Cyprus-Forum.com

[andri_cy]

[quote.It means anything and everything as long as it doesn't end up meaning what I stated that it doesn't mean!

Well, I'm glad that question has finally been cleared up.!!!!!???????

I think I need a shot of something because I am more hazy than ever.... share your clarity Kikapu

[despo]

This is off-topic, but I shall just keep it here anyway for convenience sake.

Kifeas, as an initial response to the Xenides-Arestis case, the TCs set up a Property Commission. The ECHR has accepted a TC Property Commission as a legal body, but it did not feel that the Commission as it was then was satisfactory. So, it instead instructed the TCs as to what changes to make and the ECHR so far appears it is satisfied with those changes, in particular as regards the composition, and the Commission now has a German and a Swede (I think). Because the composition has been changed and the Commission no longer includes TCs living in GC property, the ECHR accepts that compensation is now a viable alternative to the return of property. The TC Property Commission has been established, and there have so far been five applications from GC displaced who are seeking only compensation. The lawyer for Xenides-Arestis has accepted that the TCs will form a Property Commission and this is how his client will seek the return of her property, and some of the lawyers for the other 1400 GC applicants were so horrified by this decision of the ECHR they wanted to appeal it. The reason the Papodpoulos government no longer talks about the ECHR is because it knows that what I outlined in my previous post is the actual result, and the whole chimera that we could use the ECHR to "get" us a "better" solution than the Annan Plan has completely collapsed.

The ECHR found that the previous TC Property Commission was not "adequate" and "effective," not that it was illegal. The TCs have since set up another commission, which does exactly what the ECHR suggested here. You have to go on a long search on the ECHR (this might work http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/portal.asp?sessionId=7438937&skin=hudoc-en&action=request). The following section is on page 45.


"In addition the Court would make the following observations concerning the purported remedy.
Firstly, the Law does not address the applicant's complaints under Article 8 and 14 of the Convention.
Secondly, the Law is vague as to its temporal application, that is, as whether it has retrospective effect concerning applications filed before its enactment and entry into force; it merely refers to the retrospective assessment of the compensation.
Finally, the composition of the compensation commission raises concerns since, in the light of the evidence submitted by the Cypriot Government, the majority of its members are living in houses owned or built on property owned by Greek Cypriots. In this connection, the Court observes that the respondent Government have not disputed the Cypriot Government's arguments on this matter and have not provided any additional information in their written and oral submissions. Further, the Court suggests that an international composition would enhance the commission's standing and credibility.
In view of the above, the Court considers that the compensation-based remedy proposed by the respondent Government cannot fully redress the negation of the applicant's property rights.
The Court confines itself to the above conclusion and does not consider it necessary to address the remainder of the arguments put before it by the parties and the intervening third-party.
Accordingly, the Court concludes that the remedy proposed by the respondent Government in the present case does not satisfy the requirements under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention in that it cannot be regarded as an “effective” or “adequate” means for redressing the applicant's complaints.
That being so it considers that the respondent Government's plea of inadmissibility on the ground of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies must be dismissed."

[Kikapu]

[quote.It means anything and everything as long as it doesn't end up meaning what I stated that it doesn't mean!

Well, I'm glad that question has finally been cleared up.!!!!!???????

I think I need a shot of something because I am more hazy than ever.... share your clarity Kikapu

Andri_cy,

Let me see how I can explain this. It's more like double double talk, or a "shell game" (never play this game), or mambo-jambo-gambo, or smoking mirrors or garbage in garbage out. I'm I making sense yet...I did not think so, so go and have your drink after all.

[andri_cy]

Andri_cy,

Let me see how I can explain this. It's more like double double talk, or a "shell game" (never play this game), or mambo-jambo-gambo, or smoking mirrors or garbage in garbage out. I'm I making sense yet...I did not think so, so go and have your drink after all.

You guys are going to turn me into an alcoholic

[Kikapu]

Andri_cy,

Let me see how I can explain this. It's more like double double talk, or a "shell game" (never play this game), or mambo-jambo-gambo, or smoking mirrors or garbage in garbage out. I'm I making sense yet...I did not think so, so go and have your drink after all.

You guys are going to turn me into an alcoholic

Cheers.!

[cypezokyli]

Andri_cy,

Let me see how I can explain this. It's more like double double talk, or a "shell game" (never play this game), or mambo-jambo-gambo, or smoking mirrors or garbage in garbage out. I'm I making sense yet...I did not think so, so go and have your drink after all.

You guys are going to turn me into an alcoholic

since you decided to become a mum , such a development is strictly forbiden. it is not an option

[Kifeas]

This is off-topic, but I shall just keep it here anyway for convenience sake.

Kifeas, as an initial response to the Xenides-Arestis case, the TCs set up a Property Commission. The ECHR has accepted a TC Property Commission as a legal body, but it did not feel that the Commission as it was then was satisfactory. So, it instead instructed the TCs as to what changes to make and the ECHR so far appears it is satisfied with those changes, in particular as regards the composition, and the Commission now has a German and a Swede (I think). Because the composition has been changed and the Commission no longer includes TCs living in GC property, the ECHR accepts that compensation is now a viable alternative to the return of property. The TC Property Commission has been established, and there have so far been five applications from GC displaced who are seeking only compensation. The lawyer for Xenides-Arestis has accepted that the TCs will form a Property Commission and this is how his client will seek the return of her property, and some of the lawyers for the other 1400 GC applicants were so horrified by this decision of the ECHR they wanted to appeal it. The reason the Papodpoulos government no longer talks about the ECHR is because it knows that what I outlined in my previous post is the actual result, and the whole chimera that we could use the ECHR to "get" us a "better" solution than the Annan Plan has completely collapsed.

The ECHR found that the previous TC Property Commission was not "adequate" and "effective," not that it was illegal. The TCs have since set up another commission, which does exactly what the ECHR suggested here. You have to go on a long search on the ECHR (this might work http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/portal.asp?sessionId=7438937&skin=hudoc-en&action=request). The following section is on page 45.


"In addition the Court would make the following observations concerning the purported remedy.
Firstly, the Law does not address the applicant's complaints under Article 8 and 14 of the Convention.
Secondly, the Law is vague as to its temporal application, that is, as whether it has retrospective effect concerning applications filed before its enactment and entry into force; it merely refers to the retrospective assessment of the compensation.
Finally, the composition of the compensation commission raises concerns since, in the light of the evidence submitted by the Cypriot Government, the majority of its members are living in houses owned or built on property owned by Greek Cypriots. In this connection, the Court observes that the respondent Government have not disputed the Cypriot Government's arguments on this matter and have not provided any additional information in their written and oral submissions. Further, the Court suggests that an international composition would enhance the commission's standing and credibility.
In view of the above, the Court considers that the compensation-based remedy proposed by the respondent Government cannot fully redress the negation of the applicant's property rights.
The Court confines itself to the above conclusion and does not consider it necessary to address the remainder of the arguments put before it by the parties and the intervening third-party.
Accordingly, the Court concludes that the remedy proposed by the respondent Government in the present case does not satisfy the requirements under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention in that it cannot be regarded as an “effective” or “adequate” means for redressing the applicant's complaints.
That being so it considers that the respondent Government's plea of inadmissibility on the ground of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies must be dismissed."

Despo, where did you see in the court ruling that it accepted (or not) a “TC” property commission?

Where did you see in the court ruling that it instructed the TCs (Turkish Cypriots) on anything?

Nowhere!

Nowhere does the court in its rulings makes reference to the terms "TC" (Turkish Cypriot) or “TRNC,” as entities -set aside about any legal bodies under their authority! It only talks and makes reference about and to internal remedy mechanisms or commissions of the respondent (defendant) government. Do you know which one is the respondent government in the Xenides (and Loizidou) cases? Turkey, only Turkey and Turkey, alone!

Therefore, please, for the last time stop this rubbish nonsense that the court accepted the TC this and the TC that! The court knows only the Turkish government as the respondent or defendant party. It is an entirely different story if Turkey instructed the formation of a property commission from the Turkish Cypriots in the north. The court views the said property commission only as one formed under the authority and or the jurisdiction of the Turkish government, as the occupying force in the north, and not as one under the jurisdiction or authority of the TCs or the “TRNC,” which for the court they are viewed and termed as a legally null and non-exiting (as a subject of international law) entities. If the G/Cs that will choose to apply to this commission, end up not being satisfied with the outcome, and will continue to have grievances, they will be free to go to back to the ECHR again. If and when they will choose to go back to the court, they will take the Turkish government to this court, and not the “TRNC” or the TC community.

Do you understand now?????

[Kartal_Aetos]

Andri_cy,

Let me see how I can explain this. It's more like double double talk, or a "shell game" (never play this game), or mambo-jambo-gambo, or smoking mirrors or garbage in garbage out. I'm I making sense yet...I did not think so, so go and have your drink after all.

You guys are going to turn me into an alcoholic

Cheers.!

guys, guys...stop putting ideas into my head...lol

[andri_cy]

Andri_cy,

Let me see how I can explain this. It's more like double double talk, or a "shell game" (never play this game), or mambo-jambo-gambo, or smoking mirrors or garbage in garbage out. I'm I making sense yet...I did not think so, so go and have your drink after all.

You guys are going to turn me into an alcoholic

Cheers.!

guys, guys...stop putting ideas into my head...lol

AHA! Like all Cypriots, TC's like to drink themselves into a stoop stage! We have a future after all!

[Kartal_Aetos]

lol @ andri