Is the European Commission fair on Cyprus? (Orams 3 etc)

Aussie


Joined: 17/06/2007
Posts: 657

Message Posted:
04/01/2009 22:22

Is the European Commission fair on Cyprus?



By Dr. Kypros Chrysostomides



THE Apostolides v. Orams case revolves around the question whether a Cyprus judgment obtained by a Cypriot refugee against a British couple who claimed to have bought his land in occupied Cyprus on which they then built their holiday villa, can be enforced in the UK. The case was referred by the Court of Appeal in London to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) for an advisory opinion. From the recent Opinion of Advocate General Ms. Kokkot, of the ECJ, several questions arise as to the views taken by the European Commission.



The Advocate General reiterates that under international law, the Republic of Cyprus is the only recognised state on the island. Its territory encompasses the northern area of the island, in which the land in issue in this case is situated. Protocol No 10 to the Act of Accession shows that the Member States of the EU also regarded the north of Cyprus as part of the territory of the Repub

Aussie


Joined: 17/06/2007
Posts: 657

Message Posted:
04/01/2009 22:23

Republic of Cyprus and as part of the acceding territory. Otherwise it would have been unnecessary to suspend the application of the acquis there.



The Advocate General confirmed that the suspension of the acquis in the northern areas of Cyprus was only meant to avoid a situation in which Cyprus would infringe Community law by not being able to enforce it in the area under occupation.



In para. 50 of her Opinion, Ms. Kokkot makes reference to the Loizidou Case and its well known effects. It also refers to the “Immovable Property Commission” established in the occupied part of Cyprus.



The secessionist regime claims that this Commission constitutes a domestic remedy which will need to be exhausted prior to filing a petition at the European Court of Human Rights. This question has yet to be resolved by the ECourtHR and is strongly contested.



Strangely enough, however, the European Commission took the view that: “international practice assigns the resolution of individual propert

Aussie


Joined: 17/06/2007
Posts: 657

Message Posted:
04/01/2009 22:24

disputes following armed conflict to specialised institutions.” and postulates that: “[t]he compensation regime introduced under the supervision of the ECourtHR can be construed as such a convention” i.e. as a convention offering an alternative legal remedy to an application for the recognition and enforcement of the Cyprus judgment in the UK against the British trespassers.



The view taken by Advocate General Ms. Kokkot in paras. 70 and 73 of her Opinion is crystal clear: “The Commission’s argument that, pursuant to Article 71(1) of Regulation No 44/2001, is overridden by the compensation scheme approved by the European Court of Human Rights is also untenable” and: “It must therefore be concluded that the judgment whose recognition is sought in the main proceedings concerns a civil matter within the meaning of Article 1(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 and thus falls within the scope of the regulation”.

Aussie


Joined: 17/06/2007
Posts: 657

Message Posted:
04/01/2009 22:25

Why, then, has the Commission adopted a position that may show partiality in favour of usurpers of refugees’ properties in the occupied part of Cyprus? Why has the Commission chosen to disregard the elements of illegal occupation, illegal attempt at secession and dismemberment of the territory of Cyprus, a full member of the European Union? Is this compatible with its pronouncements that a solution to the Cyprus problem should be based on principles on which the very existence of the EU is founded?



Dr Kypros Chrysostomides is President of ‘Epalxi’ and former Minister of Justice and Public Order





Sunday, January 4, 2009



Copyright © Cyprus Mail 2008

WAZ-24-7



Joined: 18/10/2008
Posts: 695

Message Posted:
04/01/2009 23:44

Aussie,

Thank you for this article posting.

It would seem that the European Comission take the common sense stance and would prefer that Mr Apostolides seeks recourse through the ECHR supervised and supported Imovable Property Commission.

This indeed would be the common sense approach and Mr Apostolides would be compensated for his loss.

However, Mr Apostolides has other aspirations. To inflict as much damage and political destruction upon the TRNC as he can. It is the Orams, unfortunately, that are the pawns in this highly charged and heavily funded civil litigation.



In answer to Dr.Crysostomides question. The Commission adopt this position because it shows the most common sense approach to a problem that is ill suited to civil litigation. The position represents fairness and an understanding of the potential for anarchy should land issues be allowed to progress through civil courts.

The solution for an Island settlement is far more likely to succeed with the EU position.

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
05/01/2009 00:45

Waz, AGAIN, you miss the point...



Mr Apostolides, and all the "winners" of cases in the ECHR against TURKEY doesn't want compensation for their properties.. they want compo for loss of use..



In the most recent ECHR case ( that of a GC with property in Varosha - the resort area south of Famagusta - supposedly under UN control ! ) Turkey tried to offer compo for the property - and it was no small amount - but the GC refused the offer - it wasn't ASKED FOR - as the property remains theirs..



Apply your "common sense" to a military invasion/ intervention and ethnic cleansing solution - followed by years of negotiation in bad faith - is somewhat hard to rationalise - unless you have a vested interest.



The EU position is normally "freedom of movement" - the right to live and work where one pleases.... Why should it be an exception in Cyprus?





I think the "rump" RoC were foolish to advise its citizens to boycott the IPC - they should have swamped it with applications..

fire starter


Joined: 19/06/2008
Posts: 3401

Message Posted:
05/01/2009 17:54

aussie

i don't think the trnc can have it all ways and neither can the roc.

i understand that the trnc farmers have recently been given loads of eu money.

it seem as if the eu spend enough cash here but don't recognise the trnc.

to be truthfull i think it is all one very large mess.

bachelibelly


Joined: 04/09/2008
Posts: 275

Message Posted:
05/01/2009 18:04

mmmmmm, any comments on who will fund the compensation for T/Cs loss of use of land vacated in the south or shall we just use the usual one sided coin remedy!!!!



Have alresdy written your expected answer down and put it in a sealed envelope.....just to see if my telepathy is still intact,



Regards

Cypfan


Joined: 10/10/2008
Posts: 104

Message Posted:
05/01/2009 19:41

Msg 9,



Will any compensation be needed for TC property when the TCs have been free to reclaim it at any time? I don't think so.

rtddci


Joined: 29/12/2007
Posts: 842

Message Posted:
05/01/2009 19:50

The current legal answer lies with the forthcoming ECJ decision based on the AG report which gives no legal credence to the NC compensation scheme. Unfortunately anyone with exchange land is open to a legal case brought in the South and thus huge legal costs and or compensation without actual ownership of the land. Such land is a liability. Their legal recourse for compensation could be against the TRNC government that promised such land was legally theirs. Now whether the TRNC would agree or could afford such is another matter. I understand that the Orams have now got further anonymous financial backing for their legal case.

WAZ-24-7



Joined: 18/10/2008
Posts: 695

Message Posted:
05/01/2009 21:08

Mark Msg 7



Mark,

Your words "compensation" is what is sort after.The relevance of a payment for property or loss of use is insignificant in that the land is excluded from use by any refugee due to political exclusion. This is clear. The Imovable Property Com. seek to address compensation for loss and forfiet of the said property.

There will most definately not be a mass movement of refugees back to land previously occupied particularly after 34 years and respecting that many original refugees are now deceased.

The IPC is the clear common sense way forward.

The EU freedom of movement cannot really be applied until the TRNC ascends itself to independant EU membership.

The ROC will most definately not attain control of the North via numerous civil litigations. It really is fighting a loosing battle.

The longer that any ROC citizens boycott the IPC the weaker their case becomes.

We must remember that the Orams judgment, at this moment, is for enforcement juristiction only.

WAZ-24-7



Joined: 18/10/2008
Posts: 695

Message Posted:
05/01/2009 21:21

rtddci, msg 11

The Immovable Property Commission has been endorsed by the European Court of Human Rights. The majority of ROC citizens have boycotted the compensation scheme.



land Issues were dealt with in a proposal by Kofi Anan on behalf of UN in 2004.

The ROC declined whilst TRNC accepted.

The issue drags on. The TRNC becomes stronger and the issue gets weaker as time passes by. Many refugees are now deceased.

Justice Jack in the London High Court has indicated that property issues between N and S are ill suited to the civil courts and civil litigation. Political settlement is the only wat to achieve fair and just settlement.

The ROC must compromise, accept the certainty and accept compensation for their loss. TCs must likewise accept compensation. Live and let Live. A settlement must arrive in 2009 for the benefit of all.

Hatty


Joined: 13/07/2008
Posts: 260

Message Posted:
05/01/2009 22:23

This is quite an interesting article



http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/yazarDetay.do?haberno=128986

bachelibelly


Joined: 04/09/2008
Posts: 275

Message Posted:
05/01/2009 22:30

Cypfan; in free you mean if they attempt to live in ROC for 6months prior to trying to unravel the web and jump over the hoops attatched to the "procedure "of getting their land back.......





And of course " Could you please move that plane off my back garden please"



And before anyone saysit "I know compulsory purchase,only suitable land ,yeah,yeah."

LilleJoe


Joined: 18/12/2008
Posts: 18

Message Posted:
06/01/2009 18:39

Cypfan wrote:



Will any compensation be needed for TC property when the TCs have been free to reclaim it at any time? I don't think so.



The truth is that the TCs have not been and are still not free to reclaim their lands. The only way we can reclaim our lands is if we move to the South and live there for at least 6 months. If I am a TC living in the UK and not in the TRNC, why should I have to move to South Greek Cyprus just to claim what is righfully mine? Thast is not "freedom of movement", what that is doing is forcing me to drop everything in the UK and go live somewhere I don't want to live.



That law is only designed to so that the TCs have no "Legal" right to claim their lands no matter where they live unless they forcibly move to the South. And it is also Greek propaganda in that if the TCs make that move the GCs "government" can boast that TCs are living under GC rule and not to forget that the population of the Greek South Cyprus also increases.



Even if TCs move