The Orams could open Pandoras box

newlad



Joined: 02/03/2008
Posts: 7819

Message Posted:
14/02/2010 20:43

http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&q= http://www.news.cyprus-property-buyers.com/2010/02/14/orams-decision-could-open-pandoras-box/id%3D003919&ct=ga&cd=VUXszJyoBFM&usg=AFQjCNF_hNW2EFxuOTyKy8S_t47GNzSEmQ

newlad



Joined: 02/03/2008
Posts: 7819

Message Posted:
14/02/2010 20:46

http://www.news.cyprus-property-buyers.com/

cooper


Joined: 23/10/2007
Posts: 3386

Message Posted:
14/02/2010 20:49

I think this is the one Paul - http://www.cyprus-mail.com/opinions/apostolides-big-win-might-just-become-our-big-loss/20100214

newlad



Joined: 02/03/2008
Posts: 7819

Message Posted:
14/02/2010 21:10

Cooper,

Same story as mess 2 mate,

Paul.

andy-f


Joined: 03/05/2009
Posts: 1256

Message Posted:
14/02/2010 21:12

paul is this bird called pandora fit and have you any photos of her box ?

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
14/02/2010 21:15

Let's see what they will say to my comments http://www.cyprus-mail.com/opinions/apostolides-big-win-might-just-become-our-big-loss/20100214#comment-8245

newlad



Joined: 02/03/2008
Posts: 7819

Message Posted:
14/02/2010 21:28

Best e mail me off board Andy,

Paul.

newlad



Joined: 02/03/2008
Posts: 7819

Message Posted:
14/02/2010 21:32

Elko2,

Well said.Nice to see the truth in print.Still dont think that this is the end though.Maybe for the Orams as i feel that they have been used as political guinea pigs.Wonder when they will start digging up Larnaca airport.Such a sad state of affairs,

Paul.

Groucho



Joined: 26/04/2008
Posts: 7993

Message Posted:
14/02/2010 21:55

Is Makarios Droushiotis a real person? I don't think the person pretending to be Stelios is!



Eat cake can't have you and your it.... unless you are from south of the border!

WAZ-24-7



Joined: 18/10/2008
Posts: 695

Message Posted:
14/02/2010 22:46

There is indeed a possibility of a sting in the tail of the Orams ruling.

Of course there are TC's that can make exactly the same type of claim as Appostalides.



What the ROC must recognise and indeed allow their citizens to understand is that the ROC has no patent upon loss, displacment or refugee status.

It has always been said that civil litigation will fail to bring a solution to the Cyprus solution.

The Orams case may well make the writting on the wall a deal more clear and perhaps common sense and compensation may become the new order, replacing litigation.

Aussie


Joined: 17/06/2007
Posts: 657

Message Posted:
15/02/2010 01:04

Its a good article much along the lines of what I have always said about the two edged nature of claims such as Orams.



In essence the ROC itself is much more exposed as claims are directly against it and compensation payable by the government making them much simpler and more rewarding.



In reverse every Orams style claim in the TRNC is more difficult in serving notices getting judgements etc. You never know whether you will recover any money until years later as the owners may not have seizable equity in saleable EU assets and legal costs could consume most of this anyway.



Aussie

Groucho



Joined: 26/04/2008
Posts: 7993

Message Posted:
15/02/2010 07:43

Unfortunately the people who will be advising them in these cases do stand to gain... the lawyers. Lot of lovely billable hours.



Who said "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers'?



Yeah old Willy S had it about right (sorry Elko)

malsancak


Joined: 23/08/2009
Posts: 2874

Message Posted:
15/02/2010 12:56

The main difference the article is suggesting is whereas Mr A pursued the Orams in a civil case, what the RoC seems to have done in "compulsorily purchasing" TC properties is to break EU laws themselves. Do individual TCs have to go after the RoC or is it the EU's job now, seeing as it was they who set the precedence of trespass and as in the case of the 100,000 outstanding title deeds in the south, it should be they they sorts it out. Pre-2004 the RoC has always argued that they could do what they liked with TC property if it was a "state emergency." There seems to be a suggestion that this is not how the EU sees it as in the Orams case the judges, I believe, refused to accept a political argument as defence.

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
15/02/2010 13:16

msg. 13

Malsancak,

I think your comments here are way off the mark:

1. The European Court of Justice ECJ is the body that has the final say in the interpretation of EU Law. In the case of Orams it was asked to interpret Protocol 10 wherebye the commutatire was suspended in the north. According to Protocol 10, could the ROC courts rule on matters in north Cyprus and could they be enforced in member countries. That was the question and the answer was in the affirmative. ECJ is not a court of appeal to decide how correctly the court in ROC acted.



2. ROC settled with Sofi Nezire before the judgement of ECHR for the loss of use and not for the property.Of course whe will also get her property back without having to reside on the dark side for six months. So inb effect they have undertaken to change their laws accordingly.



3. In the case of Larnaca airport, they have presumably appropriated it for Public Interest i.e. to make roads, school, airport, refugee housing etc but not to

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
15/02/2010 13:17

pass it on to private developers.



It is a costly game for both sides and neither side can afford to play this game in earnest.

ismet

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
15/02/2010 13:26

Does ANYONE remember me saying that the 'rump' RoC govt did NOT want Mr A to proceed with this case and didn't want to fund it .....;) ?

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
15/02/2010 13:30

Ironically, it is actions like the Apostolides v Orams' and Sofi Nezire v RoC that will mean the costs involved will mean that a compromise deal will have to be worked out...



As Ismet saw at his recent meeting in Famagusta an 'Annan -like' solution for govt and property has never gone away.

malsancak


Joined: 23/08/2009
Posts: 2874

Message Posted:
15/02/2010 14:00

Elko, maybe I didn't put the point as clearly as the original article:

"After 1974, the Republic put all Turkish Cypriot properties under the guardianship of the Interior Minister, who prohibits their sale, exchange and transfer because of the state of emergency. So far so good. However, without following proper expropriation procedures, the Republic took large expanses of Turkish Cypriot-owned land for development projects and for refugee estates."

It's the "without proper expropriation procedures" I was referring to. If the land the RoC used for refugees and state projects was not legally obtained then surely the RoC is in the same position as the Orams in the cases where the land is used by the state and additionally they have put refugees in the Oramses' situation in the same way that the Orams were.

If you don't agree then how do you interpret it Ismet?

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
15/02/2010 16:46

msg. 18

Malsancak,

I was referring specifically to your statement in msg. 13 in which you said: "Do individual TCs have to go after the RoC or is it the EU's job now, seeing as it was they who set the precedence of trespass ..." The ECJ did not set any precedence on tresspass, they simply set a precedence to the effect that as far as EU is concerned the ROC courts can try matters with respect to north Cyprus. Indeed, taking it to its final conclusion, a Turkish Cypriot may now choose to sue another Turkish Cypriot both living in the north for an unpaid loan and ROC court may give judgement on it which would have to be enforced in all EU countries. So ECJ did not specifically rule on tresspass or anything like that. It ruled on jurisdiction really.

ismet

ROBnJO


Joined: 30/06/2008
Posts: 1289

Message Posted:
15/02/2010 17:44

One thought occurs to me,..



The EU, ECHR, ECJ, etc., are now ruled by committee, not by leaders.



When faced with a dilemma or major international situation, they will resort to yet another committee or 'report' to 'guide' them. They actually have no 'Leaders', or decision makers. The rotating Presidency exascerbates this situation.



Turkey and the TRNC are not bound by any such restrictions and can decide as they require, with their own interests foremost.



The prevarication of the EU announcing a resolution for Greece's fiscal problems is an example.



Rob

malsancak


Joined: 23/08/2009
Posts: 2874

Message Posted:
16/02/2010 13:39

Elko, the crime committed is trespass. No problem with that. The Orams case established the precedent that an EU citizen can sue in an EU country for a crime committed in another EU country. No problem with that. What I am asking is your opinion on the statement that the RoC might have illegally appropriated TC land for state projects and for refugees. Particularly I am interested in the EU's (not a private citizen's) role in reversing any RoC seizure of TC land if this has been done illegally according to EU rules. Trespass moves from civil to criminal at some point, possibly if the trespass is state instigated.

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
16/02/2010 14:07

Malsancak,

As far as I know, there is no appeal from the Supreme Court of a member state except the ECHR only if there is a breach of human right. At one time, the Privy Council of UK acted as the final court of Appeal for Commonwealth countries but only for those countries that had opted in for this system like Canada and Australia. Cyprus had opted out of it and thus the decision of the Supreme court of ROC has always been final.



I think, if EU survives for much longer, they will set up a Supreme Court to deal with appeals from individual member countries but of course it will be only for those who has the billions of Euros.

ismet

Harvey


Joined: 01/10/2007
Posts: 40

Message Posted:
16/02/2010 22:44

Ismet



Does this mean that if I sue my builder for breach of contract in a ROC court and win then, I can have my judgement enforced in any EU state against any of his EU (UK) assets?

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
16/02/2010 23:28

MSG. 23

Harvey,

That is a possibility but I doubt very much that a Greek Cypriot court will entertain such a claim. They may turn round and file criminal proceedings against you for having a house built on a Greek cypriot land.

ismet

Harvey


Joined: 01/10/2007
Posts: 40

Message Posted:
24/02/2010 01:11

Ismet



I thought this law was only introduced in 2006 and if I signed my contract in 2005 the law is not retrospective.

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
24/02/2010 10:48

re 25



You'd more likely find a claim filed against you for damages - for altering owners property - without permission ..



Don't go there !!!

malsancak


Joined: 23/08/2009
Posts: 2874

Message Posted:
24/02/2010 11:18

trespass is a civil action not criminal, I believe the RoC cannot sue you only the property owner. There is apparently a law which says the RoC can bring criminal charges against those who sell GC property in the north, perhaps they could sue the builder if they owned and sold the property in Harvey's example?

Aga Buyers A G


Joined: 04/10/2007
Posts: 488

Message Posted:
24/02/2010 11:21

and the lawyers that aided and abetted ?????



xxx