orams 2

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
29/12/2008 16:03

Punktlich wrote

"Does anyone today think that a divorce properly pronounced by a competent TRNC court would not be recognised everywhere?"



Seems unlikley that it would get sufficient recognition. Before and during the settlement talks Christofias signed agreements with both Britain and Russia, stating that they would not recognise the TRNC should talks break down. Christofias also paid a visit to China. Not sure what agreements were made between these two nations, but you can be sure the TRNC would not have benefited from any discussions.

So the TRNC might get the support from a few minnows, but not likely from the big fish.

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
29/12/2008 16:13

You can also expect, right now, that ROC political aids in the US are lining up a similar meeting between Christifias and Barack Obama.

Talat would be extremely displesed, but he moaned about the British and Russian trip, but still had to eat humble pie.

punktlich


Joined: 25/12/2008
Posts: 50

Message Posted:
29/12/2008 18:24

> Seems unlikley that it would get sufficient recognition.



We are talking about personal status. That includes such things as name, gender, family status, marital status, whether one is alive or dead. Thus until the European Court of Human Rights ruled otherwise it was possible for a post-op transexual who was a British-French dual national to be deemed male in Britain and female in France.



On recognition of divorce: Adams case

http://uniset.ca/other/cs6/1971P188.html

So outrageous (cf. Hyde v. Hyde and Woodmansee

http://www.uniset.ca/other/ths/LR1PD130.html )

that Parliament enacted a new law:

http://tinyurl.com/8dx5rb

As to Rhodesia bankruptcy:

http://uniset.ca/microstates/james.html

My point is that some acts of "pariah" states are recognised by necessity. If I bought and paid for something from the TRNC could the ROC sue me for nonpayment? No, although the answer isn't so obvious: many cases followed the Soviet revolution.

punktlich


Joined: 25/12/2008
Posts: 50

Message Posted:
29/12/2008 18:32

On personal names there actually is conflict, and the ECJ has intervened. Garcia Avello

http://www.eucaselaw.info/case-c-14802-garcia-avello-02102003/

http://curia.europa.eu/en/actu/activites/act03/0326en.htm

and Grunkin-Paul:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62006J0353:EN:HTML

There are various theories under which acts of a pariah state can be recognised. In addition to the unrecognised states I mentioned yesterday there are cases concerning the old South African homelands. Courts sometimes used the analogy of acts of subsovereign entities such as US states and Canadian provinces. Sometimes the ROC would be harmed by nonrecognition of an act of the TRNC government; and there is plenty of precedent on the finality of tax payments to such governments, although one may not get foreign (income) tax credit - with no tax treaty in force the outcome depends on domestic law.

punktlich


Joined: 25/12/2008
Posts: 50

Message Posted:
29/12/2008 18:38

One area of particular interest is penal law. We all know that Asil Nadir has been safe from extradition; but others with less political clout and less doubt about their guilt have not:

http://www.observercyprus.com/observer/NewsDetails.aspx?id=3052

Suffice to say, recognised or not, US, UK, EU, UN and any and all diplomats do have meetings with TRNC officials to discuss bilateral and multilateral issues. And they leave "nonpapers" behind to record the points made.

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

"Recognition" is a relative thing. Remember the watchwords I have used over and over: expedience and pragmatism.

punktlich


Joined: 25/12/2008
Posts: 50

Message Posted:
29/12/2008 19:25

> You can also expect, right now, that ROC political aids in the US are lining up a similar

> meeting between Christifias and Barack Obama.

Meetings between foreign heads of state and the U.S. president are not difficult to arrange, so long as the state in question is in favour and (usually) there is something substantive to say. They need not last long. There is far more protocol involved in a UK visit because everybody wants to meet the Queen, the Head of State, as well as the PM. Sometimes the meetings are embarrassing, protocol-wise. Recall the State dinner in honour of Lech Walesa who was, after all, a peasant/factory hand/union leader unskilled in diplomatic ways or in English.

The fact is that the substantive exchange will have been orchestrated in advance by the country desk at the State Department, and of course Secretary Clinton, if confirmed, will be there.

Unlike in the present Bush Administration (cont'd)

punktlich


Joined: 25/12/2008
Posts: 50

Message Posted:
29/12/2008 19:33

(cont'd)

we can expect that the new Obama Administration will not have sold itself to the highest bidder, Blagojevich-style.

The TRNC has a de facto embassy in the USA as it does in London. We can expect that they also have highly-paid lobbyists; and the US has a diplomatic sub-mission is Lefkosa. I have no idea what US interests are -- it hasn't been an area of concern to me. On the other hand I know that Greece has a far larger constituency in the USA than Turkey, and I know how foreign states are able to mobilise their expatriate communities (remember NORAID and how IRA terrorism was financed from the US; and how at the UN in 1998 Mohamed Khatami called for Iranians in America to support Iranian interests). Doesn't Astoria NY have the largest Greek community outside Greece after Melbourne, Australia?

girne 29


Joined: 06/12/2007
Posts: 1488

Message Posted:
29/12/2008 19:33

Question



A TC who, is given /bought exchange land cant be included in the ruling at the moment but what happens after an agreement, when presumably the ex trnc comes into the EU fold in a practical sense.Would the TC not then be bound to comply with any EU ruling.? If so, what is the point of the two sides continuing discussing the property issue,when what is agreed now might be decided later by litigation and therefore altering the split previousely agreed on, and making any agreement worthless.



What is the point of say ,agreeing to split Famagusta 50/50 if 25% of the land later on has to be given up due to litigation.Famagusta would have then moved from the agreed 50% Greek 50% TC ,to 75% Greek 25% TC by default ,and therfore ,in practical terms ,the agreement is then meaningless.

ROBnJO


Joined: 30/06/2008
Posts: 1289

Message Posted:
29/12/2008 19:51

girne 29



I think you have answered your own question.



Agreements are 'Milestones' that end with much back-slapping, photo-opportunities, press releases and hand-shaking, with everyone going home claiming a 'historic' resolution on behalf of their 'people'.



The devil is always in the detail, which normally gets bogged down for years or decades.

punktlich


Joined: 25/12/2008
Posts: 50

Message Posted:
29/12/2008 20:30

You cannot predict the outcome of diplomatic agreements.

It is more than likely that in some fashion persons native to the Island of Cyprus and their descendants will get preferential treatment under any final solution. The only group that will do better than they are the grand international hoteliers (but remember that often they only manage property on behalf of local owners).

The point of "exchange land" seems to be that GCs, or the ROC Government on their behalf, would have received land forceably abandoned by TCs and that TCs would have secured title (valid under TRNC law but not necessarily elsewhere) to "biens vacants" in the North.

The principle of "innocent purchase for value" may offer little protection to those who have bought land. On the other hand, what is to be done about land owned by TCs and GCs who were murdered in the civil war?

In the end foreigners with no real stake in the outcome will have a major say in the outcome and the EU will contribute money.

karakum5c



Joined: 18/03/2008
Posts: 1021

Message Posted:
29/12/2008 22:07

The decision when it is finally arrived at will have everything to do about political expediency and bugger all to do about the legalities of the case

girne 29


Joined: 06/12/2007
Posts: 1488

Message Posted:
30/12/2008 00:53

I think political expediency cannot circumvent EU laws.At the end of the day ,should the judgement be in favour of claiming in courts, I ,of GC lineage , no matter where I live in EU ,can attempt to recover my land in ex- TRNC. regardless of what is decided in Cyprus.

Even for expediency the ROC cannot tell me that I can only claim from non cypriot EU citizens as that would be contrary to the EU ruling plus would be against EU discrimination laws.Which, if I was a foreign villa owner under threat of losing my property, would play right into my hands.



If at a later stage, after the villa owner had given up his property it was then found

that only certain people based on race had had the ruling applied to them .I rather think ECHR would again be involved.



Directive 2000/43/EC1.

For the purposes of this Directive, the principle of equal

treatment shall mean that there shall be no direct or indirect

discrimination based on racial or ethnic origin

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
30/12/2008 14:07

Just to "correct" Punktlich who seems fond or confusing facts and "propaganda"..



"My point is that some acts of "pariah" states are recognised by necessity. If I bought and paid for something from the TRNC could the ROC sue me for nonpayment? No, although the answer isn't so obvious: many cases followed the Soviet revolution."



The RoC doesn't recognise that "TRNC" is a state and has "laws".. It regards "TRNC" as part of itself.. "SILLY " example..



Land :"The point of "exchange land" seems to be that GCs, or the ROC Government on their behalf, would have received land forceably abandoned by TCs and that TCs would have secured title (valid under TRNC law but not necessarily elsewhere) to "biens vacants" in the North. "



Except that you just "ignored" an awful lot of ECHR rulings.. and the fact that GCs issued "refugee status" land DON'T own their land... they still own their land in the "area of CY under TR control"...



One of us will ultimately have egg on their faces... ;

WAZ-24-7



Joined: 18/10/2008
Posts: 695

Message Posted:
30/12/2008 14:47

Mark,

ECHR are not the governing power in the TRNC.

Yes ECHR make a lot of rulings acros its domain.

I must agree with Punktlich regarding ROC and its view that TRNC is simply a part of itself.

It is very clearr after 34 years of peace that the influence of the ROC upon the TRNC is diminishing as the TRNC becomes stronger in its own right. The Influence of the EU, UN, et Al provide firm basis for the recognition of the North Island as an entity free from hinderance from ROC and its ROC anosis asspirations.



Your comments upon land issues are significant but land issues will be resolved without mass movements of populus, mass litigation or demolitions of property because of claims upon vacated GC and TC lands. The judgments of the ECHR and ECJ, District Courts et Al will be overcome and settled by negotiated compensation.

Mark..Your commited resolve for litigation upon land issues and title ownership defy the common sense approach and fail to acknowledge the bigger picture

twaddle


Joined: 06/07/2008
Posts: 245

Message Posted:
30/12/2008 17:19

OK, let us just assume that the ECJ agrees with the opinions of their chief legal advisor and directs that the ROC judgement against the Orams should be enforced. What does that actually mean to us ?

Does it mean that forthwith the Orams UK assets will be siezed or does it mean that the action must be raised once more in the UK courts so that they can once again decide giving due consideration to the ECJ ruling? does it mean that the UK courts have no option but to comply with the ECJ ruling? and will the ECJ ruling become case law for any future civil claim or will each case have to go through the same mechanisms?.

Could article 14 of the European Human Rights Act which asserts that an individual cannot be disadvantaged based only on their ethnicity, nationality etc be used against the ROC courts if they only bring cases against British / German citizens?

A lot of questions I know but I for one would feel a little more comfortable if I had some idea about what will happen next.

Harold2555



Joined: 19/04/2008
Posts: 1139

Message Posted:
30/12/2008 17:57

Twaddle



Taking for a moment your assumption that the ECJ does follow the advice of the AG then I think that this will be the most likely scenario.



The case will return to the UK court and the appeal of the Orams will fail on the point of the applicability of the ROC decision. It may still succeed on the actual mechanics of the summons but no doubt any faults with this procedure will be corrected in any future proceedings.



This ECj ruling will be final and binding on all member state courts to the effect that Judgements in ROC regarding land in the TNC can be enorced in other member states.



Subsequent legislation that would have to be brought in if there were to be a political settlement would deal with this and in all probability remove the land issue from the civil courts. Legislation is seldom retrospective so I fear there is likely to be a rush to get judgements. Serving new papers though has been made illegal by TRNC so don't know how this will impact on it.

Harold2555



Joined: 19/04/2008
Posts: 1139

Message Posted:
30/12/2008 18:02

If I were the TRNC government I would look into making it illegal for its residents to defend a land case in the ROC courts. This application of force majeure may well convince the UK and other member courts that the occupiers of land could not defend the case against them and thus make it unfair to enforce judgements in other jurisdictions. I am however not a lawyer and so am not sure that this would work.



It would have the advantage as far as the courts are concerned and governments on returning the focus for a solution back on Cyprus.



Harold



Harold

punktlich


Joined: 25/12/2008
Posts: 50

Message Posted:
30/12/2008 20:20

'Just to "correct" Punktlich who seems fond or confusing facts and "propaganda".. '

I don't take kindly to being flamed, and have no particular agenda. I was trying to be helpful based on my career experience, my published writing (and for what it's worth, Rauf Denktaş once sent an appreciative message about my article on quasi-states) and practice.

I do not solicit or accept clients from the Internet, so nothing I have written has any origin in a search for benefit. When flamed -- other than by flaming idiots and obvious cranks -- I leave the forum.

Nearly everything I have written has been accompanied by a link to its basis in law. I have a Ph.D. in law, which may or may not impress you. I also worked for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of a country not generally mentioned in this forum (I have more than one nationality).

Good luck; I do wish you well. (I will add one more post to correct others' misinterpretation of private international law, the subject of my Ph.D.)

negativenick


Joined: 10/11/2008
Posts: 6023

Message Posted:
30/12/2008 20:24

Punk,



Just wanted to say what a smart bloke you are.



Last time i met someone so clever was Jonathan Turner at school, who's home work i regularly copied...





Nick

punktlich


Joined: 25/12/2008
Posts: 50

Message Posted:
30/12/2008 20:26

Every one of the 48 or so European members of the Council of Europe, signatories of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms is bound by it. There has been an issue whether the EU should join; but the ECJ has said that the EU is bound by ECHR principles and precedent anyway. I'm not providing a cite, but if you need one, just ask.

Anyone who thinks that even a non-State actor cannot establish or change personal status has is out of his/her depth. Think of indigenous tribes and countries with no law; or no nationality law (China, Israel at one time): one could still be a "citizen". Marriage is an administrative act; divorce a legal act: but there is a necessary parallel. Even Ireland, which detested the concept of divorce, recognised it in the case of Irish persons resident abroad. One could cite the Bethell

http://www.uniset.ca/naty/css/38ChD220.html and Lavallière cases for their exception result -- but those were cases of miscegenation ...

cronos


Joined: 26/10/2008
Posts: 2093

Message Posted:
30/12/2008 20:28

Punktlich...msg 18.....surely you are not serious about leaving the forum because you feel "flamed" by a particular member?



This would be a disservice to us all.



I for one welcome your breadth of knowledge on the serious Cyprus issues that will affect us all.

punktlich


Joined: 25/12/2008
Posts: 50

Message Posted:
30/12/2008 20:32

and polygamous marriages under customary law, with the extended family in Britain and France using the courts to get the assets of the deceased colonial service functionary.

As for the ECHR jugments and the ownership of land: the ECHR has given at least some value to the compensation scheme. It is a principle of law that one cannot recover twice for the same loss, and (usually) that one must exhaust one's administrative remedies before going to court (also an ECHR rule).

As for "If I were the TRNC government I would look into making it illegal for its residents to defend a land case in the ROC courts.", you might wish to Google "anti-suit injunctions" which are roughly the same thing. They tried that on Freddie Laker and it wound up a spitting match between US & UK courts.

The retorts to my posts are uninformed in law, and therefore difficult, even frustrating, to answer -- which is why I think I'll take a holiday and perhaps check back in a few weeks. Bye.

MUSIN M


Joined: 26/06/2008
Posts: 1352

Message Posted:
30/12/2008 20:35

punktlich



sorry mate can,t allow you to leave the bb,as you are amonst a very few on this board who actually make any sense and know what you are talking about .



so keep posting and i will be reading.



regards



musin

long live the kktc

bachelibelly


Joined: 04/09/2008
Posts: 275

Message Posted:
30/12/2008 20:37

Punktlich,



Please dont leave on account of certain comments by one half of that well known comedy duo "Dumb and dumber".I for one find your posts interesting,thought provoking ,generally backed up with factual links.

A far cry from the reguritated,repetetive diatribe associated with the aformentioned.



Regards.

pilgrim



Joined: 11/05/2007
Posts: 1404

Message Posted:
30/12/2008 21:06

Punktlich, I for one have read and appreaciated your posts and I'm sure have given hope to some who are victims of the 'NC land situation'. Whilst I understand your reasons for leaving, you are unwittingly helping exactly what the undercover and dedicated activist supporters of the demise of the TRNC see as their agenda.Please reconsider.

regards

p

Harold2555



Joined: 19/04/2008
Posts: 1139

Message Posted:
30/12/2008 21:13

Punk



Your posts were most informative. Please note that the post I made were not intended to question yours, just to float ideas so that the more learned amongst us, obviously including yourself, could comment



Harold

WAZ-24-7



Joined: 18/10/2008
Posts: 695

Message Posted:
30/12/2008 21:35

Msg 22



Punktlich,

I too have found your posts most informative, well structured and generally positive.

What is very true indeed is the fact of law that denies a litigant to recover twice for the same loss.

The ECHR have supported the Land and Property Commission for the compensation of displaced Cypriots.

It may be a move for persons that are on exchage title deed land to express to the ROC land owner a desire to have the matter presented before the Commission for consideration.

The clear onus is therefore upon that person/s to proceed upon this route for compensation from the Commission who has been allocated this specific function.

However, it may well be prudent to prepare for this possible solution without final progressing until the completion of settlement talks.

Aussie


Joined: 17/06/2007
Posts: 657

Message Posted:
30/12/2008 23:57

Obviously a Cyprus settlement or at least agreed compensation system is the best option if possible.



However if the final ECJ decision goes against the Orams it may be prudent to take steps to protect EU assets from such claims. Even mortgaging a property etc to remove the equity say to TRNC or elsewhere and ensure any litigant gets nothing should provide some deterence. Where a Mortagee is involved in my experience its rare for an unsecured creditor to get anything after allowing for legals compound interest taxes etc. There are also many more complex and expensive asset protection mechanisms which you could impliment but would need to get expert opinion on the UK and other EU countries laws. It may end up being easier to transfer TRNC ownership instead.

Aussie


Joined: 17/06/2007
Posts: 657

Message Posted:
31/12/2008

In the end the whole situation may end up a Phyric victory for the GC's given the problems in actually getting the money and the enormous potential for counter claims against the ROC government rather than thousand of individuals claims as they will be forced to do





Aussie

WAZ-24-7



Joined: 18/10/2008
Posts: 695

Message Posted:
31/12/2008 01:28

msg 29

absolutely Aussie.

The victory that Mr Apostolides may or may not secure amounts to about £12,000 above and beyond his current position. I assume that his costs to date far exceed this amount.



A phyric victory for ROC but one that may well bite back when a forced settlement to land issues comes about.

All displaced previous occupants or hereditary occupiers should as they are entiltled to seek compensation and recourse with the ECHR endorsed Property Commission in TRNC.

Hatty


Joined: 13/07/2008
Posts: 260

Message Posted:
31/12/2008 01:37

I would hate to think what Mr. Apostolides might have to pay in back tax on the rent on the land.

girne 29


Joined: 06/12/2007
Posts: 1488

Message Posted:
31/12/2008 12:31

message 30



Its not Apostolides who has brought the case, but probably the ROC ,using him as a conduit.Would be interesting to follow the money trail to find out where the court and appeals costs came from.

Must admit, the way the ROC have operated in the last couple of years before and during negotiation makes them appear to be a slick govt machine negotiating with a local council,especially in the PR front.



Does anyone know if the TRNC govt are aware of the decision to go the european route,and if they are should they not suspend the property negotiations and go that same route rather than have a messy agreement open to alteration later on.

WAZ-24-7



Joined: 18/10/2008
Posts: 695

Message Posted:
31/12/2008 12:49

msg 32....girne



Mr Apostolides is more than likely to have ROC financial backing in his applications for restitution. His personal gain is far outwieghed by the costs.

Clearly nationalistic and political aspirations take precident.



TRNC and Turkish government are aware of European Court route.

Bothe ROC and TRNC have current procedures for settlement in that TC may occupy property in ROC for 6 months and then obtain possession.

The Property Commission in TRNC was set up to compensate GC that were displaced. Both systems have limited success.

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
31/12/2008 13:09

Don't go Punktlich. Your posts are extremely informative and really stretch our thinking. (albeit some of itis beyond me )

JimmyG


Joined: 14/08/2008
Posts: 900

Message Posted:
31/12/2008 13:23

Punktlich, please don't let being 'flamed' by one member lead you to absent yourself from this board as you will see that there are many here, and I am one of them, who have found your posts & depth of knowledge both enlightening & informative.

At worst please come back next year!!

girne 29


Joined: 06/12/2007
Posts: 1488

Message Posted:
01/01/2009 15:46

Punktlich,

Dont go ,agree with message 35.



On another point, I see the UK has gone against the EU court judgement on returning the two Iraqis to Iraq.

Lilli



Joined: 21/07/2008
Posts: 13081

Message Posted:
01/01/2009 15:54

hi punk please dont let them grind you down, i take my fair share of that on here but i along with most of your replies think that you are most informative, and whilst i dont totally understand all the polotics here, i do enjoy your input as it makes me feel more informed. please stay and give us your knowledge. may i also take his opportunity to wish you and your family a very happy new year lilli x

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
02/01/2009 10:10

reply to Waz msg 14:



Mark,



"ECHR are not the governing power in the TRNC."



you are SO right.. ECHR have deemed that Turkey are .. they, too, refer to the internationally unrecognised "TRNC".





"I must agree with Punktlich regarding ROC and its view that TRNC is simply a part of itself. "



Well, that's why we are discussing the Orams' case - as it LOOKS like the RoC's *juristiction*, but lack of ability, to enforce are at the crux of the matter.



"It is very clearr after 34 years of peace that the influence of the ROC upon the TRNC is diminishing as the TRNC becomes stronger in its own right. "



Hmm, that would be why you post a letter to *Mersin 10, TURKEY* and fly via TURKEY to get to this place free of RoC" / EU / UN influence .. as many TCS - who are now outnumbered - will tell you.. be careful what you wish for ....

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
02/01/2009 10:17

re Harold msg 16





" Serving new papers though has been made illegal by TRNC so don't know how this will impact on it."



If you mean the serving of new RoC writs, could you explain how "TRNC" "laws" come into the reckoning re internationally recognised legal proceedings and protocols within and between EU member states .



Ignoring a properly served writ will only mean the plaintiff obtaining a Judgement in default.

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
02/01/2009 10:32

re msg 18 by Punktlich



"I don't take kindly to being flamed and have no particular agenda. I was trying to be helpful based on my career experience, my published writing (and for what it's worth, Rauf Denktaş once sent an appreciative message about my article on quasi-states) and practice. "



To anyone, with an open mind, the above statement reads as being from someone who wittingly or unwittingly, "stood on a turd".... I might as well have written "I had a message of support from Tassos Paapdopoulos" ... !



Punktlich, these two lawyers, between 'em, managed to make Cyprus the mess it is now...



I do not want you to stop posting - as it is interesting to hear someone quoting law as if it applies to the "TRNC" .. you make the mistake of failing to recognise that TURKEY pulls the strings and still does.. and THIS is recognised by the ECHR.



I would like to see the TCs have autonomy - TRUE autonomy - within a recognised legal and internationally recognised entity.

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
02/01/2009 10:39

in response to Cronos:



"Punktlich...msg 18.....surely you are not serious about leaving the forum because you feel "flamed" by a particular member? "



I trust you put as little credence to to flaming as I did... especially as Punktlich enjoys the vast support of most members...here ;)...



"This would be a disservice to us all."



True.. I value his/her posts and the opportunity to counter them.



"I for one welcome your breadth of knowledge on the serious Cyprus issues that will affect us all."



Here we differ.. Punktlich keeps on making the mistake of thinking Political Expedience ( Turkey is a bigger player with more military might v RoC has the legal upper hand ) will carry the day.

WAZ-24-7



Joined: 18/10/2008
Posts: 695

Message Posted:
02/01/2009 16:25

Mark Msg 38..response.

Thankyou for your comments

Mark, I assume that you too are aware of the increasing de-facto regognition of th TRNC. UN and EU do and are willing to have talks towards an island settlement. There has been a clear decline in the isolation from the rest of the World of the TRNC. A clear convergence of North and South will soon lead to full recognition in one form or another but certainly seperate from the ROC. Direct flights and postal will, I think happen by mid 2010. The TRNC has been illegal so to speak for 34 years the law that you rely upon so stricltly does not represent the true status and the future will certainly not be decided in a civil case like the Orams. Its future is without doubt positive.

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
04/01/2009 12:23

re 42 Waz



Since the 2004 NO vote of the GCs to Annan, I have heard folk like you say the "future is positive"..



As the ECHR confirms in it's recent judgement against Turkey,( GC owned property in Varosha) the Annan vote changed nought about the status of TRUE property ownership in CY



I've been having the same discussions re direct Flights and Post every new year for the last 7 years.. my answer is the same..



LEGAL obstacles to overcome..



The UK may have the political will, but it must find a way around existing UN resolutions that Russia and China are unlikely to allow to drop.



The reality remains the same.. TR with troops on the ground.. "rump" RoC with most the legal cards..



Especially THIS year, there seems very little political will...



I'm sure that if the Cypriot leaders were allowed to REALLY negotiate.. Talat is not... things could be worked out.

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
08/01/2009 04:58

from Pigrim in part 1 - "when you actually consider the AG's point that the TRNC is actually a member in the EU, but currently suspended. Therefore court decisions made in other EU states can be enforced in other EU states including the UK"..



did I miss something.. WHERE does the AG say "TRNC" is a member of the EU ? CYPRUS is a member of the EU.. the aquis is suspended in the "area of CY under Turkey control".. where the govt does not exercise effective control.. this ain't "propaganda"...



"The opinion is very unfair to the TRNC as the TRNC dos n't enjoy the benefits of EU membership or international recognition, ..."



TCs demonstrating Cypriot parentage enjoy the benefits of freedom of movement in the EU.. they and EU citizens don't enjoy EU "privileges" within "TRNC" because the EU/ ECHR etc HAVE to respect UN security council resolutions..



Let's get TR in the EU and find a work around for the CY property issue.. if we're all EU citizens...

WAZ-24-7



Joined: 18/10/2008
Posts: 695

Message Posted:
10/01/2009 01:05

msg 43.

Mark,

Than you for your response.

I must say that your negativity is suprising given the positive progress since 1974.



Yes there are obstacles ,there have been issues for many many years. These obstacles decrese in stature as talks and on the ground improvements progress.



Troops and legal cards are issues that can be overcome.

The presidents of ROC and TRNC continue to negotiate. I know not how you are privy to the abilities of Mr Talat. The UN continue to sponsor the talks. The EU and its envoys are becoming more involved.

Progress is being made and I and others remain positive.

Lemtich



Joined: 15/02/2007
Posts: 1487

Message Posted:
10/01/2009 01:07

At least its not like Gaza.



Lem

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
10/01/2009 12:57

Talat has stated that legal claims by GC's on TC's is hurting the settlement process



http://www.brtk.cc/index.php/lang/en/cat/2/news/44383

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
10/01/2009 14:59

Dear Waz re 43



Could you explain how I'm being "negative" ?



Mr Talat is the elected representative of the TC people - why do you persist in calling him "President" .. you know VERY well that outside of TR or "TRNC" he would not be referred to as such..Turksih Grand Prix 2007 ?



WHY would you claim I refer to Mr Talat's abilities..?! I was referring to the fact that he cannot make Policy decisions, unless TR agrees.. if you dispute that I can refer you ( off-board, to respected TCs who would put you straight) .



But how is this relevant to the Orams' Case - as it is with ECJ, now?

girne 29


Joined: 06/12/2007
Posts: 1488

Message Posted:
10/01/2009 15:06

Said a while back it was suspicious ,the timing of ECHR action .The ROC must have known the TRNC would come to the same conclusion .





Talat, behind the scenes might be angry and soon telling the ROC , they can work thro him or thro EU courts but not both.The fable of ' The dog with 2 bones' comes to mind. To say they have no control over the case ,insults Talat, everyone knows the GC case is bankrolled and politically driven.



As a supporter of an agreement, the behaviour of the ROC will play into the hands of those that oppose the negotiations. If one was cynical one might think that ,just as in the north , there are hardliners in the south who do not wish for an agreement, and what better way than to weaken Talats position.



Talat shouldnt play into their hands,but continue, regardless of provocation, to negotiate a lasting solution. That way ,when or if the talks fail ,he can say the TRNC did its best and should no longer be isolated.

No1Doyen


Joined: 04/07/2008
Posts: 16617

Message Posted:
10/01/2009 15:08

Totally agree with that statement Girne29. Well put.

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
10/01/2009 15:25

Dear Girne_29 re msg 49



"Said a while back it was suspicious ,the timing of ECHR action .The ROC must have known the TRNC would come to the same conclusion .



Talat, behind the scenes might be angry and soon telling the ROC , they can work thro him or thro EU courts but not both.The fable of ' The dog with 2 bones' comes to mind. To say they have no control over the case ,insults Talat, everyone knows the GC case is bankrolled and politically driven. "



The Orams' case goes back a long time before the current "rump" RoC president took over.



The ECHR have nought ( yet) to do with this case - and it has been bumped up to the ECJ for the appeal



The GC was constantly asking for Govt help in this case, and neither you nor I know if he has had any help from them.



Can a UK PM stop/ interfere with a legal case ?

WAZ-24-7



Joined: 18/10/2008
Posts: 695

Message Posted:
10/01/2009 15:29

mmmmmm Msg 48.



Mark, Your posts continually show a legal bias and contest the political path towards settlement. Your posts including this one dwell upon pedantics and lack any positive structure which are conjusive to settlement of the problem. I deem your posts predominantly negative on this issue.



Pedantics.. I refer to Mr talat as the President because I accept and support the TRNC. This is my perogative.



The TRNC and president Talat have the support and backing of Turkey. This is no secret and presents no issues. This assistance is essential to the TRNC whilst the region is excluded from many freedoms and its exclusion from basic international recognition.

I am sure that Mr Talat takes guidance from the very extensive experience within the Turkish administration.

I am certain that Mr Talat has a level of autonomy that allows him and his government to make policy decisions.

I suspect that your clandestine contacts will not show this to be otherwise

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
10/01/2009 15:41

Dear Waz,



1/ we are discussing a legal case in the UK - concerning a UK couple.. the legalities of the situation are VERY important



2/ Please don't confuse your opinion with LEGAL fact... As I might remind you the "extensive experience within the Turkish administration." didn't stop some "political stunt" re Mr Talat at the TR F1 Grand Prix in 2007



3/ It was a lawyer - Mr Denktash- that "boxed" in TCs with his decision to claim "independence" and the UN resolution stops TCs from being granted aid, etc.



4/ I am very certain my contacts aren't "clandestine" and are known to you.. I just didn't want to embarrass you, or them, by proving in public what most TCs will admit privately.



You call it "pedantics" - I call it "semantics"..



So, I ask you again... How is my "stance" negative.. I'm being realistic..

girne 29


Joined: 06/12/2007
Posts: 1488

Message Posted:
10/01/2009 18:27

mmmm



I am aware it goes back a long time,thats the very reason I am suspicious. as it goes back so long anyway, there was no reason why it could not have been postponed for a year. The ROC govt could have merely said ,we are withdrawing our support or proxy support to you for the greater good of maintaining the positive negotiations.

Should the negotiations fail then we will again require to use you.



ROC,backing? You are right we dont know, its what is believed that counts.

Apostolides, I dont know much about him, but heard he works for the ROC tourist board or some such thing,Ether way ,were not the court costs about £400,000.The original court case in UK making him liable for the Orams costs of £600,000 for , before the appeal. Common man does not play around with numbers like that.



'Can a UK PM stop/ interfere with a legal case ? '



Of course he can, just suggest Mr GC withdraws his suit.



Also

Re- Blairs part in BAE Saudi investigation. the common good

WAZ-24-7



Joined: 18/10/2008
Posts: 695

Message Posted:
10/01/2009 20:22

mmmmm.



response to msg 53.

Yes legalities need to utilised to resolve many issues of civil disagreements.

The Orams case is a pawn amidst the bigger issue. The National problem.

Political negotiated solutions are more suited to resolution of National issues such as the Cypriot, Palestinian,Zimbabwe,and Chechnya problems.



We have moved on from the Denktash era.



I am none the wiser of your point about my embarressment.



Mark,

Your stance is deemed negative.

I base this upon the the level of written support that other members of this forum group appear to award you.

Indeed several members heve most certainly taken distain at your negative posts. Many have indicated this to you in writing.



Forum members, including myself have spoken.



Nevertheless, On a positive note, your posts are thought provoking and do keep the debate on the agenda.

pilgrim



Joined: 11/05/2007
Posts: 1404

Message Posted:
10/01/2009 21:29

mmmmmm, Thought you felt unloved and were threatening to leave, but no you were just using post to raise your profile. 'Should I resign' did n't fool me. A provocateur dos,nt stop whilst there are still issues to stir, thats how they get off! ( excuse slang)

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
10/01/2009 21:32

Girne_29



re msg 54



I'm sorry, you "lost" me! The case "left" the domain of CY courts BEFORE the leadership change in the "rump" RoC



I'm pretty certain that the Court of Eng/Wales and it's Judges AREN'T supposed to bow to pressure to delay / stall / or how to rule..



Costs.. I say again, I don't think Mr A thought he would need to go this far and was "crying" in the GC press for "help" two years ago...









IF this case went against enforcement, in a third EU state, then the "TRNC" would have have moral victory, and I see this board already promotes this case as "proving it is safe" to buy in "North Cyprus"



How can the RoC govt ask a Eng/Wales court / ECJ to suspend the findings in a civil case ?

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
10/01/2009 21:45

Waz re 55



I am well aware the normally political decisions affect Policy / law decisions in Democracies.. but no matter HOW hard Politicians have tried to "package" this..



The RoC is in the EU and when someone in France doesn't pay me - I take 'em to court and get a judgement.. if he moves I'll go after his asets where I can get 'em in the EEA / EU area. It is a relatively simple matter.



If someone doesn't pay rent on a property in the UK when I'm in CY, I can take them to Court in the UK.. I doubt you can disagree with the above..



Even "Embargoed" saw the dangers of this case.. pointing out - repeatedly that the Orams have NOT "won" as all courts remind us that Mr A is the owner of the land.



Pointing out the obvious on a board where many members are living on land still owned by GCs was never going to win me popularity prizes, but we ARE discussing LEGAL issues here.



My posts aren't "thought provoking" they are simply stating my interpretation of how this will end

WAZ-24-7



Joined: 18/10/2008
Posts: 695

Message Posted:
10/01/2009 22:16

mmmmmm

Thank you for your comments.



Your analogy is not a suitable comparison to the Orams case.

The ROC have a vested interest in the Judgment against the Orams.

The underhanded manor in which Mr Apostolides was awarded a default judgment is totally disproportionate and biased.



Furthermore, the orams case is a civil matter as you well know. The solution to the Cyprus problem remains firmly within the Political Agenda.



I have not seen your interpretaion of how this will end.

I cannot see Mr Apostolides re-possessing the said land can you?

I cannot see the ROC taking control of the North.

I cannot see any mass evictions and populus movements.

I cannot see mass destructions of property.

I cannot see litigation based upon "stolen" propert

I can see the Orams remaining in their property.

I can see a political settlement that will compensate Mr Appostilides.

I can see peace prevailing on the Island.

I can see the IPC providing suitable settlement to displaced persons.

Aussie


Joined: 17/06/2007
Posts: 657

Message Posted:
10/01/2009 23:02

WAZ



I hope your last four points happen and agree in no scenario except an agreed settlement of the Cyprus problem will Mr Apostolides ever regain physical control of the Orams property.



I believe however that this was not the purpose of Mr Apostolides litigation against the Orams. I think the real intent was to scare away foreign buyers and destroy the TRNC property market. The only monetary reward he can get is damages and it is unlikely unless the Orams were very wealthy he would even cover more than a small percentage of his legal costs let alone real damages.



This again raises the question of his funding which you could speculate would have come perhaps indirectly from the government or possibly someone else with an Axe to grind over the whole property issue.



In reverse the Orams are probably being supported by someone with an interest in the TRNC property market as well.



As I have said before this may cause the ROC more problems than its worth.

Aussie


Joined: 17/06/2007
Posts: 657

Message Posted:
10/01/2009 23:11

The potential for TC claims against the ROC for their land in the South is enormous and they have the benefit of a direct claim against a sovereign government with sufficient financial resources to pay all costs and damages awarded against it.



The GC position is much worse as they have to chase down and secured individual judgements against thousands of individual buyers many of whom have little in the way of EU assets. It would also be easy for them to take steps to ensure that their assets are kept out of reach if the problem becomes widespread.



In other words little real compensation would be achieved for most GC owners and the hostility invoked would be a major setback to the peace process.



Potentially thousands of GC "refugees" could lose the TC owned properties they live in with no compensation from the owners of their former properties in the North.



Aussie

SaorAlba


Joined: 05/01/2009
Posts: 53

Message Posted:
10/01/2009 23:16

Aussie:



"In reverse the Orams are probably being supported by someone with an interest in the TRNC property market as well."



Who could that be? Those attracted to "exchange" properties are surely earning below average wages, and those marketing them face ruin in the current market and given recent legal developments. That only leaves the Turkish taxpayer, and Citizen Osman has had enough coughing up for long-redundant Turkish military antics in the north of Cyprus.



PP

WAZ-24-7



Joined: 18/10/2008
Posts: 695

Message Posted:
10/01/2009 23:37

Aussie,

Your comments are again usefull and I agree with your analysis of the Orams case.

The compensation issue is one that is ill suited to civil litigation because of the magnitude of the problem.

The Political path must be driven forward before matters get out of hand.



SaorAlba.

I believe that the Turkish resolve to attain recognition for the TRNC does not wain. Turkish money has clearly assited the development during its isolation.

Turkey must feel that a solution is on the horizon.

I strongly suspect that EU and UN officials will be discussing the role of Turkey in any settlement deal.

pilgrim



Joined: 11/05/2007
Posts: 1404

Message Posted:
11/01/2009 00:28

soarabla,

' Those buying attracted to exchange property , must surely be on below average wages' why make such an ridiculas statement. Just because 'exchange title property' may be cheaper don't you think purchasers consider other factors when deciding on a property, also are people buying for investment on below average wages? wise up. sorry

regards

p

girne 29


Joined: 06/12/2007
Posts: 1488

Message Posted:
11/01/2009 01:34

mmmm -I'm sorry, you "lost" me! The case "left" the domain of CY courts BEFORE the leadership change in the "rump" RoC .



Didnt mention the CY courts,whats a leadership change to do with anything



mmmm-I'm pretty certain that the Court of Eng/Wales and it's Judges AREN'T supposed to bow to pressure to delay / stall / or how to rule.



Again, didnt say that, but you are right to emphasise "AREN'T supposed to"

Nowhere did I say govts should influence a courts ruling, its before it reaches that stage I am talking about. ie BAE and Saudis

I meant the UK govt can ask me to postpone or not raise a civil action ,for the common good.

As could the ROC govt.



mmmm-How can the RoC govt ask a Eng/Wales court / ECJ to suspend the findings in a civil case ?

Again, I am talking about not going to court,till negotiations end.



You are talking as if ROC didnt know this was going to the EU courts.

Oh dear its too late now.,sorry about the negotiations

girne 29


Joined: 06/12/2007
Posts: 1488

Message Posted:
11/01/2009 12:46

message 65 cont'



could argue all day on whether the ROC govt would/could have withdrawn what I believe is a proxy case,until the negotiations were completed.Its naive to believe ROC had no influence in the matter.



but



They knew the case was being processed before now.



They knew the property issue was about to be negotiated in the next few weeks





They knew Talat had properties on ex GC land.along with many highranking people



They knew that up to now Talat and Christofias have been progressing the talks in an atmosphere of friendship and that many in the North thought he was being too friendly.



and now.



Interview with Presidents spokesman,

"this move will diminish the importance and effectivesness of the negotiations and the commitment to the negotiations",he said.

hinting that is was AN ATTEMPT BY THE GC GOVT TO DERAIL THE TALKS PROCESS,ahead of the property issue due to be discussed by both presidents in January.



So I am not the only one suspicious o

toady


Joined: 03/06/2008
Posts: 62

Message Posted:
11/01/2009 13:37

I don't post many comments as I am not as 'legally aware' as most of you seem to be, I also have a lot to lose. However, after reading your discussion for days now I have to say that a lot of people know who are backing the Orams as Bradus pointed out on another thread. It would appear that money paid by my husband and I, and by other purchasers on a development, have probably been used to fund this case rather than finish our properties. As I have no proof of this but can only assume, I cannot name the developer. We are now becoming resigned to the fact that we made a grave error of judgement deciding to buy in North Cyprus.

SaorAlba


Joined: 05/01/2009
Posts: 53

Message Posted:
11/01/2009 13:41

Pilgrim:



' Those buying attracted to exchange property , must surely be on below average wages' why make such an ridiculas statement."



i base that statement on many years experience of both sides of Cyprus. If you don't think price is the major consideration of most people who bought exchange properties, then I think you somewhat in denial. Affordability is the key issue. That's obvious from the huge numbers of people who bought after 2003 who were very different from earlier investors. This mob have in many ways reduced north Cyprus to a tacky Benidorm.



PP

SaorAlba


Joined: 05/01/2009
Posts: 53

Message Posted:
11/01/2009 13:44

girne29,



"They knew Talat had properties on ex GC land.along with many highranking people"



Why do you call it ex-GC land when everyone knows they are still the legal orders? How many legal rulings does it take to convince some people? The questions people should be asking themselves are why did I ever do this and will I get away with it or when will I have to face the music?

cronos


Joined: 26/10/2008
Posts: 2093

Message Posted:
11/01/2009 13:56

Msg 68...PIKE...for that is who you are....you have some very valid arguments,but they are cheapened by your sometimes patronising and downright snobbish tone.



You are right....the majority of Brits,myself included,bought on the basis of price and value for money.However this does not mean I am a low paid idiot who wants to live in an ex-pat enclave.



You are an intelligent man,but there are many on here who are not that far behind you and deserve more respect !

girne 29


Joined: 06/12/2007
Posts: 1488

Message Posted:
11/01/2009 14:40

SaorAlba



You are being petty and argumentative . I didnt say ex-GC OWNED.



By ex GC I was not talking about legal ownership, but meaning it was land that was formally lived in before by a GC, therefore the EX ,and obviousely sofar means in the eyes of EU and ROC they still own it.

In TRNC it is TC land,and Talat lives under a TRNC administration.This is what the negotiations are about!!



I thought you would be happy about me calling it ex -GC land instead of exchange.

but okay we will call it "GC land that was lived in before 1974 by GC and now lived in by others but still owned by the GC who once lived there." so can we carry on on with the intended message.



Anyway I am departing this thread ,

I am the first to admit I write too quick and straight off the top of my head,but

I really cant be bothered when threads are sidetracked on definitions or grammatical points and errors,the original thrust of the thread then becomes lost

SaorAlba


Joined: 05/01/2009
Posts: 53

Message Posted:
11/01/2009 14:52

cronos:



"....you have some very valid arguments,but they are cheapened by your sometimes patronising and downright snobbish tone."



OK, I don't want to come across that way, but how can I put it without offending people? I remember North Cyprus when the only expats had been there for years. Ex-colonial types and military officers, affable retired folk and generally genial old buffers who never bothered anyone.



Do you like how it is now? -Bare chests and beer bellies, tattoos, pub fights, expats being jailed for housebreaking and assault, low and high-level fraudsters etc etc. You can see it from the thuggish element on the BBs. What would you say if someone uncouth moved in next door to you? You don't want the neighbourhood to go downhill any more than I do. Unfortunately you have to be blunt sometimes to speak the truth.



PP

SaorAlba


Joined: 05/01/2009
Posts: 53

Message Posted:
11/01/2009 14:54

girne29,



Sorry if the way I said that annoyed you. It probably was a bit pedantic of me so please don't be offended as I know you have a firm grasp on reality here.



PP

Bradus


Joined: 25/02/2007
Posts: 2641

Message Posted:
11/01/2009 14:57

Toady,

I have followed your plight and others with interest over the last few years. I am saddend that what should be an exciting time and a new start, has turned into a nightmare for many buyers.

Well over a year ago I remember having a heated debate regarding this builder and site and I made suggestions that urgent action was required if you stood any chance of getting your money back or having your properties completed.

Unfortunately people often mistake hospitality with honesty and as the builder and company appear to have the ability to smooth talk investors, along with the odd purchaser promoting the company, despite knowing how many people had only their foundations or shell after 4years even having paid upfront. The distress caused is endless.

All though it looks bleak at the moment I sincerely hope that if you and other buyers make the decision to present as a united front, you might end up with at least a compromise so that all is not lost.

girne 29


Joined: 06/12/2007
Posts: 1488

Message Posted:
11/01/2009 15:05

SaorAlba

Thanks, no offence taken.

WAZ-24-7



Joined: 18/10/2008
Posts: 695

Message Posted:
11/01/2009 15:07

Msg 69 SA



There is a clear case on the unknown with regard to property in the North.

It is certainly not the case that music must be faced by occupiers of exchange land.

Immovable property commission is in place and backed by the ECHR to compensate displaced persons.

The current talks will discuss property issues in the next few weeks.

It is not prohibited for direct discussions to take place between occupiers and owners to negotiate a private resolution.

The clear case is to wait and see. The issues are very resolvable.



Perhaps you should wait and see how the the music score pans out.

Its not over till the fat lady sings.

toady


Joined: 03/06/2008
Posts: 62

Message Posted:
11/01/2009 15:35

Bradus

I wish this forum, and the issues of this builder, had been known to us before we were introduced to them by a reputable UK estate agent last January. When I read the forum now I think it is good that there are people willing to discuss issues like this. I am glad that these people are free to air their opinions even if others disagree. The trouble is when you are in ongoing negotiations you are wary of discussing too much in public. However, I still

have a small hope that I will actually get to meet some posters in person in Cyprus when I retire there to my villa (fingers and everything still crossed).

Bradus


Joined: 25/02/2007
Posts: 2641

Message Posted:
11/01/2009 20:09

Toady,

I agree, it is not always the wisest thing to discuss too much on public forums. People usually resort to this when all else fails.However many get sound advice from doing so and although it is not always positive for those that have already lost money, it does prevent it from happening to other innocent people.



I hope that you and all the other buyers end up sitting round your pools the stress long forgotten, as the end wait was worth it.



The worst thing to do though is nothing! Unite and get together and decide how to deal with this. Don't except excuses from this developer."Action plan and set targets" A search of all posts regarding this company highlights many others in the same boat. Some have already started with legal action. Email them and share your information so that you all know what advice has been given. Consider compromising. Have you all registered your properties and found out if the land is mortgaged yet? Group together and see HBPG.



Good Luck

SaorAlba


Joined: 05/01/2009
Posts: 53

Message Posted:
11/01/2009 20:46

Waz,



Approaching the legal owner is an interesting avenue and I wonder if anyone on here has actually done it.



PP

punktlich


Joined: 25/12/2008
Posts: 50

Message Posted:
23/01/2009 20:17

I met today with counsel for the Orams, one of whom is assisting me on another matter. Counsel are optimistic that the ECJ will reject the opinion of the AG, which it was claimed is "naive, internally inconsistent and unsupported in law".



For what it is worth.



This is a political case and as in all such cases the outcome depends on relative status of parties. Most legal systems work well between equals: the test is how they work between unequals. Even the US and English systems do not work well at extremes. I have heard of quiet ex parte demarches made to judges where promotion to a higher bench is a goal.



But the Orams case goes only to the cross-border enforceability of ROC judgments as to TRNC land. within the EU and probably (Lugano Convention) the EEA and Switzerland. Even a win in Luxembourg will not free occupiers & owners of NC property from the need to engage in sophisticated asset protection and estate/succession plans.

cooper


Joined: 23/10/2007
Posts: 3386

Message Posted:
23/01/2009 20:24

Welcome back punktlich and thankyou for this information.



Cooper

Turtle


Joined: 28/05/2007
Posts: 2669

Message Posted:
23/01/2009 21:00

Good to see you back Punktlich

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
24/01/2009 11:12

Yep, Welcome back Puntklich re msg 80



1/ "Counsel are optimistic that the ECJ will reject the opinion of the AG, which it was claimed is "naive, internally inconsistent and unsupported in law".



That is an opinion.. I'm assuming the AG's opinion is also highly respected...otherwise she would be in that position..right ?!



2/ "This is a political case" .. again, that is YOUR opinion.. the counter viewpoint is that it is a matter - pure and simple - of a dispossessed owner finding a legal means to overcome the "military option" that prevents enforcement locally.



3/ "But the Orams case goes only to the cross-border enforceability of ROC judgments as to TRNC land. "



But as we know, it ISN'T a "border" ( as far as the ECJ / Court of Eng / Wales are concerned) and the property is part of territory deemed part of the RoC.. the RoC just can't exercise effective control.



I am quoting the status of "TRNC" / RoC as deemed in the jurisdiction of the Courts ( danger of breaking

Bertie


Joined: 15/04/2008
Posts: 155

Message Posted:
24/01/2009 14:03

I take great offence at the comments made about purchasers of exchange land, we bought land after taking advice from people that one would hope you could trust, this land was not cheap nor has the construction of the house been. Both my husband and myself are professionals and do not consider ourselves to be lager swilling louts looking for a bargain. Posts like that particular one are very destructive but do fortunately now seem to be diminishing. The other posts for the most part are very useful and to those people I would like to say thank you.

Turtle


Joined: 28/05/2007
Posts: 2669

Message Posted:
24/01/2009 19:18

Bertie, you are correct people who post this claptrap are usually those who lose the argument and resort to this non productive bile.



The are just argumentative and soon get banned or leave the board.

stevemac


Joined: 21/07/2008
Posts: 99

Message Posted:
24/01/2009 19:33

Yes Bertie but what exactly did these people you could trust tell you about exchange land? Did they tell you it was exchanged? Because there never was an recipricol agreement. Only the lawyers and estate agents come out with this rubbish

Turtle


Joined: 28/05/2007
Posts: 2669

Message Posted:
24/01/2009 19:38

Wrong Steve, the TRNC govenment recognise this

juliet


Joined: 11/01/2009
Posts: 612

Message Posted:
24/01/2009 20:16

sorry turtle but only turkey recognise the so called trnc goverment!!!!!

steve is correct!!!

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
24/01/2009 22:36

to Girne29 re msg 65/6 - Sorry I missed this..



You suggested the RoC govt could/ should have "influenced" this case to "go away" / be delayed.. I've tried to explain to you that in Democracies:



1/ Govts shouldn't interfere in Civil cases and EVEN if they did, the current RoC Govt came to power when the case was already being dealt with by Eng/Wales court...and "of course" HMG don't interfere with civil actions, either...



2/ WHY should they interfere.. ?



3/ It's in the hands of the ECJ and what should we fear?.. justice?



The case has been running for four years so your "suspicions" are groundless.



Of course, it can be used as another "bargaining chip" , but we don't KNOW what the ruling will be - only the recommendation...

Turtle


Joined: 28/05/2007
Posts: 2669

Message Posted:
24/01/2009 22:37

Wrong again Suzzane, the ROC recognise the TRNC..........Thats why they are negotiating with them

juliet


Joined: 11/01/2009
Posts: 612

Message Posted:
24/01/2009 23:38

wrong turtle, mr t sent a xmas gift to a govement member & the goverment member sent it back as mr t signed it the "president of the trnc" the roc only recognise the leader of the tcs which at present is mr t!

Turtle


Joined: 28/05/2007
Posts: 2669

Message Posted:
24/01/2009 23:47

You are splitting hairs Suzz, the fact that they are talking means they recognise each other.



So ......they talk for however how long and agree to resolve all differences and live happily ever after but the don't recognise each other yeah right.



The truth is you and people like you dont recognise the TRNC there is a big difference betweem you and people that have some say in the matter

juliet


Joined: 11/01/2009
Posts: 612

Message Posted:
24/01/2009 23:53

turtle why so bitter? people like me!!!! does that include the whole world that don`t recognise the so called trnc!



it`s an international fact that mr t is the leader of the tcs & only turkey gave him his "president" title!!



And yes Mr t recognises the roc president & Mr C recognises Mr t as the tc leader!

Turtle


Joined: 28/05/2007
Posts: 2669

Message Posted:
24/01/2009 23:57

Suzz, I am not bitter not bitter at all in fact I have nothing to be bitter about.......... but you have !

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
25/01/2009 01:14

Turtle re 92 She is RIGHT.. in Cyprus Semantics/ titles are LEGALLY important... Mr Denktash always demanded that the "TRNC" be recognised before he would talk, knowing full well that meant talks would go nowhere. That suited his Taksim agenda - why negotiate from a position of "strength"..



Then the ECHR judgements started going against TR.. even TCs winning cases to be allowed acces to the "south"



August 2007: when Mr Talat was presented to the world as the "President" of the "TRNC".. He handed out the prize to the winner - a sudden "last minute change" to arrangements that had the F1 supremos LITERALLY spitting out their tea and $5million fines were handed out..



Property threads go "ballistic" on these boards as folks will say "they won't move me off "my" land/ property conveniently forgetting it is probably AIN'T theirs... I wonder would / will they be bitter if they HAD to move / pay compo ./ pay rent to the GC owner?

Turtle


Joined: 28/05/2007
Posts: 2669

Message Posted:
25/01/2009 01:26

Mark, your opinion about "leasehold land" seems to be just that........ "your opinion" this is "your hope" " your aspiration" " your be all and end all to the solution" but quite frankly mate I think your wrong.

Please accept that not everybody on this board will agree with you as much as you would like them too !

punktlich


Joined: 25/12/2008
Posts: 50

Message Posted:
27/01/2009 20:45

I have no experience of the courts in Cyprus, north or south. But the story of the prosecution of Luke Atkinson and Michael Binnington, passengers in a car, over a road crash death, and the nature of their conviction and forced return under European Arrest Warrant, holds certain parallels with the dispensation of justice in the Orams case.

http://tinyurl.com/ata34x (Fair Trials Abroad)

http://tinyurl.com/bkrqy3 (The Independent)



The trouble is that in the European Union (as, theoretically but less so in practice in public and private international law) all sovereign entities are "equal". And within the EU, there is a strong presumption that human rights are protected.



I can't recall whether it was in Cyprus or not, probably not, but I do remember a case where a passenger in a taxi was convicted of vehicular homicide under similar circumstances.



I would like to think that this would not happen in North Cyprus; but who knows.

punktlich


Joined: 25/12/2008
Posts: 50

Message Posted:
27/01/2009 20:59

"That is an opinion.. I'm assuming the AG's opinion is also highly respected..."

It is nothing but an opinion. Perhaps an optimistic one. But it appears that this AG is less "respected" than others. And therefore less influential. Take it for what it is worth. Most appellate counsel are more subdued, if that's the word.



"'This is a political case' .. again, that is YOUR opinion..."

On the contrary. It's objectively a political case because the ROC and Turkey/TRNC are, respectively, paying the costs -- the Orams aren't. I reserve the "political" monicker to cases of (perhaps cynical) political interest. Isn't this one? Courts are often influenced by political matters. Read the "doctrine of necessity" case http://www.uniset.ca/other/cs2/1964CLR195.html



"But as we know, it ISN'T a "border" (as far as the ECJ/Court of Eng/Wales are concerned)..."

Wrong. In private int'l law this case crosses sovereign borders: Cyprus/UK. The EU is not a State or sovereign entity.

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
27/01/2009 22:55

re 96 Turtle ." Please accept that not everybody on this board will agree with you as much as you would like them too !"



... You think I expected that ?!?



Re long-term leases .. I'll wager you'll be saying "that bugger" must have an inside track... ;)

Turtle


Joined: 28/05/2007
Posts: 2669

Message Posted:
27/01/2009 23:04

Mark you are so vain,



I will wager whatever you like but we would all be interested where you get your "absolute" facts from.

pilgrim



Joined: 11/05/2007
Posts: 1404

Message Posted:
27/01/2009 23:11

lease rumours have been around for at least 5 years

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
27/01/2009 23:13

re 98 Punktlich



So now we are discussing how respected the legal advice of of the AG is..?!;)

I certainly won't be taking as read your "opinion" re the more outwardly placid characteristic of appellate counsel, either.. This has B all to do with the Orams' case..! We all have to WAIT..



"On the contrary. It's objectively a political case because the ROC and Turkey/TRNC are, respectively, paying the costs -- the Orams aren't."



No.. it is not "political" at all.. you wish to portray it as such.. this is, plain and simple, a case were military might has rode over the law and now the owner MAY have found a way to get redress via the Courts in a country were the defendants have assets. It *would* be a political decision to, in any way, interfere with the judicial system...



I keep asking this.. Who has proof the Mr A is being "funded"? For a long time he was crying for help and the RoC said we can't help you. At least the Orams' have come clean re the help they are getting and

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
27/01/2009 23:15

cont from 102..



and WHY.



Re the "border" bit.. I was referring to the cease fire line in Cyprus ;) The UK /UN/ EU/ ECHR do not recognise "TRNC" as a nation.....

cronos


Joined: 26/10/2008
Posts: 2093

Message Posted:
27/01/2009 23:40

mmmmmm.....your thoughts please on the "leasehold" hypothesis.....as it would apply to Pre-74 turkish Title ?



I know NC is a massive rumour mill,but I have heard on a few occasions that buyers are not getting their PTP and Kocans for Pre-74 Turkish Title Deeds for whatever reason,and long leases have been suggested as a solution.



I bought my property freehold , and consider that I paid a premium to avoid exchange properties.....so why should i accept a lease,and WHO would be the leaseholder?The TC developer who built and sold it me , or the TRNC government?



Either way,should I get compensation for the loss of freehold?



I would value your input.

Aussie


Joined: 17/06/2007
Posts: 657

Message Posted:
28/01/2009 00:24

Punktlich





In general with most Australian litigation that I have been involved with or studied (I am not a lawyer) court awards are based on actual damages caused by the defendent in this case the Orams suffered by the Plaintiff.



However in the Orams case the Plaintiff was unable to access and use their property in any event due to the laws of the TRNC and Turkey etc.



Surely any actual loss incurred by them relates to the TRNC or due to its international non recognition Turkey. Arguably to date the Orams have improved the value of the property and if they hadn't bought and built on it in no way would the Plaintiff have been financially advantaged to date.



Whilst I understand th ECJ isn't looking behind the facts of the original ROC judgement isn't this a flaw in the original ROC judgement.





Aussie

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
28/01/2009 09:25

Hi Cronos re msg 104



I've always recommended folk to buy on such deeds so I'd say hang in there - and get your purchase registered and deeds from the RoC LR.



I fail to see how anyone who was following the recommended legal line could be "penalised".



Not that you'd probably WANT to, but you'd win, hands down, at the ECHR.



re msg 105 Aussie



You are missing the point.. if someone built a house in your lemon grove - without your permission, you might not CARE if they "improved" the value of the plot.



The order was for demolition of the property - Mr A doesn't and didn't want it built.



As you say.. rightly, or wrongly, the Judgement is not being questioned.. The nature of it's enforcement is.

punktlich


Joined: 25/12/2008
Posts: 50

Message Posted:
28/01/2009 14:21

I am a lawyer. That does not mean that I know much, nor do I pretend to although I have a lot of law degrees. Five, from universities in three countries.

The TRNC can best be compared to Israel and the Territories, or Taiwan: other places where "sovereignty" or at least control and occupation, are in contest, legal systems in conflict and land has value. Palestinian families lay claim to land in Israel: but what court will enforce that claim? Here you have an anomaly that only by fleeing the EU can any claimant to TRNC property avoid risk to other property. How would a USA court rule? Would such a court accept the reality of control, democracy, passage of time? A century from now will the heirs of people like the Orams be at risk? Can you today buy free of risk property in East Jerusalem or Girne?

Perhaps Asil Nadir and Marc Rich should be your guides. And bear this in mind: even within the EU administrative and tax claims have VERY LIMITED cross-border enforcement.

punktlich


Joined: 25/12/2008
Posts: 50

Message Posted:
28/01/2009 14:30

(cont'd)

But when it comes to Cypriot (as in R. of) causes of action against occupiers of contested land in the North there are issues not discussed on this Board:

Much land in the North occupied or paid for by foreigners (read: British) is held in some form of trust. Titles and beneficial interest will often be obscure. If I were advising a claimant to land in the North I would attack (as doubtless Apostolides did, I've forgotten) on the basis of usurpation of rights. In land law it is common for a claimant to title to sue for rent that the occupier has already paid to someone else. Apostolides probably sued also in tort because the Orams were not tenants but buyers. They could probably have been sued in England on the ROC judgment based on domicile even if they had no property there.

It's a pity they didn't engage in asset protection and estate planning. But then that's an expertise largely limited to American lawyers. Try http://assetprotectionbook.com