The Best Cyprus Community

Skip to content


Garbitsch's Gradual Settlement Proposal

Propose and discuss specific solutions to aspects of the Cyprus Problem

Postby Kifeas » Sun Oct 09, 2005 10:00 pm

bg_turk wrote: Yes, I have followed that case as well, and although the court has ruled in favor of the TC, the implementation of the ruling has been suspended until a "permament" solution is found. Basically, the RoC is violating the rights of citizens of turkish ethnic origin to accomodate the rights of those of greek ethnic origin. Something which is legally unacceptable and is a pure form of discrimination.


Again, you are pouring out erroneous and misleading claims.
The case under consideration has not been suspended. The Turkish Cypriot (Mustafa Imbrahim) has won the case and the RoC was ordered to reinstate his house to him. The RoC had proposed and offered to him an alternative house so that the GC refugees will not be deported, something which he voluntary accepted as an amicable settlement until a solution is found. If he had not accepted the alternative housing proposal and insisted the ruling of the court to be executed in it's original form, then the government had no other option than to give him his original house.
User avatar
Kifeas
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 4927
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 10:19 am
Location: Lapithos, Kyrenia, now Pafos; Cyprus.

Postby bg_turk » Sun Oct 09, 2005 10:11 pm

Kifeas wrote:Again, you are pouring out erroneous and misleading claims.
The case under consideration has not been suspended. The Turkish Cypriot (Mustafa Imbrahim) has won the case and the RoC was ordered to reinstate his house to him. The RoC had proposed and offered to him an alternative house so that the GC refugees will not be deported, something which he voluntary accepted as an amicable settlement until a solution is found. If he had not accepted the alternative housing proposal and insisted the ruling of the court to be executed in it's original form, then the government had no other option than to give him his original house.


You are the one pouring out erroneous and misleading claims. Before insulting others intelligence I would first check my facts are right, it may be excusable for me as a foreigner to be wrong, but you are a cypriot and should try to be honest with people, rather than pouring out your greek propaganda of how good RoC is to its citizens of Turkish origin.

http://www.cyprusaction.org/humanrights ... sviolation
By George Psyllides
TWO ELDERLY Turkish Cypriots from Paphos have been refused the right to
enjoy their property for the past two years, even though they have been
living in the government-controlled areas since 2001.

The recent easing of restrictions on the freedom of movement has
exposed
the chaos reigning in the management of Turkish Cypriot properties,
while often pointing to blatant irregularities for which no one has yet
been held accountable.

After 1974 invasion, the government created a body to manage the
properties abandoned by Turkish Cypriots who moved to the occupied
northern part of the island.

The ‘Guardian of Turkish Cypriot Properties’ was established to take
care of the properties and return them to their rightful owners, should
they choose to return.

Only three days ago Interior Minister Andreas Christou declared that
Turkish Cypriots wishing to claim their property must have residency in
the government-controlled areas first.

But the Sunday Mail has learned that Mustafa Ibrahim Mustafa and his
wife Zehra Salih Emir Hussein, both around 85 years old and from the
village of Ayia Varvara in Paphos, have been deprived of their property
– even though they have been living in their village for the past two
years.

The couple are the legal owners of around 200 donums of land and two
houses but have been forced, since their return from Australia in 2001,
to live in squalid conditions in a rented home, their only income being
their pensions from Cyprus and Australia.

Mustafa left the island in 1977. The 85-year-old has gone through
considerable hardship in his life, especially in the turbulent years
before the Turkish invasion.

In 1973, he was seized by Turkish Cypriot irregulars and accused of
collaborating with the Greek Cypriots. He was released during the
invasion a year later and subsequently left for Australia along with
his
wife and five children.

He returned here to live around two years ago, but discovered that his
land had all been taken under the protection of the Guardian of Turkish
Cypriot Properties.

His efforts to claim it back have so far been met with mountains of red
tape and empty promises from deputies and government officials. He has
been sent from one government department to another, each time to be
told that his case would be sorted out promptly.

Mustafa eventually filed lawsuits and lodged a complaint with the
Ombudswoman, Eliana Nicolaou, whose report on the case paints a grim
picture of the way the issue of Turkish properties has been handled
over
the past 30 years.

Nicolaou slammed the way the issue had been dealt with, arguing that in
this specific case the property could not be considered as abandoned
and
the owners had every right to use, enjoy and dispose of it in
accordance
with the constitution.

Nicolaou said the Guardian should have seen that, but apparently did
not, and had let a lot of time go by without acting.

She suggested in December 2001 that the Guardian was obliged to take
immediate action to rectify the situation.

Nicolaou said that Mustafa should be given, within a month,
compensation
amounting to £48,300 in 1998 – plus nine per cent interest since then –
for around 20 donums of land out of a total of 28, that had been
appropriated by the Land Development Organisation to use for building
houses.

The rest of his property should also be restored as soon as possible,
the Ombudswoman said.

The law specifies that Turkish Cypriot land can only be used for public
projects. But Mustafa’s land was subsequently sold as building plots
going for between £9,000 and £13,000 a piece – though one sold for as
high as £34,000 – not only to locals but also foreigners.

"Where was the public interest? Would any Greek Cypriot have accepted
this; to appropriate their land for nothing?" a friend of the Turkish
Cypriots told the Sunday Mail.

The state also appropriated another piece of the couple’s land, worth
£137,000. Again, they have not received a cent in compensation.

But perhaps the most blatant abuse of their property concerns the use
of
their land to build the Amargeti to Paphos road; the land was not even
formally expropriated.

The rest of their land is largely used by Greek Cypriot farmers, while
one of the houses they owned has since been demolished and the other is
used for livestock.

On another part of their land, olive trees were planted by a Greek
Cypriot just two years ago, when the couple had already returned to the
island.

The family friend said only former Attorney-general Alecos Markides had
viewed the Turkish Cypriots’ plight with sympathy and ordered his
Paphos
lawyer to settle the case.

But according to the friend, there was opposition at the time from the
Guardian’s office and the case is still on hold.


Mustafa considers next move
By George Psyllides
(archive article - Tuesday, October 12, 2004)
Meeting with Christou as new case arises

A TURKISH Cypriot man who won a court case for the reinstatement of his property in the government-controlled areas said he was not sure yet whether he would be filing an objection to an interim order suspending the execution of the decision.

Arif Mustafa was given until October 29 to file an objection against an interim order issued by the Supreme Court after Attorney-general Solon Nikitas appealed a decision to reinstate the man’s property in Limassol.

Mustafa yesterday met with Interior Minister Andreas Christou who said the two men exchanged views on various issues related to the case.

“We agreed, after he thought of certain things that were put to his consideration, to meet again at some future date and possibly achieve a positive conclusion to the Mustafa case,” the minister said.

Christou said the meeting had been set up by the Interior Ministry and lawyer Christodoulos Taramountas, who represents the Greek Cypriot refugee family currently occupying Mustafa’s home.

According to the initial court decision, the family would have to abandon the property immediately.
Nikitas appealed the decision and also filed a request for its suspension until the appeal was heard by the Supreme Court.

The minister said the meeting took place “to hear, in light of the suspension of the court decision, any thoughts that Mr Arif might have had”.

Asked to comment on the possibility Mustafa filed an objection, Christou said: “It is his right and there is no place for comments on citizens’ rights”.

Mustafa said his was satisfied by the meeting with the minister but did not say whether he would object the interim order.

Earlier yesterday, the minister met with another Turkish Cypriot, Ibrahim Mustafa, who presented his demands regarding his property in Paphos.

“We heard the issues they tabled; part of these are included in their correspondence with the ministry while some others are new.

“We will study them and come back with another meeting for further discussion,” Christou said.
The minister added that no Greek Cypriot refugees were affected by the specific case.

It is understood that Mustafa wants compensation for his land, which has been appropriated by the Land Development Organisation.

The case concerns 20 donums of land in Paphos, expropriated for building houses.

The owner, 86-year-old Mustafa Ibrahim Mustafa, has been trying to claim his property, a total of 200 donums of land and two houses since 2001.

He filed lawsuits and lodged a complaint with Ombudswoman Eliana Nicolaou who suggested in December 2001 that Ibrahim Mustafa should be given £48,300 (in 1998 values) plus nine per cent interest since then.

The state also appropriated another piece of the elderly man’s land worth £137,000 but again he got nothing in compensation.



Copyright © Cyprus Mail 2005
User avatar
bg_turk
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 1172
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 11:24 pm
Location: Bulgaria

Postby Kifeas » Sun Oct 09, 2005 10:21 pm

garbitsch wrote:
Then all investigation is carried out whether they were not given a GC house and /or property in the north and which they continue to posses, or they have transferred to their children or they have sold to any other TC or foreigner, or they have bought other GC property illegally (under “TRNC” procedures.)


So in this line I figure that majority of T.Cs are not eligible to claim back their own properties in South, since most of them had already acquired a Greek Cypriot property in North.

You may argue that all this procedure constitutes some form of discrimination. Yes it does so, but a legal (constitutional) form of discrimination. The state (any EU state) has a duty to treat all its citizens equally and take all measures to protect their rights and interests. In the same way that the State has a duty to care for the TC’s rights, it also has for the GC refugee’s rights and interests visa vie their properties and houses in the north.


I didn't really said "this shouldn't be done". But there is still a discrimination and the legal system not only bars a Turkish Cypriot to get his propery back, but also he won't be able to win it back in ECHR because of what you have said. I mean, most of T.Cs hold G.C propery, thus they are automatically barred from their properties in South. And if they will go for suing RoC in ECHR, then the RoC govt will have the right to defend themselves by claiming that these people possess G.C property in North. On the other hand, a Greek Cypriot, even though he possesses a Turkish Cypriot property in South, is eligible to claim back his property in North.


Garbitsch, do you want the RoC to simply give them their property without questioning and then if they were given other GC house and /or property in the north and subsequently sold it illegally, arrest them and put them in jail for the illegality they committed in the north and also disenfranchise them upon a court ruling from their property in the south, in order to compensate the GC whose property they exploited in the north? What do you want the government to do under these circumstances?

Do you consider it moral, fair and logical that TCs occupy the GC properties in the north and at the same time be able to freely and easily gain possession of all their properties in the south, and then have the facility to sell both of them, grab the money and run abroad to live the rest of their lives like kings on other people’s expense?

You f*ked us in 1974 and got hold of 4 times more properties and of the highest value that exists in Cyprus (situated on 50% of the entire coastline of the island,) and you want to f*k us again?
User avatar
Kifeas
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 4927
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 10:19 am
Location: Lapithos, Kyrenia, now Pafos; Cyprus.

Postby garbitsch » Sun Oct 09, 2005 10:41 pm

You misunderstood me. What I was trying to say, this property issue should be solved in a settlement plan, and I do not really love to see G.Cs suing Turkey at ECHR all the time. As you say, it is as hard for a Turkish Cypriot to claim back his property in south as it is for a G.C.

Please, I want to clear the puzzle in my mind regarding to this issue. No need to use such language Kifeas.
User avatar
garbitsch
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 1158
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 2:21 am
Location: UK, but originally from Cyprus

Postby bg_turk » Sun Oct 09, 2005 10:43 pm

Kifeas wrote:Do you consider it moral, fair and logical that TCs occupy the GC properties in the north and at the same time be able to freely and easily gain possession of all their properties in the south, and then have the facility to sell both of them, grab the money and run abroad to live the rest of their lives like kings on other people’s expense?

In fact Piratis made quite a reasonable proposal, which you can read here:
http://www.cyprus-forum.com/viewtopic.php?t=3868

There are always mechanisms to ensure that TCs do not take unfair advantage of the situation and exploit your properties in the North. If you want a return to legality then you should be willing to do it unconditionally and for everybody.
Last edited by bg_turk on Sun Oct 09, 2005 10:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
bg_turk
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 1172
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 11:24 pm
Location: Bulgaria

Postby Kifeas » Sun Oct 09, 2005 10:45 pm

bg_turk wrote:You are the one pouring out erroneous and misleading claims. Before insulting others intelligence I would first check my facts are right, it may be excusable for me as a foreigner to be wrong, but you are a cypriot and should try to be honest with people, rather than pouring out your greek propaganda of how good RoC is to its citizens of Turkish origin.


You referred to the case of Ibrahim Mustafa, at least as far as I understood, and replied according to the most recent information I have. What you posted above regarding this case is probably old news. About the other cases you are referring above I am not aware, but if you read my previous posting (reply to garbitsch,) you will be perfectly able to understand the entire logic and proceedings regarding the TC's property rights in the south. Every TC that feels has is been wronged by the state and /or the RoC courts, is perfectly free to apply to the ECHR's. So far, to the best of my knowledge, no one has done it, and this is not because they do not know the existence of this court.

Furthermore, I want to speak straight on the whole matter of properties. The TCs gained access in the north to approximately four (4) times more GC properties (area wise,) than they have left back in the south. In terms of real estate value, this difference is estimated to be about 10-12 times more, the reason being due to the fact that the northern occupied area of Cyprus constitutes almost 50% of the entire coastline of the island, and as you know the coastline properties are considerably more valuable from a real estate perspective.

Concluding on this subject and in view of the above, I would like to say to our Turkish Cypriot compatriots that when someone is seating in a glass house, the last thing he would want to do is to throw stones outside, because the most certain thing he/she will achieve is to smash his/her own house.
User avatar
Kifeas
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 4927
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 10:19 am
Location: Lapithos, Kyrenia, now Pafos; Cyprus.

Postby bg_turk » Sun Oct 09, 2005 10:55 pm

Kifeas wrote:You referred to the case of Ibrahim Mustafa, at least as far as I understood, and replied according to the most recent information I have.

May I kindly ask you to provide the source for this information? I would in fact publically apologize to you, if you can show me that he has received back ALL of his property, or the equivalent of all his property. To me the news article is quite clear in its last line: "The state also appropriated another piece of the elderly man’s land worth £137,000 but again he got nothing in compensation."

Every TC that feels has is been wronged by the state and /or the RoC courts, is perfectly free to apply to the ECHR's. So far, to the best of my knowledge, no one has done it, and this is not because they do not know the existence of this court.

I am very well aware of that fact, but you must be aware that it is much easier to apply when you are a recognized state, than when you are some unrecognized entity. Or maybe we should ask garbitsch, why he hasnt applied yet.

Concluding on this subject and in view of the above, I would like to say to our Turkish Cypriot compatriots that when someone is seating in a glass house, the last thing he would want to do is to throw stones outside, because the most certain thing he/she will achieve is to smash his/her own house.

Again I agree with you. Before demanding your legal rights, you should make absolutely sure that you are legally consistent yourself. Do you demand the restoration of properties for ALL cypriots? If so, are you doing everything you can about it, or do you ignore the rights of some people along ethnic lines even though it is absolutely in your power to restore their legal property rights?
Last edited by bg_turk on Sun Oct 09, 2005 11:10 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
bg_turk
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 1172
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 11:24 pm
Location: Bulgaria

Postby Kifeas » Sun Oct 09, 2005 11:03 pm

bg_turk wrote:
Kifeas wrote:Do you consider it moral, fair and logical that TCs occupy the GC properties in the north and at the same time be able to freely and easily gain possession of all their properties in the south, and then have the facility to sell both of them, grab the money and run abroad to live the rest of their lives like kings on other people’s expense?

In fact Piratis made quite a reasonable proposal, which you can read here:
http://www.cyprus-forum.com/viewtopic.php?t=3868

There are always mechanisms to ensure that TCs do not take unfair advantage of the situation and exploit your properties in the North. If you want a return to legality then you should be willing to do it unconditionally and for everybody.


It is done but not unconditionally, for the reasons I explained. The State is perfectly legitimate to do so, in view of its constitutional duty to protect the interests of all its citizens, the TC property owners in the south (and in the north) and the GC property owners (refugees) from the north and in view of its (the State's) constitutional duty to treat all its citizens on an equal footing.

You simply isolated a few cases, which have seen the lights of publicity, in order to claim that the RoC violates the TC's property rights. I know a hell a lot more cases in which the TC property owners got re-possession of their properties and some of them even sold them. This however was done after they had been cleared out of any abuse challenges regarding misuse of GC properties in the north.
User avatar
Kifeas
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 4927
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 10:19 am
Location: Lapithos, Kyrenia, now Pafos; Cyprus.

Postby bg_turk » Sun Oct 09, 2005 11:08 pm

Kifeas wrote:You simply isolated a few cases, which have seen the lights of publicity, in order to claim that the RoC violates the TC's property rights. I know a hell a lot more cases in which the TC property owners got re-possession of their properties and some of them even sold them. This however was done after they had been cleared out of any abuse challenges regarding misuse of GC properties in the north.

Excuse my ignorance, but I know of no case where a TC has been able to reclaim (not buy) his land. Can you give an example and preferably a source for it?
User avatar
bg_turk
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 1172
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 11:24 pm
Location: Bulgaria

Postby Kifeas » Sun Oct 09, 2005 11:14 pm

bg_turk wrote:
Every TC that feels has is been wronged by the state and /or the RoC courts, is perfectly free to apply to the ECHR's. So far, to the best of my knowledge, no one has done it, and this is not because they do not know the existence of this court.



I am very well aware of that fact, but you must be aware that it is much easier to apply when you are a recognized state, than when you are some unrecognized entity. Or maybe we should ask garbitsch, why he hasnt applied yet.


My friend, you make me laugh! The TCs will not apply to the ECHRs against "TRNC." They will apply against the RoC!
The TCs will not apply to the ECHRs in their capacity of "TRNC" "citizens."
They will apply in their capacity as RoC citizens!
Some of them have already done so, for other reasons, not property related, such as the case of Ibrahim Aziz, a TC citizen of the RoC, who applied and won against the RoC.
User avatar
Kifeas
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 4927
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 10:19 am
Location: Lapithos, Kyrenia, now Pafos; Cyprus.

PreviousNext

Return to Cyprus Problem Solution Proposals

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest