ROC Turkish land system potentially in trouble in Council of Europe

Aussie


Joined: 17/06/2007
Posts: 657

Message Posted:
29/08/2008 14:51

Government in a tight corner over refugee land case

By Stefanos Evripidou



THE GOVERNMENT could find itself turning from ‘victim’ to ‘aggressor’ in the Council of Europe next month over a controversial land swap between a Greek Cypriot and a Turkish Cypriot.



Last April, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) endorsed a friendly settlement between Greek Cypriot refugee Mike Tymvios and Turkey. The deal entailed a $1 million pay out to Tymvios by Turkey and a land swap.



Tymvios agreed to exchange 51 plots of land in the north with a large tract in Larnaca owned by a Turkish Cypriot, but under the guardianship of the Cyprus government since 1974.



According to yesterday’s Politis, Tymvios went to the Larnaca land registry office with the Turkish Cypriot owner of the land to carry out a legal swap but was unable to push it through.



The issue is complicated in more ways than one, since the Larnaca property in question contains two schools, residential homes and businesses.



If the government goes ahead and transfers ownership to Tymvios, the state would then probably be forced to requisition the land through a compulsory acquisition.



If the authorities refuse to do the paperwork, the government may be liable for not enforcing the settlement between Tymvios and Turkey as endorsed by the ECHR.



What happens next could have significant implications for the Guardianship of Turkish Cypriot properties in the south, as well as political and legal implications for the government and future Greek Cypriot cases against Turkey.



The Committee of Ministers, responsible for supervising ECHR judgments, will meet next month between September 16 and 18. It remains to be seen whether the alleged refusal to approve Tymvios’ land swap will be raised during the meeting.



Government spokesman Stefanos Stefanou yesterday refused to be drawn on the controversial issue.



“It’s a matter for the Legal Service to handle. We don’t know if the issue will be raised in September. The government won’t comment on speculation,” he said.



When the ECHR endorsed the friendly settlement last April, Stefanou had highlighted that the court was not the place to solve the Cyprus problem.



“The Cyprus problem is primarily a political problem, a problem of invasion and occupation, with aspects relating to property, and it cannot be solved comprehensively through the courts,” he said.



The spokesman maintained this was always the view of AKEL, the party now in government.



According to a legal source, if Cyprus refuses to enact the transfer, the Turkish government could turn around and say in the Committee of Ministers, ‘we did what we could’. The Cyprus government would then have to answer to that.



“There are two routes this case could go. Tymvios could start a new case against the Republic in the domestic courts, challenging the legality of the Guardian law. This will take a long time. Or it could go the political route where the matter could be raised by Turkey in the Committee of Ministers, which could issue a resolution,” said the source.



“It’s a bizarre situation where a Greek Cypriot brought an action against Turkey and they settled for an exchange of property. And now, Turkey will be promoting the position of the Greek Cypriot in the Committee of Ministers because the Cyprus government has not given effect to the settlement,” said the source.



He noted that the issue was very complicated, opening a new legal area in the Cyprus problem.



“We are entering unchartered territory. No one knows what to do. On the one hand, we have a judgment against Turkey. On the other hand, Cyprus also has to transfer land as part of that judgment. There’s an overlap, creating confusion.”



The case has the potential of turning the tables on the Cyprus government, which so far has been on the winning side of judgments regarding Greek Cypriot

wynyardman



Joined: 15/12/2007
Posts: 4580

Message Posted:
29/08/2008 14:56

Hi Aussie,



As usual an excellent posting.Guess we will all be waiting with bated breath!



wyn

Aussie


Joined: 17/06/2007
Posts: 657

Message Posted:
29/08/2008 15:18

Yes Wyn



The court system is a two edged sword in most countries and the ROC is starting to see not everything in it works to their favour.



If a settlement is not reached in the current round of negotiations and the endless round of cases continues I think the TRNC and Turkey shoudl adopt a more agressive approach in litigations against ROC Guardianship of TC properties.



Maybe they could also pursue GC war crimes etc pre 1974 however this may be limited by Turkish concerns from the 1974 intervention/ war.





Aussie

TRNCVaughan


Joined: 27/04/2008
Posts: 4578

Message Posted:
29/08/2008 15:56

As corporal Jones said, "They don't like it up 'em".

windmill


Joined: 06/07/2008
Posts: 143

Message Posted:
29/08/2008 16:12

Well it goes to show that those who have posted in the past that turkish land in the south has never been built on,only rented out,is not true

Good post Aussie

Biker



Joined: 11/01/2008
Posts: 396

Message Posted:
29/08/2008 16:21

Excellent.



Al last some of the ignorant people can be enlightened by this article.

Aussie


Joined: 17/06/2007
Posts: 657

Message Posted:
29/08/2008 16:31

Thought I'd add this bit I posted on the exchange thread



Yes Pike and others there have been some recent case of agreed exchange by GC and TC owners.





There have also been other cases of TC's who did not exchange their land in the south for GC property in the North but have still been denied access to it by the ROC, such as the case Arif Mustafa. He had to appeal to the UCHR and finally won a case in the ROC Supreme court 2006. The ROC eventually stopped fighting this decision and relented giving his house back relocating the GC occupants.



Despite this decison the ROC is still trying anything to stop TC's reclaiming this land and fighting any attempt at individual settlements.



There is substantial hypocracy in this approach by the ROC given its position with respect to the GC properties in the North.



Indeed if there was a wholesale move to immediately force return of both TC's and GC's to their former homes I suspect it would encounter resistance from many GC's comfortably settled in the South in conditions better than their former homes.



Aussie

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
29/08/2008 16:58

once again, excellent post aussie

Geoff1131


Joined: 12/07/2007
Posts: 276

Message Posted:
30/08/2008 08:31

I heard this report on local radio yesterday and thought, Pickey and Susanne will have something to say about this.













Hello,





















Is anyone there?????

Aussie


Joined: 17/06/2007
Posts: 657

Message Posted:
30/08/2008 13:15

Geoff



Perhaps as it desn't suite their view of the world they prefer to ignore it.





Aussie

frontalman



Joined: 28/02/2008
Posts: 499

Message Posted:
30/08/2008 13:52

The GC govt didn't object to Tina Loidzou and Orams cases, now the result goes against them and shows what hypocrites they are, it states that 'the courts aren't the place to solve the Cyprus problem.' What chance has the hounourable Mr Talat of reaching a fair solution with such a shower of sh***ers?

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
09/01/2009 09:20

Wasn't a member when this was posted..



1/ IF the RoC has used the TCs land for public projects.. ( schools, roads, etc) then they MUST pay up compo..



2/ IF the RoC has "allowed" a TCs land to be "sold" and developed for private gain, then those involved should be brought to justice.



It is good to see that Turkey is using the law, too.



As I said legal cases will focus minds.. towards a settlement..



I STILL can't understand why more GCs didn't file a request with Turkey's IPC ( as per ECHR ruling) if GCs had piled in, TR would be seriously out of pocket and I doubt - based on historical cases - that the ECHR would have accepted the "offers" as fair..



The previous GC admin missed trick by advising their citizens to stay away.. we can't pick and choose ECHR rulings that suit our viewpoint.... and as I say, TR would have been judged by the ECHR on it's rulings..



Whatever happened with this case, anyway?

negativenick


Joined: 10/11/2008
Posts: 6023

Message Posted:
09/01/2009 09:24

mess 12 - at least he didn't mention the "rump"....





Nick

Bradus


Joined: 25/02/2007
Posts: 2641

Message Posted:
09/01/2009 12:18

The Court simply welcomed the agreement reached between the parties and noted the “conditional nature of the agreement insofar as it concerned a possible exchange of property”



The Court was satisfied that the settlement was based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols,” the decision said.

If the authorities refuse to do the paperwork, the government will be liable for not enforcing an ECHR decision.

The question is, Will the government endorce the ruling? Up to now they have not.

If they do go ahead and transfer ownership to Tymvios, the state would then probably be forced to requisition the land through a compulsory acquisition as like most TC land it has been built on and houses a school, government buildings and shops.

Bradus


Joined: 25/02/2007
Posts: 2641

Message Posted:
09/01/2009 12:30

mmmm "I STILL can't understand why more GCs didn't file a request with Turkey's IPC"



GOVERNMENT INTIMIDATION PERHAPS?



http://www.cyprusedirectory.com/articleview.aspx?ID=139

Aussie


Joined: 17/06/2007
Posts: 657

Message Posted:
09/01/2009 12:36

mmmmmm



Assuming most of the TC land requisitioned falls into your category 1 why didn't the ROC pay market rate compensation to the TC owners when it was requisitioned as presumably they would have if it was GC land (and is also done in most civilised countries) ?



As I have said before the ROC view of the land process sounds better in theory than in practice and is quite hypocritical.



Aussie

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
09/01/2009 13:16

re Bradus:



re 15 For sure GCs who did consider applying to TURKEY's IPC were "outed" and some MPs / papers were very vocal in their "short-sighted" stance...



This is a small island.. I wonder how folk learn who's applied..? Now I can understand when an agreement is made the RoC land registry must be told.



re 15 Aussie:



The RoC should have found a way to compensate TCs - yes.. it "weakens" their VERY STRONG case..



They haven't carte blanche allowed the sale of a third parties lands for private gain.. If this HAS been going on then (again) the folk responsible should be brought to account..

fire starter


Joined: 19/06/2008
Posts: 3401

Message Posted:
09/01/2009 14:12

aussie

i think this was always portrayed as a simple exchange but the issues are much bigger when you learn that they have built schools ect on the land.

Aussie


Joined: 17/06/2007
Posts: 657

Message Posted:
09/01/2009 14:33

Fire Starter



Whether they built schools airports etc. is immaterial to the issue of why the ROC didn't pay compensation when they were compulsorily expropriated.



I am not suggesting they should demolish schools etc or give such land back.



This issue has never been properly addressed



Aussie

AlsancakJack



Joined: 14/08/2008
Posts: 5762

Message Posted:
09/01/2009 14:42

It just goes to show that the property issue is a complicated situation for both sides and anyone that thinks that they know the answer I think is living in cloud cuckoo land. I still think the easiest way out for both sides is compensation for all land lost.

Just my humble opinion.

AJ

fire starter


Joined: 19/06/2008
Posts: 3401

Message Posted:
09/01/2009 19:12

the gc guy who was trying to exchange it with the tc guy must have known what was built on it.

was this known from the begining or discovered later?



i know tc's who have been given land here in the north and have built on it ect.

they still want their land back in paphos.

then i know other tc's who have been given land here and wouldn't give it back at any cost to go back to paphos.

i think the land problems are a massive opportunity for those on both sides to exploit the system, if both goverments don't work together.

you can't have your cake and eat it so to speak.

also pre 1974 many plots were not registered at all, again giving those who wish to be dishonest the chance to do so.

wynyardman



Joined: 15/12/2007
Posts: 4580

Message Posted:
09/01/2009 20:27

Hi All,



Given that what I was told was Exchange Land, wasn't (according to board members) and



the land I paid my builder for (isn't his to sell according to board members) and that I may



be taken to court in the UK, according to The EU Advocate General Ms Kokatt, to pay



restitution for occupying and building on someone elses land, could someone tell me....





1 What happenned to my human rights?



2 Whose land is it?



3 Where can I get restitution?



4 Is it stolen land, and who stole it? Will they be held to account?



Bradus, Aussie, How can I find out who, if anyone owned the land before the Exchange



that never happenned anyway? I am told I can go to jail, if I go to the Property Registry to



try to find out!



wyn

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
09/01/2009 20:38

Simplistic answers to msg 22



1/ You still have 'em - ( your Human Rights ) and I'm sure you thought of the real owners HR, too



2/ Whose land is it : You haven't been paying attention - I'll bet Pike has posted this one before .. you need to check with the land registry for the RoC that covers your district.



3/ Restitution? : Who has taken something from you you legally owned in Cyprus ?

SaorAlba


Joined: 05/01/2009
Posts: 53

Message Posted:
09/01/2009 20:40

Msg 22,



1. Your human rights don't come into it. You should have done your homework.

2. You can find out by visting the Kyrenia District Land Registry in Nicosia.

3. Probably nowhere - and in the event of reunification I doubt TRNC-based actions will be retrospective.

4. Taken at the point of the bayonet or stolen? You decide.

newlad



Joined: 02/03/2008
Posts: 7819

Message Posted:
09/01/2009 20:44

Aussie,

An absoluteley spot on post.Only problem being that i am now even more confused,

Paul.

WAZ-24-7



Joined: 18/10/2008
Posts: 695

Message Posted:
09/01/2009 21:04

The word "stolen" is I feel somwhat non reflective of the de facto situation.

It is clear that Buyers of Exchange land have purchased under the laws and protocols of the governing body in the North of Cyprus.



"stolen" indicates a pre meditated breach of the law. This is not the case. I feel sure that buyers have acted in good faith.



It is correct that the Kyrenia land registry may indicate aN ROC citizen also has title. It is quite appropriate, if you may wish, to approach this ROC citizen and make an offer of settlement directly. However there is a clear case for the "wait and see attitude". Whatever the outcome of talks and settlement. Its mostly only about money and just a case of how much, if any, and who will pay who.

Turtle


Joined: 28/05/2007
Posts: 2669

Message Posted:
09/01/2009 22:04

Waz...sensible as usual

andysue


Joined: 12/11/2007
Posts: 891

Message Posted:
09/01/2009 22:24

ill second that turtle

newlad



Joined: 02/03/2008
Posts: 7819

Message Posted:
09/01/2009 22:44

This time last week i had a dagger at my throat ready to end it all.Tonight i am dare i say it,optimistic.And no i havent touched a drop,

Paul.

SaorAlba


Joined: 05/01/2009
Posts: 53

Message Posted:
09/01/2009 22:47

Paul,



Try some of this... ;)

No1Doyen


Joined: 04/07/2008
Posts: 16617

Message Posted:
09/01/2009 22:47

Excellent thought provoking post Aussie. We wait in anticipation.

fire starter


Joined: 19/06/2008
Posts: 3401

Message Posted:
10/01/2009 15:59

wyn

1) you don't have any in the trnc.

2)the greek cypriot previous owner who has the kochan for it.

3) the trnc goverment.

4)yes it is stolen and someone pre 1974 holds the kochan for it.

(live in hope it was land which wasn't registered pre 1974, as lots wasn't)

if you need to find out for sure go to the roc land registry with a copy of the kochan,

the reference numbers on it are the same as in the roc.

they are ordinance survey references, see what the village books say.

they are in the south in nicosia just down the road from the land registry office.

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
10/01/2009 16:14

Dear Waz



the word "stolen" is entirely appropriate..



Any (GC / TC / Maronite , etc.) Cypriot who was forced to leave their land / property against their will has had it STOLEN.



Are you aware that TR has paid out to UK Citizens forced to flee whose land is on what is now deemed "Military" in the "area of CY beyond effective govt control"?



Please define "exchange" ?!.. An Exchange is a *willing* swap.. if EVER there was a misnomer ...



As far as the ECHR is concerned - the owner is that registered in the RoC Land Registry as of July 1974.



"acting in good faith" is an excuse that won't work in a legally recognised Court outside of Turkey..



Sure, if you read some of the "spiel" written re "buying in North Cyprus" you might feel "reassured"... esp by the out of date info re the Orams' case.

WAZ-24-7



Joined: 18/10/2008
Posts: 695

Message Posted:
10/01/2009 16:29

Having had some experience with the Land registry in Nicosia (Kyrenia District)

I can confirm that there is a clear case of more than a few title abnormalities.



Much of the Land in TRNC was not registered in 1974. Much of the land in the North was scrub and unregistered or parcelised. Much of the land in the UK was also unregistered.

In the Early eighties many changes in registrations were made and there were a significant number of registrations that were based upon inheritance and other forms of conveyance.



In my view this type of registration has a lesser degree of creedance and could be contested as a measure taken by ROC and its citizens in order to secure potential to claim.

Anyone seeking information from the Kyrenia District Land Registry should be sure to search for pre 1974 title. Also search for any re-parcelisation or plan number convergence that detract from the true 1974 situation. If land is unregistered in 1974 then the posession precident has little creedence

WAZ-24-7



Joined: 18/10/2008
Posts: 695

Message Posted:
10/01/2009 16:46

mmmm msg 33



I reiterate "stolen" is not an appropriate describtion for exchange land.



It is not investors in TRNC who have evicted anyone. The refugee status of displaced persons does not qualify then as a victim of any CIVIL crime. Consequently to seek retribution in a CIVIL court is also inappropriate.



Mr Apostolides is certainly not contesting his case from a "stolen" property stance.



I know of now reference to " stolen" property in any of the referenced written literature pertaining to property issues.



"stolen" is a term banded about by yourself and a few other scare mongers . I am afraid that your stance carries no credibility with me.



I invite others for their stance.

fire starter


Joined: 19/06/2008
Posts: 3401

Message Posted:
10/01/2009 16:58

waz

i have to disagree.

even from the ottoman times all land was registered, even though it was in a slightly different way.

i have a friend who is tc with a land problem.

the land maps are the same in the north and the south, exactly.

the land registry in girne just makes adjustments as and when they feel like.

how can the pre 1974 kochan say something different than the girne land offices records if the maps and measurements are exactly the same??

i know this adjustment has taken place as they have given my friends land to someone else .

this adjustment has taken place since 1990.

it is not correct and will end up in the human rights courts.

the theft of land is still ongoing.

my friend can prove they have stolen his land!

h

Turtle


Joined: 28/05/2007
Posts: 2669

Message Posted:
10/01/2009 17:03

Waz, you are absolutly right these people flit from board to board whipping up hysteria and spreading doom then sit behind thier screens sniggering.

They serve very little purpose or bring very little substance to the forum regarding any North Cyprus.





My stance is not to engage with these tunnel vision one track no marks.

MUSIN M


Joined: 26/06/2008
Posts: 1352

Message Posted:
10/01/2009 17:11

waz

i agree with you totally.



firestarter



you seem to have a lot of turkish friends with grievances against against turkish people.



musin

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
10/01/2009 17:27

Waz re 34 RoC Land Registry



"Having had some experience with the Land registry in Nicosia (Kyrenia District)



I can confirm that there is a clear case of more than a few title abnormalities"



I'm presuming you refer to the RoC LR for Kyrenia!



Should we accept your or the ECHR opinion as to the suitability for this body to be used as a reference point.



Cyprus is a VERY small island and records contesting / proving ownership could surely use the same ertwhile body as the ECHR refer to ?



As to "investors" in "TRNC".. they well know the "risks" and that the land called "exchange" is anything but .. Of course THEY didn't "steal" it, but it is being "passed off" as "legit"..



Waz, I'm not a "scaremongerer".. this is what I would normally expect to see / hear banded about when a poster has run out of sensible debating repostes..



My "stance" is pragmatic and based on my practical experience in dealing with property laws in a few countries...

WAZ-24-7



Joined: 18/10/2008
Posts: 695

Message Posted:
10/01/2009 18:21

mmmmmmm



You may be confused as to my post regarding the significance of The District Land Registry.

My poiny is that Title pre 1974 should be the only precident. Much of the land in TRNC was unregistered pre 1974

I have indicated that unregisterd pre 1974 land that may have been occupied by who knows , suddenly in the early eighties became registered to an ROC citizen. Clearly as ROC citizens at this time was unable to occupy the same land. Therfore, it seems unlikely that their title claim should carry creedence.



To be clear, I do not contest the stance of the ECHR; providing title is legitimate and proven. I reiterate that in some cases that element of pre 1974 proof is absent. I therfore suggest that such titles can be contested.



Mark, your pragmatic stance is not reflective of the on the ground situation.

A more pragmatic approach would be to offer consideration to the de-facto exhistance of the TRNC, its people and its supporters.

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
10/01/2009 21:55

Waz, re msg 40



Just to remind you..



1/ I support the right of TCs to elect someone to represent them.. I supported the Annan Plan re the bi zonal federated one state soln.



It did NOT satisfactorily deal with the property issues, but the "blanks " were filled in by the UN as "Liealotopoulos" was not "playing the game" and this was clearly demonstrated at Burkenstock - where the final Annan was thrashed out... without GC input.



2/ LR issues: I think you mean "much of the land in RoC was unregistered pre -74 .. but there are recognised protocol to deal with such issues - and the ECHR would hardly maintain that the RoC LR was the mechanism for deciding title if it was so hard to trust it's procedures.

Aussie


Joined: 17/06/2007
Posts: 657

Message Posted:
10/01/2009 22:10

If the current ROC land registry is a complete mess with reportedly over 90,000 land transfers some dating back over 10 years plus multiple sales and mortgages of the same property without consent how can anyone be sure the ROC 1974 version was accurate.



Many pending transfers in 1974 never happened including some to British and other foreign buyers pre 1974 as well.



The 1974 records are at best a starting point.



Aussie

WAZ-24-7



Joined: 18/10/2008
Posts: 695

Message Posted:
10/01/2009 22:22

Aussie, msg 42

A very valid point indeed.

The ROC Land registry is indeed a debatable source of accurate data and without doubt, there is a distict possibility that the titles there registered have innacuracies that can be contested.



It is a shame that the Orams were, by default, denied the right to investigate prior to the deplorable default judgment against them.

WAZ-24-7



Joined: 18/10/2008
Posts: 695

Message Posted:
10/01/2009 22:34

mmmmmm msg 41



Thank you for the reminder.



The Anan plan would therfore be a suitable platform from which to constuct the settlement plan.



The discrepancies within, and clear failings of the ROC land registry make this source of title data very contestable. Particularly for any land or property that was unregistered prior to 1974 or has seen registration applications post 1974 when the land was realistically left vacant.

Under UK land registry rules ( in the main adopted by both ROC and TRNC)vacant and unregistered land can be claimed by an occupant of the said land if it can be shown that they have provided upkeep and care to the land for a period of 10 years. Clearly vacany land in the North has not had this "care" from any ROC citizen.

SaorAlba


Joined: 05/01/2009
Posts: 53

Message Posted:
10/01/2009 23:32

Waz,



Unless you know something I don't, the Tapu in Kyrenia no longer allows property searches and will not disclose which kind of title deed belongs to a property. They call ALL property "Turkish title", which the whole world knows is nonsense and illegal. This was done in a bid to encourage people to buy the less desirable Greek Cypriot-owned property.

SaorAlba


Joined: 05/01/2009
Posts: 53

Message Posted:
10/01/2009 23:37

Turtle:



"They serve very little purpose or bring very little substance to the forum regarding any North Cyprus."



Any BB member who brings valuable information to the forum should be welcomed by sensible people who want to make informed decisions before investing in a politically unstable territory. You have to take the rough with the smooth before making your own mind up.



What I think you really mean is that some people get out of their comfort zones when they hear things about the north of Cyprus that they'd rather not know about. And some of them turn very nasty and abusive, and call for these infidels to be cast into the wilderness (or have their log-in tampered with ).



PP

Bradus


Joined: 25/02/2007
Posts: 2641

Message Posted:
10/01/2009 23:41

Welcome back.

WAZ-24-7



Joined: 18/10/2008
Posts: 695

Message Posted:
10/01/2009 23:42

Msg 45,

SA



I refer to the District Land registry within the ROC that is in Nicosia and is still termed the District of Kyrenia Registry. I have dealing with them only a week ago to source a title update.

I appologise for any confusion.

Aussie


Joined: 17/06/2007
Posts: 657

Message Posted:
11/01/2009 00:37

Waz out of curiosity did you find out the info you were seeking from the ROC registry and do you think its correct ?



Aussie

Ediz M


Joined: 29/01/2008
Posts: 25

Message Posted:
11/01/2009 00:51

bradus



i was talking to my dad musin and he told me the other day that pp was back as saoralba, before he signed of pp,wow he was right.





ediz m

AlsancakJack



Joined: 14/08/2008
Posts: 5762

Message Posted:
11/01/2009 00:51

'What I think you really mean is that some people get out of their comfort zones when they hear things about the north of Cyprus that they'd rather not know about. And some of them turn very nasty and abusive, and call for these infidels to be cast into the wilderness (or have their log-in tampered with ).



PP'



Behave yourself John.

Turtle


Joined: 28/05/2007
Posts: 2669

Message Posted:
11/01/2009 01:08

Pikey, you and your cronies tell me nothing new.

What I said still stands, bring something constructive to this board and people will listen.

Turtle


Joined: 28/05/2007
Posts: 2669

Message Posted:
11/01/2009 01:17

Just as an after thought.... whatever your name is today.... perhaps you need to use a bit more of that investagive instinct in you to get your facts a bit more acurate before you start punching the keyboard !!

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
11/01/2009 14:22

Dear Waz re msg 44



"Under UK land registry rules ( in the main adopted by both ROC and TRNC)vacant and unregistered land can be claimed by an occupant of the said land if it can be shown that they have provided upkeep and care to the land for a period of 10 years. Clearly vacany land in the North has not had this "care" from any ROC citizen"



With this last quote you demonstrated that you cannot be taken seriously.

SaorAlba


Joined: 05/01/2009
Posts: 53

Message Posted:
11/01/2009 14:33

Turtle,



"whatever your name is today.... perhaps you need to use a bit more of that investagive instinct in you to get your facts a bit more acurate before you start punching the keyboard !!"



Only one name for me on here now, old chum. Had to do it because of log-in problems. Now, would you care to challenge me over these facts you mention?



PP

WAZ-24-7



Joined: 18/10/2008
Posts: 695

Message Posted:
11/01/2009 15:20

mmmmm. Msg 54.



If you do not mind I shall not even respond to your comment.

Please investigate UK Land registry rules and regulations yourself.

WAZ-24-7



Joined: 18/10/2008
Posts: 695

Message Posted:
11/01/2009 15:31

Aussie msg 49.



Yes I did. I found the staff in the Land registry in ROC very helpfull.

I have found instances of land registrations made post 1974 as late as 10 years after the land was vacated.

There are instances where unregistered land (1974) has been registered to offspring many years after the occupier/ user departed.

I have found discrepancies of parcelisation and combining of unregistered land with registered in order to list the whole as pre 74 registered title.



True 1974 title that remains unaltered since 1974 has a higher level of creedence than instances as above.

My view is that some ROC titles have been manipulated and altered to present advantage. These titles are contestable.

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
11/01/2009 15:37

Waz re msg 56



Please don't attempt to be "obtuse"..



You know VERY well that you cannot be taken seriously, as you suggested it was legally possible to argue that someone could acquire"squatters rights" following coerced vacation.



You forget that the ECHR HAVE ruled on such cases.. the owner at the time is STILL the owner.

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
11/01/2009 15:40

let me make msg 56 less open to misunderstanding .. the owner as of July 20th 1974 is the starting point re proving ownership - naturally there may be subsequent internationally legally recognised transactions.

WAZ-24-7



Joined: 18/10/2008
Posts: 695

Message Posted:
11/01/2009 15:48

mmmmmmm.

You clearly miss the point.

I refer to the status in the UK . I refer to unregistered, unnocupied, land in the UK. An Occupier and carer of such land could make application to receive title.

Legal protocol and justice to prevail.

Please do as I have suggested and perhaps you will then understand the Uk land Registry position.



Furthermore, it is the case that large tracts of land in the North of Cyprus were unregistered prior to 1974 intervention.

It would be an interesting exercise to investigate ROC land registry applications post 1974. Such applications post 1984 would carry a diminished level of creedence than true unaltered pre 1974 title.

Turtle


Joined: 28/05/2007
Posts: 2669

Message Posted:
11/01/2009 15:51

Pikey, yes i would like to challenge you.

You intimate that I have been nasty and abusive towards you and suggest that I have been involved with "tampering" with your login.



Could I have some proof please or maybe an apology.



It was actualy me who posted you and suzanne should be allowed on here ?

WAZ-24-7



Joined: 18/10/2008
Posts: 695

Message Posted:
11/01/2009 15:59

mmmmm

I concur with your opinion.

However,



Land remaining unregistered as of July 20th 1974 is therefore without registered owner or Title.



Any application for title of said land after said date should be made and considered only by the proven occupier of the land.



The clear implications upon this are evident.

Aussie


Joined: 17/06/2007
Posts: 657

Message Posted:
12/01/2009 12:21

Waz



It sound like you have looked up a fair number of ROC records / properties.



Do you work as a consultant or in the property industry here ?



I always thought it would be illuminating to do a comprehensive independent review of the ROC property records.



Aussie

WAZ-24-7



Joined: 18/10/2008
Posts: 695

Message Posted:
12/01/2009 12:38

Aussie,



My family connections on the Island go back to the 1960,s with several family members living and working in the South.

I do have interests upon the Island and therefore take an interest in the economic development and investment opportunities generally.

The clear political difficulties present commercial implications that effect the Island economy in general.

It is important to take the de-facto situation into consideration and to research carefully any possible investment opportunities before making important decisions. Like any commercial investment there are risks involved. Risk assessment prior to decision is my standard protocol.



My general view is that Cyprus presents a number of opportunities for British Passport holders to invest ,capitalise and assist in the advancement of the economic and political status of the Island.

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
12/01/2009 12:57

Waz re 60/62



Simple - the ECHR has ruled that RoC LR is the reference point...just like the UK, there are recognised protocols whereby one can easily prove title.

bachelibelly


Joined: 04/09/2008
Posts: 275

Message Posted:
12/01/2009 14:51

So in a nutshell ,if on one side the TCs are accused of building loads of properties just to make property settlement almost impossible,just to even things up the GCs have been allegedly building on TC land in the south in conjunction with a certain ammount of "cooking of the books" by the ROC land registry,we all know that GC cooking is legendary ,now i know why.!!!!!!!!!!

maybemike


Joined: 12/01/2009
Posts: 188

Message Posted:
12/01/2009 15:01

never trust a bubble bearing gifts.

WAZ-24-7



Joined: 18/10/2008
Posts: 695

Message Posted:
12/01/2009 15:09

mmmmmm

ROC and UK follow similar Land registration protocol.

ROC Land Registry can be taken as the reference point.

However the de-facto situation on Cyprus does cast doubt on some ROC titles.



ROC titles issued subsequent to division carry, in my view, less creedence.

It is quite possible for such titles to be challenged if abnormalities in protocol can be established. The ROC do not have any patent on what is legal.



Furthermore, I assure you that it is the case that significant tracts of land in TRNC were unregistered, without tile and without registered owner in July 1974.

fire starter


Joined: 19/06/2008
Posts: 3401

Message Posted:
12/01/2009 16:31

from what i understand the roc land registry bases its self on four combined systems which cross reference to check the coordinates, measurements and historic records to come to its landplots.



on what date did the british land records in cyprus cease?

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
12/01/2009 19:08

Dear Waz re msg 68



the important thing is what the ECHR think.. *Your* "de facto" meets legal reality so to speak.... which bring us back to enforcement.



In this case the RoC LR forms the prime basis for proof of ownership. I already sated that there are protocols to prove title/ dispute title via the recognised body.



Turkey's IPC must use the RoC records.

WAZ-24-7



Joined: 18/10/2008
Posts: 695

Message Posted:
12/01/2009 19:48

mmmmm.



The IPC must use the ROC records as basis of ownership in order to determine compensation.

However there is nothing to stop any citizen making legal challenge upon that title.

Title deeds issued by the ROC post July 1974 are the ones that are most likely to see challenge. Title deeds issued for unregistered land post 1984 are open to serious challenge because of possible possession and care criteria.

It is the case that the ROC have a vested and political interest in any property title issue in the TRNC.

This being the case there is a strong possibility of legal challenge against certain titles issued by the ROC for property in the North of Cyprus



In this instance Mark your own adherance to legal protocol must be followed.

The Law is the Law. Is this not your argument on most of your postings?

SaorAlba


Joined: 05/01/2009
Posts: 53

Message Posted:
12/01/2009 20:23

turtle,



For the avoidance of doubt, I have NEVER suggested you have been involved in getting people's log-ins blocked (that would be admin) and if you called for susanne's and my reinstatement, then thanks for that.



PP

fire starter


Joined: 19/06/2008
Posts: 3401

Message Posted:
12/01/2009 20:33

spot on turtle is a good guy!

Turtle


Joined: 28/05/2007
Posts: 2669

Message Posted:
12/01/2009 21:51

Thank you.

SaorAlba


Joined: 05/01/2009
Posts: 53

Message Posted:
12/01/2009 22:07

But I do like turtle soup. ;)

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
12/01/2009 23:11

Waz re 71



Well now we have established that the IPC must use the RoC records as basis of ownership - but you assume a GC would want compo ..



They are just as ( more likely based on ECHR cases to date) seeking compo only for enforced "loss of use" and restitution of the right to use their property.



Turkey keeps offering compo for the property, itself ... it is NOT what most owners want.



Indeed the "rump" RoC govt was INCREDIBLY short-sighted to discourage it citizens from approaching the IPC as a local means of solution. It would have ben the swiftest way to bring Turkey to the negotiating table ..

tashy


Joined: 14/01/2009
Posts: 2

Message Posted:
14/01/2009 23:55

msg 64 waz im with you risks were taking we all knew that whats the problem if your a gambler you only gamble what you can afford to gamble who cares about the politics live and let live what will be will be plenty of 1oo/1 shots have came good only losers back favourites so instead of worrying why not sell up and fxck off it was always a gamblers market now the losers are trying to be politicians and guess what they think hope will happen turkey and usa will decide get real you jitterys or go home

tashy


Joined: 14/01/2009
Posts: 2

Message Posted:
14/01/2009 23:56

msg 64 waz im with you risks were taking we all knew that whats the problem if your a gambler you only gamble what you can afford to gamble who cares about the politics live and let live what will be will be plenty of 1oo/1 shots have came good only losers back favourites so instead of worrying why not sell up and fxck off it was always a gamblers market now the losers are trying to be politicians and guess what they think hope will happen turkey and usa will decide get real you jitterys or go home