Just wondered what everyone thought about this article:

Stewart


Joined: 19/07/2008
Posts: 1107

Message Posted:
28/02/2010 13:45

http://www.northcyprusfreepress.com/2010/02/22/tit-for-tat-how-to-use-%e2%80%9cexchange%e2%80%9d-land-to-your-advantage/





or has it already been covered here?

Oleander


Joined: 03/05/2009
Posts: 302

Message Posted:
28/02/2010 15:03

Even at first glance the writer seems misguided, to be kind. For a start she assumed there was a legal property exchange in 1974 which is absolutely not true.

More importantly, any Brit occupying "exchange" property in the TRNC faces arrest and criminal proceedings as soon as they step into the south for illegally using stolen property. So why would she suggest going to the south to speak to lawyers?

Maybe Mal's started hiring GC contributers to NCFP.

Marisa


Joined: 23/04/2009
Posts: 545

Message Posted:
28/02/2010 16:12

"illegally using stolen property", sounds like a long lasting chewing gum of GC.



Are you from that side , Oleander ?



What about illegally using stolen property of TC in the South ?



The buyers occupying Turkish property in the South Cyprus face arrest and criminal proceedings as soon as they step into the north for illegally using stolen property .



How about that ?

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
28/02/2010 17:01

Yet more FUD Eric/Oleander ?



Firstly TRNC exchange deeds represnt an exchange between TC and TRNC gov of TC land in the South and land the TRNC took control of in the North. It does not represent an exchange between a TC and a GC. All GC land in the North was 'siezed' by the TRNC state. This siezure of GC land is not recognised as legitimate but the exchange by TC of their rights to land in the south to the TRNC is not illegal, TC had and have every right to do such. The article makes the very valid point that with exchange deeds there is some balancing value in terms of TC land that was signed over to the TRNC.



There is a law in the south making the use of pre 74 GC property in the North illegal under RoC law, the reality is that not a single person, brit or otherwise has to date ever been prosecuted by the RoC under this law. Which is why you bland statement that one would face arrest and criminal proceedings as soon as you set foot into the south is your distortion of truth.

malsancak


Joined: 23/08/2009
Posts: 2874

Message Posted:
28/02/2010 17:13

Oleander, your post is very uninformed:

"she assumed there was a legal property exchange in 1974" - could you QUOTE where you found Pauline saying this

"any Brit occupying "exchange" property in the TRNC faces arrest and criminal proceedings as soon as they step into the south" - the crime of trespass is civil and not criminal and they may be detained they will not be arrested

"Maybe Mal's started hiring GC contributers to NCFP" - I don't ask my contributors their racial background so I couldn't tell you

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
28/02/2010 17:16

The article is a non-starter for many reasons.

1. Injunctions or interm orders as they are called are subject to many legal preconditions which non is existent in this case.



2. The original Turkish Cypriot owner of the land in the south may apply to court directly himself or he may sell it to others but that will only complicate things in a court keen to find excuses e.g. authenticity of signatures, who certified it and so on.



3. As the law stands in the south there are too many hurdles, some against the European Charter of Human Rights, so it is a time consuming business to go down that road. In the meantime, the decisions of the kangaroo courts in the south are binding on member EU states.



My hope and expectation is that the Greek Cypriots will try to use this advantage more and more in their favour and it will not be long before it backfires on them.

ismet

malsancak


Joined: 23/08/2009
Posts: 2874

Message Posted:
28/02/2010 17:43

Ismet, after Turkish Cypriot Nazire Ahmet Adnan Sofi won her case, and the ECHR criticised the south for doing as you say above, I understood that future TC's would have to be allowed easy access to claim back their property.

Maz


Joined: 29/03/2009
Posts: 1924

Message Posted:
28/02/2010 17:51

jUST TWO QUESTIONS PLEASE/



1. Who is Pauline Read?



2. What does any lawyer/politician have to say about it (in other words, how correct is she?)



That's all folks!

malsancak


Joined: 23/08/2009
Posts: 2874

Message Posted:
28/02/2010 18:03

MarieB, Pauline Read won the case against a builder who placed a mortgage on her property. Search Cyp44 for the information.

Not sure which part of her article you are questioning?

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
28/02/2010 22:13

msg 7

Malsancak,

That case was settled out of court so to speak but the writing is on the wall. As it stands, a Turkish Cypriot has to ask for his property back and then exhaust the remedies in the courts of ROC before proceeding to ECHR and then wait for years for his case to be taken up. Only at that stage did ROC settle out of court but as I said the writing is on the wall. This case proved that neither side is in an easy position in legal terms. Imagine all the TCs applying to ROC courts for their property back.

ismet

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
28/02/2010 22:14

Mals



Yes Mz Sofi did have her case settled, just before it was due to be heard by the ECHR. Also part of the settlement was that the RoC will ammend the law, however and inevtiably they will make the minimum amendment possible, which was the reason they settled. They will remove the requirment that TC lives in the RoC for 6 months before being able to apply for their property back, but ONLY for TC that are living outside cyprus. They will leave the 6 month requirment on TC living in the north and wait until that is just about to be heard by the ECHR and then settle and agree to remove that. They will also wait until a TC who property was compulsarily purchased for public works goes to the ECHR and just before that is heard they will settle and agree to change the law stating compensation will only be paid after a settlement, and so and so. Its a delaying game.

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
28/02/2010 22:18

msg.9

Malsancak,

It is very easy to win a case against the builder who mortgaged the property but not so easy to win the case against the bank who accepted the mortgage. So what is the use of winning a case against the builder if he has nothing left in his name and overnight became a man of straw so to speak. In the circumstances it becomes a hollow victory

ismet

andre 514


Joined: 31/03/2008
Posts: 1163

Message Posted:
28/02/2010 22:32

"oleander" message 2:



"faces arrest"



please state the name of anyone actually arrested crossing to the south



thanks

malsancak


Joined: 23/08/2009
Posts: 2874

Message Posted:
01/03/2010 09:59

Ismet, in Pauline's case she has secured injunctions on the builder's property.