Why did Apostolides ask.

Texas


Joined: 22/09/2009
Posts: 634

Message Posted:
02/02/2010 20:02

Why did Apostolides ask for the property and the boudary walls to be demolished?



If he had not, I believe he would have found it a lot easier to sell/rent, AND the TRNC would not have had the option of refusing planning permission to demolish the house, therefore this case would have been completed once the Orams had vacated the property, and paid the various costs/compensation.



I further believe, if Apostolides had sold the land and property, with pre-74 (non-Turkish) Title, somebody, or some anonymous investor(s) would have paid well over the odds.



IMO, this is political. By asking for demolition, he knew it would drag on, and on. It's just to make the TC's "give up".



One final pont. even though I have no UK assets, if I had assets and I was to be issued a writ, I would vacate immediately, and put a post on 44, asking if someone was in a similar position as me, to swap properties!

malsancak


Joined: 23/08/2009
Posts: 2874

Message Posted:
02/02/2010 20:35

"if I had assets and I was to be issued a writ, I would vacate immediately, and put a post on 44, asking if someone was in a similar position as me, to swap properties!"

Might work if they had no assets in the EU. You won't have to demolish your villa because the TRNC would forbid it. I like the idea.

westender


Joined: 14/05/2009
Posts: 328

Message Posted:
02/02/2010 21:08

It wouldn't matter, you would be sued for trespass!

WAZ-24-7



Joined: 18/10/2008
Posts: 695

Message Posted:
02/02/2010 21:14

Assets will only be ceased if it is necessary to dispose of them in order to meet any finnancial award within an order. It would be for the plaintiff to apply to the Court for an enforcement order.



The Orams intend to follow the Order made in the Judgment "to the letter".

We are yet to see how denial of permission to demolish will effect Mr Appostolides victory.

girne 29


Joined: 06/12/2007
Posts: 1488

Message Posted:
02/02/2010 21:14

Why would the TRNC not have the option of refusing planning permission?.Who is going to take that option from them.

Mr A and the UK court cannot force the TRNC to do anything,its not under their control.



Likewise ,how could Mr A sell the land,as far as the TRNC is concerned the Orams have recognised title Mr A does not, and its only that aspect of their lives outside the TRNC that gives rise to problems.

While TRNC exists ,that land is TRNC land.

It is political and probably designed ,1, Either to put pressure on the TRNC by damaging the economy,however they left it too late as no-one fron Eiurope was buying anyway.or 2. To ensure Talat doesnt get re-elected and theerfore put a stop to any agreement and at the same time make sure its the NC that appears to be intransigent.



Worst case scenario for both sides is to appear to be the one that wrecks the agreement.So if GC's dont like the way agreement is going how do you wreck it but appear to want it at the same time.?

insider


Joined: 16/11/2009
Posts: 36

Message Posted:
02/02/2010 22:10

A question comes to my mind. What would happen if now TC family who had left property or land at south moves in there? just brain storming.

WAZ-24-7



Joined: 18/10/2008
Posts: 695

Message Posted:
02/02/2010 22:17

Insider,

Judging on recent developments.

Long, arduous, expensive and wasteful litigation. Perhaps such a tit for tat battle would lead to an expression of futility and illustrate that the matter really nust be resolved via politicians.

andy-f


Joined: 03/05/2009
Posts: 1256

Message Posted:
02/02/2010 22:24

does anyone know how much this case as cost ? if its a lot and been funnded by the roc government i cant see them taking twenty thousand europeans to court for trespass, seems to be nothing more than " browning points"



andy

Maz


Joined: 29/03/2009
Posts: 1924

Message Posted:
02/02/2010 22:53

This case is reported as costing one and a half million pounds - legal fees! Then there is the cost of 'rent' to be paid by the Orams; the cost of knocking down (if they ever didi); and some talk of compensaiton as well. And all to get back a corner of the former ancestral home.

It is NPOTHING to do with property but all to do with many other factors which are blatantly obvious to many but with which the courts were not concerned. Don't forge that Candounas stated a long time ago that he wanted to destroy the Building industry in the north.

Now it appears he wants to destroy the tourist industry and now someone has even gone to Europe asking them to intervene in the flag in the mountains as it is offensive to Greek Cypriots, and uses chemicals placed there by Turkey which are 'dangerous substances, PLUS the cost of electricy by night is out of order.

It just goes on and on, doesn't it

insider


Joined: 16/11/2009
Posts: 36

Message Posted:
03/02/2010 01:11

and what if Apostolides could not be the actual owner of this land even before 74 in the first place ?

Oleander


Joined: 03/05/2009
Posts: 302

Message Posted:
03/02/2010 01:49

insider - I am sure he had to show title to get the lawyer to take up this expensive and long drawn out litigation in the first place. I doubt he just walked in and 'said' he owned the land. And he won't see it as owning it 'prior to 74'. He still owns it now.

Rottolover



Joined: 21/06/2009
Posts: 519

Message Posted:
03/02/2010 07:48

Oleander,



It's a tad ingenuous of people like you to insist that "He still owns it now."



He owns it now according to the ROC. He doesn't own it now according to the TRNC. According to you the TRNC is not legal, so he does still own it....



But IT is in the TRNC, so he can't have it. So if he can't have it for the rest of his life, who wins??

Texas


Joined: 22/09/2009
Posts: 634

Message Posted:
03/02/2010 08:09

Question 1.

Has Mr Apostolides been given "exchage land" in the South?



Question 2.

If so, has he relinqushed it, or how does someone find out who the orignal TC owner is?



Question 3.

Another "spanner". Did the TC's that have successfully sued the ROC, given back to the TRNC the "exchange land" that they were given post '74?



Question 4.

What will the TRNC do, to pre '74 TC owners who have given up their deeds to land in the South, (for exchange land in the North), to stop trying to re-claim their land in the South and therefore preventing them having their cake and eating it?



Question 5.

The guy who was originally given the land that the Orams eventualy received, lets call him Mr Ali, should now, be forced to start proceedings to re-claim his property in the South. Once the Orams and everyone else has been re-imbursed, Mr Ali could keep the rest. Is this feasible?

Troodo


Joined: 12/06/2008
Posts: 1002

Message Posted:
03/02/2010 09:28

Are we sure his deeds are genuine? :- smile.

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
03/02/2010 17:16

Threads like this KEEP assuming that GCs got 'given' land... they didn't - it is still owned by the TC who vacated it..



Now that is not to say that much of this land hasn't had houses built on it... but these properties are occupied with folks with 'refugee status' .. they don't own them - nor can they be sold for a profit.. the right to live there CAN be sold to another 'refugee'..



The most important thing to remember is that the land can't [ shouldn't be ] be sold - for private gain.. as has happened in 'the north'



A big mess that only an agreed approach can sort.. the legal actions are a direct result of no political agreement / will

WAZ-24-7



Joined: 18/10/2008
Posts: 695

Message Posted:
03/02/2010 22:00

mmmmm



I accept what you too have been told...with apinch of salt.



There are many instances where TC Immovable property has been utalised for monetary gain.

Particular cases are around Paphos and also Larnaca.



Of course this hardly justifies a tit for tat litigation scenario. Perhaps some real exchange package should be proposed ratified and accepted. Come on the UN ...make a difference and do something really positive !!

Lilli



Joined: 21/07/2008
Posts: 13081

Message Posted:
03/02/2010 22:13

where the hell are this lot going to get the money from to pay. they cant pay thier hundreds of civil servamts. these are almost as much as the turkish army here.Lucky for the elderly lady who did claim her land in the south and got an out of court settlement. so it does work both ways. fight on. waz i agree get some real grond rules that stick. Every law here changes on a daily basis xxx when it suits