I P C Land Settlements

dobbo



Joined: 13/06/2007
Posts: 72

Message Posted:
28/05/2011 17:57

I am interested to know about land that has been successfully compensated with a GC that does not include restitution. Does the GC sign away all rights to the land and if so will this land now be worth more money. Also can you find out which land has been successfully settled as you could in effect now own a property that has a different title deed would there be a new title IPC land or will it become TTD land. It would also be interesting to know how much land has exchanged hands since the IPC started.

AnthonySmith


Joined: 14/05/2009
Posts: 455

Message Posted:
28/05/2011 17:58

It's all there on the IPC website.

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
28/05/2011 18:05

The claims settled by the IPC do effectively end the former GC owners right to title on said land, unless of course the settlement is restitution. In effect some land in the North that was disputed title pre the IPC is now no longer disputed title as the result of the IPC settlments. However as far as I know there is no public information on exactly which plots of land have become 'non disputed title' as a result of IPC settlements. THere is public info on amunts awarded and indivdual settlments by 'aplication number' (not plot of land) on the IPCs website which can be seen here.



http://www.kuzeykibristmk.org/english/index.html

walkerscott


Joined: 13/08/2009
Posts: 901

Message Posted:
28/05/2011 18:10

http://www.cyprus44.com/forums/64323.asp



just read through the detail and go visit the IPC Office



http://www.no-deeds-no-money.moonfruit.com

AlsancakJack



Joined: 14/08/2008
Posts: 5762

Message Posted:
28/05/2011 18:13

Erolz

I probably know the answer to the question but are present owners of former GC land/property notified by the IPC that there has been a settlement?

AJ

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
28/05/2011 18:23

AJ to the best of my knowledge no they are not.

zcacmxi


Joined: 30/11/2008
Posts: 388

Message Posted:
28/05/2011 21:44

The IPC covers all land in TRNC.. They do not discriminate against any of it or any GC/Pre-74 owner. So isn't the question irrelevant? E.g. the land can be in three states:



1) Pre-74 owner already claimed and IPC settled it.

2) Pre-74 owner has not claimed, but if they do in future, IPC will settle it.

3) Pre-74 owner will not claim, so IPC does not have to settle it.



In all of the above cases, current user does not suffer. In addition, if there is a current user, then the IPC would not rule on restitution, and if it did it would also compensate the current user.



The IPC has been created since the Oram's case on advice/ruling from the ECHR. Pre-74 owner of any property in TRNC must now seek this "local remedy" . Therefore, there can not be another Orams.



Above is my understanding, and I believe it to be the case. If anybody knows different, or can think of an angle that I can not, then I'm sure they will post.

ajaney


Joined: 24/12/2008
Posts: 199

Message Posted:
28/05/2011 23:58

My reply would be that no one knows how long the IPC will continue for, and if that is the case and it ceases to exist there would be ample opportunity for any number of "Orams cases" to be put forward again. I would love to be told that I am wrong!

cooper


Joined: 23/10/2007
Posts: 3386

Message Posted:
29/05/2011 00:11

Do dont need to wait any longer ajainey you are wrong ) you could say that about any body set up for almost anything but the reason there wont be any more Orams like cases is because thats the last thing the ECHR would want.

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
29/05/2011 00:46

zcacmxi disputed land not settled via ECHR or IPC will in theory be subject to settlement as part of an overall settlement to the cyprus problem. What such a settlement will be (or when or even if) and how it will affect rights of current users vs pre 74 owners is unkown. So today there is a difference between pre 74 land / property that has been settled via the IPC and that which has not. One is free of any possible future claimsfrom pre 74 onwers and the other still has a degree of uncertainty over it.

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
29/05/2011 00:58

ajaney the IPC has set deadlines for cases to be submitted. In the past these have been extended and I personaly hope the current dealine is extended again. However the ECHR fully accepts that the IPC does not have to operate indefinately. It is clear that as long as it provided an oppportunity for GC to seek redress, then any GC who chose to not use that route, but to wait for a general settlement instead, is deemed to have had a valid local remedy but declined to have availed themselves of it. No claim could be bought by a GC, after the IPC stops taking claims, to the ECHR against Turkey. The ECHR would say you had a chance and chose not to use it. As to if the IPC means that 'Orams' like cases are no longer valid, that is unkown. If it is the case that an operating IPC does mean Orams like cases are no longer possible , then that would be true even after the IPC has closed its deadline for claims.

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
29/05/2011 01:04

Just to be clear the Orams case (to date) has been NOTHING to do with the ECHR at all. It was a case broubht by a GC in the RoC courts and then there was an issue as to weahter under EU law such a judgment issued in one EU country (RoC) could be enforced against assets held in another EU country. This was ultimately decided by the EcJ (European court of Justice) which is a totaly different body to the ECHR. The EcJ ruling was nothing to do with the 'merits' of the case heard in the RoC, but ONLY about if such a judgment could be enforced against assets in another EU country and via that second countries courts. There is speculation that a subsequent case like the ORams in RoC courts could be defeated using an argument that the person bringing the case has a valid means of redress for their loss of use of their property and should use or have used that and this would stop a direct prosecution by a pre 74 owner of a current user. [cont]

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
29/05/2011 01:08

However we just do not know if the existance of the IPC in a form deemed acceptable to the ECHR would have an effect on a Ormas type case taken by an owner against a user directly or not. Some argue it would some argue it would not and until tested in courts we just do not know.



Just to be clear. The ECHR is a part of the Council of Europe. A body that predates the common market, EEC, and EU. It ONLY hears cases of violations of an idividuals human rights by a member state (member of the CoE, which includes many non EU countires like Turkey). It can also hear cases of violations of human rights brought by one state against another, but in these cases it can not deliver a legaly binding judgment on the defending case, only a 'report'. In cases of indivduals vs states it can and does produce legaly binding rulings against the defending state. The ECHR does not and can not hear cases of an indivdual against another indivdual.

cooper


Joined: 23/10/2007
Posts: 3386

Message Posted:
29/05/2011 01:13

Thanks for that clear explanation erolz, you are very knowledgeable.

andre514


Joined: 05/10/2010
Posts: 763

Message Posted:
29/05/2011 01:44

very interesting account erolz, I'll read it again when I have a mo'

andre514


Joined: 05/10/2010
Posts: 763

Message Posted:
29/05/2011 01:50

very interesting account erolz, I'll read it again when I have a mo'

zcacmxi


Joined: 30/11/2008
Posts: 388

Message Posted:
29/05/2011 11:17

erolz, yes thanks for your very informative post.



As I remember it, the ECHR ruled in the Arestis case that Turkey should set up a "local remedy" to deal with forsaken assets in North Cyprus, and that Arestis and all other GCs with forsaken assets in TRNC should first seek remedy from this "local remedy".



Details were given to Turkey about what a "local remedy" should look like for it to be acceptable, and the IPC was born. I believe that in a subsequent case, the IPC was tested and the ECHR ruled that the IPC was effective and was indeed a suitable local remedy.



There was a similar situation in Poland post war, where people lost land when borders were drawn. This previous owners of land known as "beyond Bug River" had claims against Poland, ECHR ruled a similar remedy should be made: http://lawofnations.blogspot.com/2005/12/case-of-month-xenides-arestis-v-turkey.html