Cyprus-Forum.com

[insan]

What else can i do to solve my problem about renting a house in Nicosia preferably in Agios Dömetios, Engomi or Strovolos? We have limited means but at least we can pay the rent of the house for one month(450 euros)... need a fully furnished one with internet provisioning, detached or ground floor appartnebt 3 bedrooms...

Why don't you try to live somewhere cheaper if it's only for six months with a specific purpose?

At least 6 months required... this means in some cases might be more... I have a son who attends to school in north... so it should be closer to checkpoints... Agios Demetios and Agios Pavlos are very suitable for me but in Strovolos there is a far better internet infrastructure i think...

[Sotos]

1. Why do you need to first rent a house and then get a job? You can find a job first.

Because the law in the RoC states that a TC who wishes to seek to reclaim their pre 74 property in the South must have lived in the RoC for a minimum of at least 6 months before they can even start the process of seeking redress. TC who have met this requirement and have then sought redress have had to fight through the courts for 10 years or more before gaining redress. The '6 month' requirement was challenged by a TC in the ECHR a process that itself took many many years. Literally one day before that case was due to ruled on at the ECHR, the RoC 'settled' with the claimant. The terms of the settlement were that the claimant would be allowed return of their property without having had to reside in the RoC for at least 6 months first and that the law would also be amended such that no other TC in a similar 'category' - that is one that was not resident in Cyprus in 74, would have to do likewise. The reason the RoC settled on these terms was because they feared if it went to a ECHR ruling then they would have made them remove this restriction for any TC and not just those that were not resident in Cyprus in 74. It seems inevitable that sooner or later this 6 month requirement will have to be removed for all TC seeking such redress but as with the case of TC who were not resident in Cyprus in 74, this will only happen after a ECHR ruling or maybe one day before such a ruling is due to be given.

How is your answer related to my question?

[Sotos]

We believe that they should ALL be allowed to reclaim them... no double standards.

Who is this we ? Does it include B25 ? GiG ? Get Real ? - shall I go on ?

Do YOU believe that TC seeking to claim redress for their property in the South should first have to reside in the RoC for 6 months before they can even start the very long and legally expensive process to seek redress ?

I think it includes all of the above. None of them has a problem with TCs getting their properties back. The issue is if TCs get their land back WITHOUT GCs getting their land back.

[erolz66]

With all this propaganda being posted, may I just remind you that all private property sales are just that! They do not involve 'selling' anything to Turkey, or legalizing Turkey's occupation.

Many private property sales in Cyprus are far from 'private'. A TC can not sell his pre 74 land in the South to a private individual and have that sale recognised by the RoC, without first 'claiming back' that property from the RoC and all the requirments and years of leagal battling that requires. A GC can not sell his land in the north to a private individual and have that sale recognised in the RoC.

All sovereign property of the RoC (i.e. the WHOLE of Cyprus), whatever land transactions etc are made, remain ultimately under the authority of the RoC wherever they are sited be it in the free areas or under the presently occupied territories.

Again this is in reality not true, it is just what you wished was true. A GC sought redress from the IPC in the north and accepted as redress monetary compensation and compensation of areas of land in the South that were owned privately by TC pre 74. At first the ROC refused to recognise this GC ownership of this land given in compensation to him by the IPC. Under threat of ECHR actions they eventually settled with this individual and agreed to recognise his ownership of this land. In effect the RoC was forced to accept on a one off case, under threat of the ECHR ruling generically, that the IPC had the legal right to offer this land to this GC as compensation, despite the RoC claiming prior to the settlement that the land belong to the pre 74 TC owners and was under the sole control of the Guardian body.

[insan]

We believe that they should ALL be allowed to reclaim them... no double standards.

Who is this we ? Does it include B25 ? GiG ? Get Real ? - shall I go on ?

Do YOU believe that TC seeking to claim redress for their property in the South should first have to reside in the RoC for 6 months before they can even start the very long and legally expensive process to seek redress ?

I think it includes all of the above. None of them has a problem with TCs getting their properties back. The issue is if TCs get their land back WITHOUT GCs getting their land back.

It's according to internationally accepted principles of BBF... aka UN parameters that agreed upon by all of your representatives... if you personally think it is unjust and unlawful; you too are free to file a lawsuit at the courts...

[erolz66]

I think it includes all of the above.

That is not how it appears to me from what they have actually written here but hey I could be wrong.

[Sotos]

In your haste to post propaganda, you completely failed to even look like you were answering the question!

It is a fact that the 6 month rule used to apply to all TC seeking redress in the south. It is fact that a TC took the RoC to the ECHR over this specific issue, having first spent years exhausting all 'local' means of redress for the violation or their rights this restriction represented. It is a fact that the RoC settled with this individual the day before the ECHR was due to rule on the case. It is a fact that the terms of this settlement included amending the law so that such a restriction was no longer placed on TC who were not resident in Cyprus in 74. Facts are not propaganda - what is propaganda is to try and present such facts as propaganda.

Why all this propaganda when the question was why not find a job?

Are Turk/TCs reaaaaaaaallly that work shy?

imho... residing in south while looking for a job makes it easy for you to be reachable, instantly... residing in south while seeking a job in south provide more chance to find a job.. finding a job may take months, why should i waste my time by not residing there to fulfil a part of that 6 months residence requirement? Please don't ask such questions that you already know the answer...

Where do you live? If you are near the green line then probably the signal from cytamobile etc would reach you. And aren't you working now? Can't you live in the free parts and go to your current work every day just like your son will continue going to his current school?

[insan]

In your haste to post propaganda, you completely failed to even look like you were answering the question!

It is a fact that the 6 month rule used to apply to all TC seeking redress in the south. It is fact that a TC took the RoC to the ECHR over this specific issue, having first spent years exhausting all 'local' means of redress for the violation or their rights this restriction represented. It is a fact that the RoC settled with this individual the day before the ECHR was due to rule on the case. It is a fact that the terms of this settlement included amending the law so that such a restriction was no longer placed on TC who were not resident in Cyprus in 74. Facts are not propaganda - what is propaganda is to try and present such facts as propaganda.

Why all this propaganda when the question was why not find a job?

Are Turk/TCs reaaaaaaaallly that work shy?

imho... residing in south while looking for a job makes it easy for you to be reachable, instantly... residing in south while seeking a job in south provide more chance to find a job.. finding a job may take months, why should i waste my time by not residing there to fulfil a part of that 6 months residence requirement? Please don't ask such questions that you already know the answer...

Where do you live? If you are near the green line then probably the signal from cytamobile etc would reach you. And aren't you working now? Can't you live in the free parts and go to your current work every day just like your son will continue going to his current school?

Simply to say, i wish both residing and working in south until i get my properties back... otherwise of course, naturally; i will choose one of the possible alternatives... why why why!

[Sotos]

We believe that they should ALL be allowed to reclaim them... no double standards.

Who is this we ? Does it include B25 ? GiG ? Get Real ? - shall I go on ?

Do YOU believe that TC seeking to claim redress for their property in the South should first have to reside in the RoC for 6 months before they can even start the very long and legally expensive process to seek redress ?

I think it includes all of the above. None of them has a problem with TCs getting their properties back. The issue is if TCs get their land back WITHOUT GCs getting their land back.

It's according to internationally accepted principles of BBF... aka UN parameters that agreed upon by all of your representatives... if you personally think it is unjust and unlawful; you too are free to file a lawsuit at the courts...

A BBF and the agreed basis for a future solution is irrelevant... furthermore we never agreed that TCs should get their properties back while GCs should not... so what wtf are you talking about? This is a case of human rights which is complicated from the fact that we are at war and there are greater legal, political and national issues at play.

[insan]

We believe that they should ALL be allowed to reclaim them... no double standards.

Who is this we ? Does it include B25 ? GiG ? Get Real ? - shall I go on ?

Do YOU believe that TC seeking to claim redress for their property in the South should first have to reside in the RoC for 6 months before they can even start the very long and legally expensive process to seek redress ?

I think it includes all of the above. None of them has a problem with TCs getting their properties back. The issue is if TCs get their land back WITHOUT GCs getting their land back.

It's according to internationally accepted principles of BBF... aka UN parameters that agreed upon by all of your representatives... if you personally think it is unjust and unlawful; you too are free to file a lawsuit at the courts...

A BBF and the agreed basis for a future solution is irrelevant... furthermore we never agreed that TCs should get their properties back while GCs should not... so what wtf are you talking about? This is a case of human rights which is complicated from the fact that we are at war and there are greater legal, political and national issues at play.

You don't understand sotos... what is a BBF? Why some portion of the properties should be exchanged and compensated? If TCs would be a clear majority in north, doesn't this mean clear majority of TCs should exchange their properties with a portion of GC refugees who wish to exchange?