3rd October 2006.

Oleander


Joined: 03/05/2009
Posts: 302

Message Posted:
18/01/2010 23:30

Lilli - you say 'it will have to be one hell of a lawyer' and I assume you mean a lawyer FOR the Orams?



Well they had one hell of a lawyer didn't they? Cherie Blair - mooted to be the best for this kind of case.

malsancak


Joined: 23/08/2009
Posts: 2874

Message Posted:
18/01/2010 23:34

hatty, see http://www.cyprus44.com/forums/25876.asp

Reproman


Joined: 05/06/2008
Posts: 252

Message Posted:
19/01/2010 01:17

I also think we are missing one point



any money paid, ie compensation, to the GC in this case, does not then mean the Orams can continue to use the property and become the rightful owner.



the GC is suing for Damages to the land and Tresspass on the property.



So its not a case of, Give the GC compensation and you can keep the land!

The GC wants compensation AND the land!



so the point someone raised above about setting up a fund to pay GC compensation IT WONT WORK!

This fund is already set up but GCs are strongly advised not to use it. The GC gov sees it as a sell out!



The GC dont want money, of any amount, if that was the case the EU, America Turkey ect would of rasied however much was needed to just settle this years ago.

The GC just want ALL TCs OUT of Cyprus!! (AND PROBABLY DEAD ASWELL!)

and that is a clear FACT.



p.s. isnt it sweet justice how Greece is now suffering sever economic turmoil, and Turkey is thriving..after they tried to criple us economically

bazilbrush


Joined: 29/03/2008
Posts: 404

Message Posted:
19/01/2010 10:37

Close the border we had no problems before it opened and no greeks either. All it serves you with is cheap flights now.

bazilbrush


Joined: 29/03/2008
Posts: 404

Message Posted:
19/01/2010 11:01

If and I say if as I don't see any decisions being made today, the Oram's lose the case,then we should not panic as there is such a low percentage of greeks that would actually come after you, as many are dead now and many families dont even know where their land or old properties were, also many are happy with what they have in the south, do you really think they would risk losing their property they exchanged. NO DECISION WILL BE MADE it would cause an uproar.

ianwfs


Joined: 08/01/2008
Posts: 563

Message Posted:
19/01/2010 11:03

Does anybody know the URL of where the decision will be published, and how soon after 10am it will be online?

Vidal


Joined: 14/05/2009
Posts: 867

Message Posted:
19/01/2010 11:05

Message113



What would then happen to those who have jobs and schools on the south?

jay76


Joined: 17/07/2008
Posts: 532

Message Posted:
19/01/2010 11:52

bet it dont get settled today.

sagsy22


Joined: 21/11/2008
Posts: 1125

Message Posted:
19/01/2010 12:17

We are all waiting on todays outcome. Good luck to the Orams such lovely people

dutty


Joined: 09/06/2009
Posts: 75

Message Posted:
19/01/2010 12:24

I am sure this will have been covered in the previous 117 postings but haven't got time to read them all



If the Oram's property is built on exchange land what are the legal implications for the people who now have built a property on the land in the south that has been exchanged for the Oram's land (does that make sense)

dutty


Joined: 09/06/2009
Posts: 75

Message Posted:
19/01/2010 12:29

I am sure this has also been asked before



What are the implications for the GC gov in respect to Larnaca airport and why has a TC not started a court action on this?

dutty


Joined: 09/06/2009
Posts: 75

Message Posted:
19/01/2010 12:32

In fact why has no TC started an action against a GC as surely the land in the south is worth more than the land in the north