Cyprus-Forum.com

[zan]

Halil,

If I may quote a sentence from the article about these villages:

"The hardworking and sacrificing people of this village, after 1974 also willingly joined in the migration for freedom to the North."

It seems to point to a fundamental contradiction in the official Turkish Cypriot line. After all, the so called "ITEM" law was passed, by means of which people renounced ownership of the property they had left behind in the south and, in exchange, were awarded property left behind by Greek Cypriots in the north. The RoC does not recognise the legitmacy of this, but from the official Turkish Cypriot perspective these people abandoned all claims to this property. Does this leave the Turkish Cypriot side with any right to criticise what happened to this property? I mean, if I enter into a legally binding contract to exchange my house with another person's house, then the new owner may do what he wishes with my old house, including bulldozing it to the ground, may he not?

Of course this consideration does not apply to people like BirKibrisli who never acquired exchange properties and have never renounced ownership of their homes in the south. But you must admit that there is something of a contradiction between the situation created under the exchange property legislation and screening a television series inviting people to shed a tear for the abandoned villages.

Another excellent observation and post by Timbo that will no doubt be silently ignored...

A columnist in the Afrika newspaper last week made a comment about the Orams case that I think is relevant here:

http://www.afrikagazetesi.net/modules.p ... artid=2246

This may strike a more discordant note with Greek Cypriots, but he claims that in a total of 8,357 instances, there has been construction on Turkish-Cypriot owned property in the south without the permission of the Turkish Cypriot owner. He says that the Turkish Cypriot authorities, rather than trying to defend the Orams, who do not have a leg to stand on under international law, should be defending these Turkish Cypriot rights in similar actions.

Did he give any indication as to why this might be Tim and exactly what he is asking of the TRNC???

[Tim Drayton]

Halil,

If I may quote a sentence from the article about these villages:

"The hardworking and sacrificing people of this village, after 1974 also willingly joined in the migration for freedom to the North."

It seems to point to a fundamental contradiction in the official Turkish Cypriot line. After all, the so called "ITEM" law was passed, by means of which people renounced ownership of the property they had left behind in the south and, in exchange, were awarded property left behind by Greek Cypriots in the north. The RoC does not recognise the legitmacy of this, but from the official Turkish Cypriot perspective these people abandoned all claims to this property. Does this leave the Turkish Cypriot side with any right to criticise what happened to this property? I mean, if I enter into a legally binding contract to exchange my house with another person's house, then the new owner may do what he wishes with my old house, including bulldozing it to the ground, may he not?

Of course this consideration does not apply to people like BirKibrisli who never acquired exchange properties and have never renounced ownership of their homes in the south. But you must admit that there is something of a contradiction between the situation created under the exchange property legislation and screening a television series inviting people to shed a tear for the abandoned villages.

Another excellent observation and post by Timbo that will no doubt be silently ignored...

A columnist in the Afrika newspaper last week made a comment about the Orams case that I think is relevant here:

http://www.afrikagazetesi.net/modules.p ... artid=2246

This may strike a more discordant note with Greek Cypriots, but he claims that in a total of 8,357 instances, there has been construction on Turkish-Cypriot owned property in the south without the permission of the Turkish Cypriot owner. He says that the Turkish Cypriot authorities, rather than trying to defend the Orams, who do not have a leg to stand on under international law, should be defending these Turkish Cypriot rights in similar actions.

Did he give any indication as to why this might be Tim and exactly what he is asking of the TRNC???

I think in short he is saying what İnönü was saying in his famous 1964 letter to Dr Kutchuk.

[zan]

Halil,

If I may quote a sentence from the article about these villages:

"The hardworking and sacrificing people of this village, after 1974 also willingly joined in the migration for freedom to the North."

It seems to point to a fundamental contradiction in the official Turkish Cypriot line. After all, the so called "ITEM" law was passed, by means of which people renounced ownership of the property they had left behind in the south and, in exchange, were awarded property left behind by Greek Cypriots in the north. The RoC does not recognise the legitmacy of this, but from the official Turkish Cypriot perspective these people abandoned all claims to this property. Does this leave the Turkish Cypriot side with any right to criticise what happened to this property? I mean, if I enter into a legally binding contract to exchange my house with another person's house, then the new owner may do what he wishes with my old house, including bulldozing it to the ground, may he not?

Of course this consideration does not apply to people like BirKibrisli who never acquired exchange properties and have never renounced ownership of their homes in the south. But you must admit that there is something of a contradiction between the situation created under the exchange property legislation and screening a television series inviting people to shed a tear for the abandoned villages.

Another excellent observation and post by Timbo that will no doubt be silently ignored...

A columnist in the Afrika newspaper last week made a comment about the Orams case that I think is relevant here:

http://www.afrikagazetesi.net/modules.p ... artid=2246

This may strike a more discordant note with Greek Cypriots, but he claims that in a total of 8,357 instances, there has been construction on Turkish-Cypriot owned property in the south without the permission of the Turkish Cypriot owner. He says that the Turkish Cypriot authorities, rather than trying to defend the Orams, who do not have a leg to stand on under international law, should be defending these Turkish Cypriot rights in similar actions.

Did he give any indication as to why this might be Tim and exactly what he is asking of the TRNC???

I think in short he is saying what İnönü was saying in his famous 1964 letter to Dr Kutchuk.

Exactly....Perhaps he should be listening to those that are more central to the plot.....Anyone can make silly remarks.

[Get Real!]

Halil,

If I may quote a sentence from the article about these villages:

"The hardworking and sacrificing people of this village, after 1974 also willingly joined in the migration for freedom to the North."

It seems to point to a fundamental contradiction in the official Turkish Cypriot line. After all, the so called "ITEM" law was passed, by means of which people renounced ownership of the property they had left behind in the south and, in exchange, were awarded property left behind by Greek Cypriots in the north. The RoC does not recognise the legitmacy of this, but from the official Turkish Cypriot perspective these people abandoned all claims to this property. Does this leave the Turkish Cypriot side with any right to criticise what happened to this property? I mean, if I enter into a legally binding contract to exchange my house with another person's house, then the new owner may do what he wishes with my old house, including bulldozing it to the ground, may he not?

Of course this consideration does not apply to people like BirKibrisli who never acquired exchange properties and have never renounced ownership of their homes in the south. But you must admit that there is something of a contradiction between the situation created under the exchange property legislation and screening a television series inviting people to shed a tear for the abandoned villages.

Another excellent observation and post by Timbo that will no doubt be silently ignored...

A columnist in the Afrika newspaper last week made a comment about the Orams case that I think is relevant here:

http://www.afrikagazetesi.net/modules.p ... artid=2246

This may strike a more discordant note with Greek Cypriots, but he claims that in a total of 8,357 instances, there has been construction on Turkish-Cypriot owned property in the south without the permission of the Turkish Cypriot owner. He says that the Turkish Cypriot authorities, rather than trying to defend the Orams, who do not have a leg to stand on under international law, should be defending these Turkish Cypriot rights in similar actions.

The article seems to have gone now but either way I can’t read Turkish!

With regards to TC properties, the RoC has an entire section dedicated to these, so if anyone feels they have a case against the government a quick trip to see and speak with the relevant minister should sort things out...

CENTRAL TURKISH CYPRIOT PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT SERVICE
Ministry of the Interior - Nicosia
Tel. 22303102 - 22302772 - 22302765 - 22302280

http://www.moi.gov.cy/moi/citizenschart ... enDocument

[zan]

Halil,

If I may quote a sentence from the article about these villages:

"The hardworking and sacrificing people of this village, after 1974 also willingly joined in the migration for freedom to the North."

It seems to point to a fundamental contradiction in the official Turkish Cypriot line. After all, the so called "ITEM" law was passed, by means of which people renounced ownership of the property they had left behind in the south and, in exchange, were awarded property left behind by Greek Cypriots in the north. The RoC does not recognise the legitmacy of this, but from the official Turkish Cypriot perspective these people abandoned all claims to this property. Does this leave the Turkish Cypriot side with any right to criticise what happened to this property? I mean, if I enter into a legally binding contract to exchange my house with another person's house, then the new owner may do what he wishes with my old house, including bulldozing it to the ground, may he not?

Of course this consideration does not apply to people like BirKibrisli who never acquired exchange properties and have never renounced ownership of their homes in the south. But you must admit that there is something of a contradiction between the situation created under the exchange property legislation and screening a television series inviting people to shed a tear for the abandoned villages.

Another excellent observation and post by Timbo that will no doubt be silently ignored...

A columnist in the Afrika newspaper last week made a comment about the Orams case that I think is relevant here:

http://www.afrikagazetesi.net/modules.p ... artid=2246

This may strike a more discordant note with Greek Cypriots, but he claims that in a total of 8,357 instances, there has been construction on Turkish-Cypriot owned property in the south without the permission of the Turkish Cypriot owner. He says that the Turkish Cypriot authorities, rather than trying to defend the Orams, who do not have a leg to stand on under international law, should be defending these Turkish Cypriot rights in similar actions.

The article seems to have gone now but either way I can’t read Turkish!

With regards to TC properties, the RoC has an entire section dedicated to these, so if anyone feels they have a case against the government a quick trip to see and speak with the relevant minister should sort things out...

CENTRAL TURKISH CYPRIOT PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT SERVICE
Ministry of the Interior - Nicosia
Tel. 22303102 - 22302772 - 22302765 - 22302280

http://www.moi.gov.cy/moi/citizenschart ... enDocument

You forgot to tell them about the 6 month wait though GR...

[Get Real!]

Halil,

If I may quote a sentence from the article about these villages:

"The hardworking and sacrificing people of this village, after 1974 also willingly joined in the migration for freedom to the North."

It seems to point to a fundamental contradiction in the official Turkish Cypriot line. After all, the so called "ITEM" law was passed, by means of which people renounced ownership of the property they had left behind in the south and, in exchange, were awarded property left behind by Greek Cypriots in the north. The RoC does not recognise the legitmacy of this, but from the official Turkish Cypriot perspective these people abandoned all claims to this property. Does this leave the Turkish Cypriot side with any right to criticise what happened to this property? I mean, if I enter into a legally binding contract to exchange my house with another person's house, then the new owner may do what he wishes with my old house, including bulldozing it to the ground, may he not?

Of course this consideration does not apply to people like BirKibrisli who never acquired exchange properties and have never renounced ownership of their homes in the south. But you must admit that there is something of a contradiction between the situation created under the exchange property legislation and screening a television series inviting people to shed a tear for the abandoned villages.

Another excellent observation and post by Timbo that will no doubt be silently ignored...

A columnist in the Afrika newspaper last week made a comment about the Orams case that I think is relevant here:

http://www.afrikagazetesi.net/modules.p ... artid=2246

This may strike a more discordant note with Greek Cypriots, but he claims that in a total of 8,357 instances, there has been construction on Turkish-Cypriot owned property in the south without the permission of the Turkish Cypriot owner. He says that the Turkish Cypriot authorities, rather than trying to defend the Orams, who do not have a leg to stand on under international law, should be defending these Turkish Cypriot rights in similar actions.

The article seems to have gone now but either way I can’t read Turkish!

With regards to TC properties, the RoC has an entire section dedicated to these, so if anyone feels they have a case against the government a quick trip to see and speak with the relevant minister should sort things out...

CENTRAL TURKISH CYPRIOT PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT SERVICE
Ministry of the Interior - Nicosia
Tel. 22303102 - 22302772 - 22302765 - 22302280

http://www.moi.gov.cy/moi/citizenschart ... enDocument

You forgot to tell them about the 6 month wait though GR...

I don't know any of the intricate details that may be involved in investigating TC properties, but what I do know is that the GCs have NOWHERE to lodge THEIR complaints let alone worry about a six month wait!

[zan]

Halil,

If I may quote a sentence from the article about these villages:

"The hardworking and sacrificing people of this village, after 1974 also willingly joined in the migration for freedom to the North."

It seems to point to a fundamental contradiction in the official Turkish Cypriot line. After all, the so called "ITEM" law was passed, by means of which people renounced ownership of the property they had left behind in the south and, in exchange, were awarded property left behind by Greek Cypriots in the north. The RoC does not recognise the legitmacy of this, but from the official Turkish Cypriot perspective these people abandoned all claims to this property. Does this leave the Turkish Cypriot side with any right to criticise what happened to this property? I mean, if I enter into a legally binding contract to exchange my house with another person's house, then the new owner may do what he wishes with my old house, including bulldozing it to the ground, may he not?

Of course this consideration does not apply to people like BirKibrisli who never acquired exchange properties and have never renounced ownership of their homes in the south. But you must admit that there is something of a contradiction between the situation created under the exchange property legislation and screening a television series inviting people to shed a tear for the abandoned villages.

Another excellent observation and post by Timbo that will no doubt be silently ignored...

A columnist in the Afrika newspaper last week made a comment about the Orams case that I think is relevant here:

http://www.afrikagazetesi.net/modules.p ... artid=2246

This may strike a more discordant note with Greek Cypriots, but he claims that in a total of 8,357 instances, there has been construction on Turkish-Cypriot owned property in the south without the permission of the Turkish Cypriot owner. He says that the Turkish Cypriot authorities, rather than trying to defend the Orams, who do not have a leg to stand on under international law, should be defending these Turkish Cypriot rights in similar actions.

The article seems to have gone now but either way I can’t read Turkish!

With regards to TC properties, the RoC has an entire section dedicated to these, so if anyone feels they have a case against the government a quick trip to see and speak with the relevant minister should sort things out...

CENTRAL TURKISH CYPRIOT PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT SERVICE
Ministry of the Interior - Nicosia
Tel. 22303102 - 22302772 - 22302765 - 22302280

http://www.moi.gov.cy/moi/citizenschart ... enDocument

You forgot to tell them about the 6 month wait though GR...

I don't know any of the intricate details that may be involved in investigating TC properties, but what I do know is that the GCs have NOWHERE to lodge THEIR complaints let alone worry about a six month wait!

Pardon me....The Orams...The property commision???

Great option you give us as well....Leave everything and surrender to the "RoC" and then we will see to your case....Thats about it.....Te more you get the more our rights in the TRNC disappear......Nice try mate but we got that one covered....

[samarkeolog]

Halil,

If I may quote a sentence from the article about these villages:

"The hardworking and sacrificing people of this village, after 1974 also willingly joined in the migration for freedom to the North."

It seems to point to a fundamental contradiction in the official Turkish Cypriot line. After all, the so called "ITEM" law was passed, by means of which people renounced ownership of the property they had left behind in the south and, in exchange, were awarded property left behind by Greek Cypriots in the north. The RoC does not recognise the legitmacy of this, but from the official Turkish Cypriot perspective these people abandoned all claims to this property. Does this leave the Turkish Cypriot side with any right to criticise what happened to this property? I mean, if I enter into a legally binding contract to exchange my house with another person's house, then the new owner may do what he wishes with my old house, including bulldozing it to the ground, may he not?

Of course this consideration does not apply to people like BirKibrisli who never acquired exchange properties and have never renounced ownership of their homes in the south. But you must admit that there is something of a contradiction between the situation created under the exchange property legislation and screening a television series inviting people to shed a tear for the abandoned villages.

Another excellent observation and post by Timbo that will no doubt be silently ignored...

A columnist in the Afrika newspaper last week made a comment about the Orams case that I think is relevant here:

http://www.afrikagazetesi.net/modules.p ... artid=2246

This may strike a more discordant note with Greek Cypriots, but he claims that in a total of 8,357 instances, there has been construction on Turkish-Cypriot owned property in the south without the permission of the Turkish Cypriot owner. He says that the Turkish Cypriot authorities, rather than trying to defend the Orams, who do not have a leg to stand on under international law, should be defending these Turkish Cypriot rights in similar actions.

Did he give any indication as to why this might be Tim and exactly what he is asking of the TRNC???

I think in short he is saying what İnönü was saying in his famous 1964 letter to Dr Kutchuk.

Sorry, but the link didn't work for me - 'Kısıtlı bir alana ulaşmaya' çalışıyordum galiba. I don't suppose you have a copy, do you (in your Google Desktop cache, if you have one, or something like that)?

Cheers.

[Tim Drayton]

Halil,

If I may quote a sentence from the article about these villages:

"The hardworking and sacrificing people of this village, after 1974 also willingly joined in the migration for freedom to the North."

It seems to point to a fundamental contradiction in the official Turkish Cypriot line. After all, the so called "ITEM" law was passed, by means of which people renounced ownership of the property they had left behind in the south and, in exchange, were awarded property left behind by Greek Cypriots in the north. The RoC does not recognise the legitmacy of this, but from the official Turkish Cypriot perspective these people abandoned all claims to this property. Does this leave the Turkish Cypriot side with any right to criticise what happened to this property? I mean, if I enter into a legally binding contract to exchange my house with another person's house, then the new owner may do what he wishes with my old house, including bulldozing it to the ground, may he not?

Of course this consideration does not apply to people like BirKibrisli who never acquired exchange properties and have never renounced ownership of their homes in the south. But you must admit that there is something of a contradiction between the situation created under the exchange property legislation and screening a television series inviting people to shed a tear for the abandoned villages.

Another excellent observation and post by Timbo that will no doubt be silently ignored...

A columnist in the Afrika newspaper last week made a comment about the Orams case that I think is relevant here:

http://www.afrikagazetesi.net/modules.p ... artid=2246

This may strike a more discordant note with Greek Cypriots, but he claims that in a total of 8,357 instances, there has been construction on Turkish-Cypriot owned property in the south without the permission of the Turkish Cypriot owner. He says that the Turkish Cypriot authorities, rather than trying to defend the Orams, who do not have a leg to stand on under international law, should be defending these Turkish Cypriot rights in similar actions.

Did he give any indication as to why this might be Tim and exactly what he is asking of the TRNC???

I think in short he is saying what İnönü was saying in his famous 1964 letter to Dr Kutchuk.

Sorry, but the link didn't work for me - 'Kısıtlı bir alana ulaşmaya' çalışıyordum galiba. I don't suppose you have a copy, do you (in your Google Desktop cache, if you have one, or something like that)?

Cheers.

I forgot, you have to be registered to access Afrika articles now! Sorry.

[Tim Drayton]

The article (for Samarkeolog's benefit). Sorry, it is in Turkish.

ORAMS DAVASI

"Dobra Dobra" Turgut Afşaroğlu

Tarih: 5 Ocak 2009 Pazartesi





Ne kadar aptal, ne kadar zavallı bir toplumuz yarabbi... Şu yer kürede, bizim kadar hukuktan korkan bir toplum daha bulmak, herhalde mümkün değildir. Israrla ve inatla hem uluslararası hukukun dışına çıkıyoruz, hem de korkuyoruz.
***
Uluslararası hukuk der ki: -Uluslararası bir anlaşma, örneğin 1960 Kıbrıs Anlaşmaları, yerine yenisi yapılıncaya kadar geçerliliğini korur. 1974 sonrasında biz ne yaptık? Kıbrıs Cumhuriyeti’ni yok saydık... Garantörlerin tek hakkının, bozulan Anayasal nizamı yeniden tesis etmek olduğu gerçeğini bir yana iterek, Kıbrıs Cumhuriyeti’ndeki haklarımızdan vazgeçtik. 1973 yılında Denktaş, Kıbrıs Cumhuriyeti Cumhurbaşkan Muavini olarak seçilmişti. Ve bu sıfatı 1978 yılına kadar sürdürme hakkına sahipti. Ancak 1975’te KTFD kurulur kurulmaz bu sıfatından vazgeçti. Kime sordu, kimden yetki aldı, belli değil... Eğer bu sıfatını sonuna kadar korumuş olsaydı, Kıbrıs Cumhuriyeti’nin tek yanlı olarak AB’ye girmesini veto edebilecek ve Rum tarafı da tek başına AB’ye giremeyecekti.
***
Uluslararası hukuk der ki: -Cenevre Konvansiyonu’na göre, silah zoru ile ele geçirilen bir toprak parçasına nüfus taşımak, onlara vatandaşlık vermek suçtur. Biz ne yaptık? Önce tarım iş gücü adı altında, Türkiye’den nufüs taşıdık sonra bunlara vatandaşlık verip oy kullandırdık. Sonuç ne oldu? Kıbrıstürkü kendi bölgesinde de azınlığa düştü, siyasi iradesi elinden alındı. Seçilenler Ankara’nın kuklası oldu.
***
Uluslararası hukuk der ki: -Silah zoru ile ele geçirilen toprakları ya da konutları, kendinizinmiş gibi dilediğinize tapulayamazsınız. Biz ne yaptık? Sadece Güney’den gelen Kıbrıslıtürk’lere değil, Kuzey’den gelen Türkiyeli’lere de tapu verdik. Bu noktada bir hatırlatma yapalım: 1985 KKTC Anayasası geçene kadar tapu yerine sadece Tasarruf Belgesi verilebiliyordu. Çünkü 1975 KTFD Anayasası’na Uluslararası hukuka uygun olarak, o günkü muhalif Kurucu Meclis üyeleri olarak bir madde koydurmuştuk: -Bu Anayasa’daki başka herhangi bir hükme bakılmaksızın, Rumlardan kalan taşınmaz mallar, gerçek veya tüzel kişilere devredilemez. 1985 KKTC Anayasası’nda bu madde çıkarılmış ve tapu verme furyası ondan sonra başlamıştır.
***
Önce Loizudu davası, arkasından Aresti, Türk Bankası davaları peşpeşe gelmeye başladı. Bütün davaları kaybettik. Hiç kuşkunuz olmasın Orams davası da aleyhimize sonuçlanacaktır. Peki ne yapmak lâzım? Öncelikle Barış Mamalı’nın dediği gibi, Orams davasındaki tazminatın, ATAD kararı beklenmeden, derhal ödenmesi ve konunun İngiltere’deki mahkemelerin kararına bırakılmaması gerekir. Arkasından da Orams davasına benzer davaların, Güney Kıbrıs’ta Kıbrıslıtürk malları üzerine izinsiz inşaat yapanlara açılması gerekir. Hemen bir bilgi olarak aktaralım: Rum tarafının da bizden kalır yanı yoktur. Tam 8357 Türk arsası üzerine mal sahibi Kıbrıslıtürk’ten izin alınmadan yapılmış inşaat vardır. Yalnız Orams davası değil, Loizidu, Aresti ve Türk Bankası davalarına benzer davalar, bizim için de emsal davalardır. Ve bu konularda da karşı davalar açılabilir. Ancak dedik ya! Türk hukuktan korkar.





"Dobra Dobra" Turgut Afşaroğlu