Latest Legal advice (including update on the Oram's)

petez


Joined: 04/12/2008
Posts: 560

Message Posted:
11/02/2010 13:58

We have published our latest set of Northern Cyprus legal answers, there is a big section on the Oram's case.

I hope this will be useful to anyone who is concerned in the current situation.





http://www.living-in-northern-cyprus.com/review/2010/02/legal-advice-2010/



Many thanks for those of you who asked questions. Keep them coming..

Pete

No1Doyen


Joined: 04/07/2008
Posts: 16617

Message Posted:
11/02/2010 14:03

Great information - well done petez.

Brinsley


Joined: 04/04/2009
Posts: 6858

Message Posted:
11/02/2010 14:18

Section 5

Motor Offence Article

How is it possible for the Police to deem anyone 'resident' when clearly marked on the majority of expatriate passports that we're just 'temporary visitors'?

A total enigma to me, seems that the TRNC legal profession play semantics with the English language when it best suits them, ie lining their own pockets with dosh!



Richard

FISHNCHIPS


Joined: 08/03/2008
Posts: 40

Message Posted:
11/02/2010 14:28

hello petez, i have just read thru the above link, and Naomi says that the 75% reduction finished 31/12/2009 however i have heard elsewhere that it was extended to end of march 2010 , as i am thinking i will have to come over before end of march to pay the taxes can anyone confirm this one way or the other officialy-- no heresay please, thanks Ken.

newlad



Joined: 02/03/2008
Posts: 7819

Message Posted:
11/02/2010 14:37

Ken,

This one changes like the weather so i couldnt say,

Paul.

petez


Joined: 04/12/2008
Posts: 560

Message Posted:
11/02/2010 14:37

RE Message 2

No1 Doyen, thanks.. nice to know it is appreaciated.



RE Message 3

Richard, Your comments are so counter productive and negative I sometimes wonder why we bother taking the effort to provide this FREE advice.



RE Message 4Hi FISHNCHIPS,

If you have any comments/questions leave them on the website with the article

I can only go on what the legal professional has said.

BillBarnacle


Joined: 20/04/2009
Posts: 167

Message Posted:
11/02/2010 14:38

Re the advice on the Orams



It is suggested that there are 3 grounds that can be used to refuse to enforce the judgement of one EU court in another EU country.



The ground that appears to offer most protection if it is confirmed to be correct is "judgement in default" ie dont attend RoC court to defend any writ.



It is stated that the reason Orams could not use this route is because they appealled intial default ruling in the RoC



If this legal advice is indeed correct then the expat problem is solved



Simply do not respond to any writ or appeal any judgement issued by RoC and this type of judgement then falls outside the EU law of enforceability elsewhere in the EU.



This is how the legal opinion of Naomi Mehmet appears to be written and clarification/confirmation of this should be sought via a lawyer expert in EU law

Molly


Joined: 30/08/2008
Posts: 299

Message Posted:
11/02/2010 14:48

FISHNCHIPS



The discount was not extended and has not been re-introduced. As always a lot of talk and no action.

Brinsley


Joined: 04/04/2009
Posts: 6858

Message Posted:
11/02/2010 15:04

Petez

So why can't a defendant defend him or herself? According to 'Section 5' A defendant MUST appoint an Advocate. I can't see why except for lining their own pockets!



Richard

jacktheladett


Joined: 01/07/2008
Posts: 528

Message Posted:
11/02/2010 15:14

Justice Jack, in 2005, seems to be the only man that has spoken any sense.

petez


Joined: 04/12/2008
Posts: 560

Message Posted:
11/02/2010 15:27

Hi Richard,

The page has some 4500 words on it and took quite a long time to research, write out and enter onto the website.

Read the advice if you want, take it or leave it..



Splitting hairs over the way it is worded isn't helping anyone...

Would be happier if we didn't bother doing anything?

FISHNCHIPS


Joined: 08/03/2008
Posts: 40

Message Posted:
11/02/2010 15:39

hello petez,1. first off i will echo message 2, very well done congratulations and great that you have a tie up with legal information side of things thanks for the efforts you have put in .

2. sorry i did not realize i could leave a comment /question on there will have to go back and explore.

3. thanks paul , molly.

4. Paul get back to work you don't finish till 10 ! ). and you say your job is hanging by a thread? do you do suspended floors then?? or is it a forum thread ??, have fun mate just tryin t cheer up a crap shift, although 2 - 10 is the best for me , can sleep in , work and still get a couple beers on the way home and take away as well -sorted!!

av a gud un paul.

petez


Joined: 04/12/2008
Posts: 560

Message Posted:
11/02/2010 16:02

FISHNCHIPS...Thanks for the encouragement...



Sounds like the perfect recipe for happiness!

cooper


Joined: 23/10/2007
Posts: 3386

Message Posted:
11/02/2010 16:04

As always thanks very much.



Cooper

laptagal


Joined: 28/05/2008
Posts: 549

Message Posted:
11/02/2010 16:20

Thank you Petez - a nice clear explaination of Orams case and current situation.

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
11/02/2010 16:38

Hi Peterz



comments - re 'misinfo'



1/ As we all know ( outside TR / 'TRNC' ) Mr Apostolidies is not the 'former' owner - he is very much (still) the owner - as would be a TC with land / property in the 'rump' RoC.



2/ Not sure how many 'Greeks' would be looking for 'compo' ( for loss of use/ rent etc., ) ..you meant *Cypriots*.. yes?!



3/ Ignoring the writ and then getting a Judgement in default...which one could 'ignore' - 'as it can't be enforced'... If this happens and the RoC court finds out you DO know about the writ - then I put it to you that the Judgement CAN be enforced.



4/ It is understood' that the Orams have .... received dosh from 'TRNC' .. is this a fact? Will this apply to anyone so served from the RoC ?!



Sorry, but I'm not sure this info is useful, nor 'good'.



Wouldn't the correct legal 'defence' if so served, be to point out the the RoC court of the ECHR prescribed route for redress? This would bring the ECHR into play?

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
11/02/2010 17:00

Msg. 9,

Richard,

Strictly speaking any individual can file a court case and do it all in person and he can also defend himself in person. I have been doing it for years. However, for all intents and purposes you have to appoint an advocate to defend yourself because you do not know the proceedure. So putting exceptions like me to one side, it is true that you have to appoint an advocate to defend yourself.



Coming to speeding offences, as far as most advocates if not all are concerned, there is no defence against speeding. The last trial I had in speeding I had about a dozen defences and I had an acquittal. Indeed the chief attorney wanted to witdraw the case and I objected and took the matter to the constitutional court and had it my way. For those who understand Turkish, here is the link to the judgement I obtainbed at the Constitutional Court in my favour. It explains it all there http://www.mahkemeler.net/Kararlar/Anayasa/dno/1996/D.6-96.doc

ismet

PS: Not just a pretty face you know

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
11/02/2010 17:19

re msg 17



Ismet



When I was taken to ( what you refer to as) the 'Kangaroo' Court - by a large RoC company for withholding payment - in lieu of their fixing a design fault that I had to rectify myself, I defended myself - I had a court appointed translator and the plaintiff withdrew on the day of the second hearing ...



I thought their system was pretty fair, Ismet .. they bent over for the 'little man' .. no need for an Advocate - the Judge ( al lady) explained what was going on and my rights.. I saw no marsupials ;)

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
11/02/2010 17:26

msg. 18

Marky,

It is a kangaroo when when they are dealing with matters about TRNC. the example I quoted was a good one.

ismet

jakki



Joined: 23/10/2007
Posts: 865

Message Posted:
11/02/2010 17:27

Just a quick thank you to petez for putting the advice on this page - it's fab!!

ROBnJO


Joined: 30/06/2008
Posts: 1289

Message Posted:
11/02/2010 17:41

Don't get carried away petez!





Naomi deserves a very big thank you as well!



Rob

jay76


Joined: 17/07/2008
Posts: 532

Message Posted:
11/02/2010 17:45

So are we safe then.

BillBarnacle


Joined: 20/04/2009
Posts: 167

Message Posted:
11/02/2010 17:53

6 Ms



Re msg 16 point 3



Not it would appear if you have not surrendered to RoC court jurisdiction.The Orams it appears did at the point where they lodged an appeal against intial ruling.Had they not done so it would appear judgement would have remained a default judgement which is not enforceable under EU/UK law



Civil jurisdiction and judgements act 1982 and EC 44/2001 refers



I would point out i am not a lawyer and it would need a legal mind to confirm

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
11/02/2010 18:18

Msg. 23

According to Article 34/2: A judgement shall not be recognised

1. if .....



"2. Where it was given in default of appearence, if the defendant was not served with the document which instituted the proceedings or with an equivalent document in sufficient time and in such a way as to enable him to arrange for his defence, unless the defendant failed to commence proceedings to challenge the judgement when it was possible for him to do so;"



So no appearence is no defence.

ismet

girne 29


Joined: 06/12/2007
Posts: 1488

Message Posted:
11/02/2010 18:37

Did not the Orams have legal representation back then?

petez


Joined: 04/12/2008
Posts: 560

Message Posted:
11/02/2010 18:38

Re message 21.



Hi Rob,

Naomi did the main work, all I did was post it to the website.



I just want to make sure anyone who is interested in the information gets to see it.

mark64uk


Joined: 03/12/2008
Posts: 67

Message Posted:
11/02/2010 20:17

nice one petez keep up the good work

WAZ-24-7



Joined: 18/10/2008
Posts: 695

Message Posted:
11/02/2010 21:05

I believe the strongest legal ally that the Orams now have is the ECHR. I understand that they have an application before this court under protocol 6 and the right to a fair trial.

Clearly the history behind the default judgment illustrates a judgment that was achieved by stealth and deceipt.

It is very possible that any TRNC resident, supporter or investor would be predjudiced in any ROC Court.

The Court that subsequently heared the appeal and awarded appostolides his victory was not able to consider a breach in Human rights. The judgment was based and made upon written and precedent law.



I do hope that the Orams secure a just outcome before the ECHR. They, very clearly indeed ,have only acted in good faith and do not deserve the evident distress inflicted on them. I hesitate to predict the aftermarth of a Human Rights victory. The ROC Courts will certainly be the subject of a prejudicial review.

cooper


Joined: 23/10/2007
Posts: 3386

Message Posted:
11/02/2010 21:12

Agreed Waz

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
11/02/2010 21:54

Dear Waz,



the relevant claim of the Orams' will be that *Article* 6 ( section 1) of The European Convention on Human Rights has been contravened.. Frankly, I don't think it was...



You may be getting your 'Protocol' from Protocol No 10 concerning the Act of Acceding to the EU.

No1Doyen


Joined: 04/07/2008
Posts: 16617

Message Posted:
11/02/2010 22:03

Mark, is this the point in contention?



Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:

(a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;

(b) to have adequate time and the facilities for the preparation of his defence;

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
11/02/2010 22:13

Hi Bill



you're in the right 'area' ;)



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_6_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights

No1Doyen


Joined: 04/07/2008
Posts: 16617

Message Posted:
11/02/2010 22:18

Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights is that part of the Convention which protects the right to a fair trial. In criminal law cases and cases to determine civil rights it protects the right to a public hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal within reasonable time, the presumption of innocence, and other minimum rights for those charged in a criminal case (adequate time and facilities to prepare their defence, access to legal representation, right to examine witnesses against them or have them examined, right to the free assistance of an interpreter).

No1Doyen


Joined: 04/07/2008
Posts: 16617

Message Posted:
11/02/2010 22:21

Mark, that article refers to criminal cases - the Orams was a civil case.

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
11/02/2010 22:24

Hold the fort, Bill... you may have a point .....

ROBnJO


Joined: 30/06/2008
Posts: 1289

Message Posted:
11/02/2010 22:26

Bill



What did you expect from a 'Barrack Room Lawyer'

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
11/02/2010 22:26

Yet in the abbreviated format CIVIL is mentioned .........



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights#Article_6_-_fair_trial

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
11/02/2010 22:29

Hmmm .. it does SEEM to be only concerned specifically with CRIMINAL cases....



now you've 'done it', Bill..

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
11/02/2010 22:35

msg. 36

I thought I was the barrack room lawyer here. Do I have competition?

ismet

ROBnJO


Joined: 30/06/2008
Posts: 1289

Message Posted:
11/02/2010 22:52

ismet,.....M Lud!



I think you'ld look better in a wig than anyone else here!



Rob

WAZ-24-7



Joined: 18/10/2008
Posts: 695

Message Posted:
12/02/2010 00:30

My understanding is that HRA. Article 6 applies regardless of Civil, state, or criminal case status.

cooper


Joined: 23/10/2007
Posts: 3386

Message Posted:
12/02/2010 08:38

Your quite correct Waz - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_6_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights

cooper


Joined: 23/10/2007
Posts: 3386

Message Posted:
12/02/2010 08:58

Sorry this is the link i meant to post - http://www.jsijournal.ie/html/Volume%204%20No.%202/4%5B2%5D_Mahoney_Right%20to%20a%20Fair%20Trial%20in%20Criminal%20Matters.pdf

cooper


Joined: 23/10/2007
Posts: 3386

Message Posted:
12/02/2010 09:15

Also be very careful where you hang your washing, because there could be a very fine line !!- http://echrblog.blogspot.com/2009/10/laundry-and-scope-of-article-6.html

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
12/02/2010 11:13

re msg 41-43



Do any of you see this constant heading ? !



"Right To A Fair Trial In *Criminal* Matters Under

Article 6"



re 44 'civil' proceedings is surely referring to the conduct of the case not the type ( Criminal v Civil ) ....?



I seem to remember a Limis(s)ol Court put a 'brief' in the cells - to 'cool his heels' when he pointed out the Judges weren't adhering to the Law, [ they put him in the cells for contempt ] and he took them to the ECHR and won.. they had been procedurally incorrect in finding him in contempt and the punishment was considered excessive.



It would be great to have this cleared up.. as I am still trying to find out the exact basis for the Orams' case at the ECHR



Please note the ECHR cannot enforce a change in any States law.. it can only award damages

cooper


Joined: 23/10/2007
Posts: 3386

Message Posted:
12/02/2010 12:13

I would appear they are using both Artical 6 & 13 for their basis, see note 29 - http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/news/consulting_public/0002/contributions/civil_society_ngo_academics_others/turkish_cypriot_human_rights_foundation_en.pdf

WAZ-24-7



Joined: 18/10/2008
Posts: 695

Message Posted:
12/02/2010 21:42

mmmmmm

Yes Mark your point upon award of damages is correct.



However, The Cyprus problem, at least the ROC side, feeds upon any opportunity to render political and emotional damage upon the TRNC, its residents and investors.



If the Orams were to win a Human Rights issue and were awarded damages. The political points for such a victory would do the TRNC no damage. Certainly the Appostolides judgment would be very much diluted in its ability to render harm. Furthermore, Applicants in future Orams type cases would have rather more difficulty in securing partiallity to their cause.

No1Doyen


Joined: 04/07/2008
Posts: 16617

Message Posted:
12/02/2010 21:51

Mark. "It would be great to have this cleared up.. as I am still trying to find out the exact basis for the Orams' case at the ECHR "



isn't it something to do with the initial serving of the 'papers' in that they were in a foreign language?

No1Doyen


Joined: 04/07/2008
Posts: 16617

Message Posted:
12/02/2010 22:17

Mark:

Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:

(a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;

(b) to have adequate time and the facilities for the preparation of his defence;

petez


Joined: 04/12/2008
Posts: 560

Message Posted:
17/02/2010 01:04

Just a quick note to say Marie B has written an excellent article on Lincguide regarding the Orams...

http://www.lincguide.com/review/2010/02/orams-back-in-the-uk/

Groucho



Joined: 26/04/2008
Posts: 7993

Message Posted:
17/02/2010 07:48

Petez



You might want to reword this sentence:-



"i.e. public police which needed to be resolved. However, we understand that this application has been rejected."

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
17/02/2010 10:45

Hi Bill, when the Orams were served, I BELIEVE the papers were in Greek, but they were informed in English.



When I was served a writ - in was in Greek - but the officer of the court serving me made it clear - in English of dates and time scales.



When in Court the case was in Greek, but everything was translated for me into English.



When the ECJ examined the case, do you think they didn't look into the serving of the writ and time scales involved, thereafter?



When the Court of England and Wales had the case for enforcement before them - was their not a chance to dispute the process ?

Birdsong


Joined: 14/05/2009
Posts: 43

Message Posted:
17/02/2010 14:25

6ms

You are correct the papers served to Linda Orams were in Greek, but she was NOT informed in English. The process server said he didnot speak Greek, only Turkish and English and that he did not know what the contents of the paperwork were. This was a lie as it was established later that he was a Greek Cypriot.



When she was in court in the south the ONLY time she was provided with an interpreter was when she was on the witness stand.



The ECJ appeared to disregard this completely and so these facts are no longer part of the equation which seems very unjust.

Maz


Joined: 29/03/2009
Posts: 1924

Message Posted:
17/02/2010 18:15

I think it is generalloy agreed that huge ';howlers' happened but you can't put the clock back. Anyone with reasonable intelligence might question much of what happened, but it seems that the clever workings of the law can c\onfuse the wise! Well, I used to think I was 'wise' but some of this stuff completley confuses me.



I think the Orams come into the same category, but they are being led and really have no choice.



But of course, the game is not over yet. There are many other plans as I indicated in the article I wrote.

WAZ-24-7



Joined: 18/10/2008
Posts: 695

Message Posted:
17/02/2010 21:10

There were indeed clear ambnormalities in legal protocol when the firsy writ and subsequent hearing in the Nicosia district Court.

These failings were highlighted by Justice Jack in the Appeals Court hearing which the Orams won.



Unfortunately the matter before the ECJ and UK Appeals Court was only about enforcment of a judgment made in another EU state.

The ROC judgment was already made and consequently accepted by the ECJ.

girne 29


Joined: 06/12/2007
Posts: 1488

Message Posted:
17/02/2010 21:19

I think the Orams should get a 90% refund from their legal team.10% should be allowed for them turning up.



Either they missed the points mentioned or if they did know but considered the points not worth bothering about,they should have just advised the Orams to concede.Then again if they did that ,they would not have got their fat fees.



All that money ,and all they could come up with was the non starter argument that because one of the judges was Greek this made the a difference to the decision. The other judges were not Greek.

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
18/02/2010 12:47

Dear Waz, if there were clear abnormalities in the serving of the writ we will eventually know the facts... as you know the act of serving was filmed and Mrs Oram's version of events was apparently some what different from what the film showed, right ?



Now what ever happened with the Weedons



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1176943/Theyve-branded-thieves-suffered-death-threats--hell-Britons-dreamed-retiring-Northern-Cyprus.html



They were refusing 'service'

westender


Joined: 14/05/2009
Posts: 328

Message Posted:
18/02/2010 19:58

There was a little piece about the Weedons in the paper a couple of weeks ago. Apparently there was something wrong with the papers they were served nealy a year ago and it was likely the process would have to be started all over again.

WAZ-24-7



Joined: 18/10/2008
Posts: 695

Message Posted:
18/02/2010 20:58

The serving of any writ can be carried out correctly and properly and the subsequent hearing can of, course follow clear protocol.



My main point is the clear prejudice that exhists in the ROC towards anyone and anything TRNC.

All Europeans under article 6 are entitled to a fair hearing, an entitlement that is easily abused by an EU citizen (ROC)claiming against another EU citizen (UK) who happens to reside outside of the governance of the EU.(TRNC)

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
19/02/2010 01:17

Dear Waz,



Hopefully, someone you will [FINALLY] help you understand that your summation [still] consists of inaccuracies and falsities



1/ Until we hear otherwise - the writ was legally served.



2/ You don't have to BE European to take 'advantage ' of the ECHR.. the alleged act of 'unfairness' has to be conducted by a Council of Europe member nation - did we clear up the civil v criminal criteria, yet ?



3/ Naturally, a 'state' claiming 'statehood' within a recognised states borders - with UN Security council Resolutions backing - is likely to have 'issues' !



Surely, this is a clear case of 'de jure' v 'de facto'..so how on earth do you expect 'de jure' to 'lose' ?

WAZ-24-7



Joined: 18/10/2008
Posts: 695

Message Posted:
19/02/2010 21:46

mmmmm



We can only indeed sumise that the said writ was legally served....under ROC law and before an ROC court!



There is a very clear possibility of prejudice in the ROC courts for any TRNC citizen regardless of criteria.



The "issues" in themselves are conjusive to prejudice

WAZ-24-7



Joined: 18/10/2008
Posts: 695

Message Posted:
20/02/2010 00:11

mmmmm



We can only indeed sumise that the said writ was legally served....under ROC law and before an ROC court!



There is a very clear possibility of prejudice in the ROC courts for any TRNC citizen regardless of criteria.



The "issues" in themselves are conjusive to prejudice