Dear Alex,
Alexandros Lordos wrote:You have to understand how sensitive this issue is to Greek Cypriots ... right now, with the provisions of Annan 5, they feel that they are at the bottom of the pecking order when it comes to reclaiming property. First come TC refugees (acceptable), then heavily invested properties (perhaps also acceptable when examined with a cool head), then settlers who have lived in these houses for at least ten years (insulting), then foreign tourists who are not even poor or displaced or anything, but who happened to have found a bargain by investing on the pain of the Cypriot people (extremely insulting), and then, finally, if something is left over, GCs can have a third of it ...
I definetly understand the sensitivity of GCs on this issue.
But let me ask you another hypothetical question to make my point more clear. What if the land a TC exchanged his/her property for is sold to another TC. Would that buyer TC (who is not a foreigner, a lucky rich tourist as you have claimed) will be entitled the same rights.
There are thousands of transactions like this that took place in the last 30 years. For example, I have built my house on a land I have bought from a TC, which he had obtained by point system established for this kind of exchange by the north authorities.
I made conscious effort not to buy a land that is given to settlers, as I believe that is very risky. So the only risk I took when I was buying this land from the fellow TC was the risk that "his land he left in south does not worth the land he acquired here". And I am willing to cover the difference to a fellow GC, as he was required to do so in Annan Plan.
And there too many transaction that are done like this in the last 30 years. We are not simply talking about couple of thousand Brits trying to buy cheap properties. You are suggesting that every transaction that is done between a two fellow TCs in the last 30 years on an exchanged land should not be accepted. Are you aware of the mess this proposal is creating.
That is my view. They say "kas yapmaya calisirken goz cikarmiyalim" (meaning "while trying to correct the eyebrows, let's not harm the eyes").
In a sense, turkcyp, I feel that there is a characteristic you have in common with Piratis (...surprised?
) You both get carried away by legal arguments, which arguments you tend to put above the needs of the other community. Forgive me this criticism, I have nothing but the utmost respect for you and your perceptive intellect.
Hey I am a firm believer of "Supremacy of Law" and I believe that in trying to find a solution the closer we get to legality the better it is for us for further implementation of the problem.
I mean I know that at the end this will be political solution, and law should be bend to some degree to accommodate the sensitivities of societies (both GCs and TCs) but the less we deviate from law, I believe the better the chances of the implementation of the solution in the future.
In the particular issue of whether the right to exchange gets transferred to the "buyers" of those properties as well, let's not forget that the right to exchange is itself not legal, it is a humanitarian measure which can only be arrived at by bending the law (which law simply says, original owners have full rights over all their properties). Now, to take this humanitarian measure and call it a legal right, or even to say that because of this measure then various transactions that took place before the solution (between TCs and foreigners) are themselves also legalised ... No. I think this goes too far! If the foreign buyers have a right to anything, it is to the original property which the TC owned, which was the only property that he had a right to sell (according to international law, not according to TRNC law). So, the british tourist who has now cosily settled into a Greek Cypriot house in Lapithos or Karmi, overlooking the bay of Kyrenia, can pack all his things and move on to the property he really bought, in the Turkish neighbourhood of Larnaca or Limassol or Paphos or wherever. If he doesn't like that, it is his problem.
I am not sure about that. In law, I am sure I can find plenty of precedent court decisions, that grants the right to use the "illegally obtained property" if the fair market price and the time value of money is paid by the user to the person who illegally lost the property.
It is kind of "forced selling" and courts agrees to that granted certain conditions are met. But again, knowing that this is a political issue which needs to accommodate the wishes of as many people as it can, I am willing to discuss any proposal. Otherwise I would have simply just said, let's turn back every refuge to their properties fully, and compensate the GCs for the last 30 years, and compensate TCs for the last 40 years.(compensation does not just involve compensation for the lost property, but also compensation for the not used constitutional rights)
But I know that this is politically not feasible neither TCs nor to GCs. Hence we are talking here to understand each other sensitivities to find a lasting political solution.
So if you are saying that foreigner should not be extended those rights. Then I say "amen" to that, but you should say "amen" to TCs having those rights on the bought property.
Well, I am not suggesting that people should have the right to go to ECHR as an alternative to going to the property commission, I am just saying that if through the property commission they do not get what they have a right to (in accordance with the terms of the settlement) then they should have the right to go to the ECHR, against the constituent state (TC or GC) which has failed to take measures to rehouse current occupants so that their property would be vacated on time, or against Turkey if she fails to withdraw her troops from areas subject to territorial adjustment as agreed, thus making it impossible for them to reclaim their property.
Have a nice day, my friend
Dear Alex,
The right to go to ECHR can not be taken away from anybody when the country signs the agreement to be bound by the ECHRs decisions. No matter what Annan Plan says, you can not take that right away from any people.
So the people can go to ECHR no matter what. But they have to exercise all the local venues first. So before ECHR people should expend all the local avenues like going to property commission, then to local courts, and then all the way to supreme court if necessary before they go to ECHR.(Even ECHR asks this)
That is why in Annan Plan it is proposed that "the newly established constitutional order will be responsible for these cases" and furthermore Annan Plan says that "The government should ask the ECHR to turn these kind of brought cases down".
The critic wording here is, "turning the applied cases down", meaning everybody has a right to go to ECHR after their expend all the local venues, and ECHR decide which case to take on merit by merit basis, but Goverment of united Cyprus prefers that ECHR upholds the decisions of the local authorities. There is no way anybody can force ECHR, and independent body, to turn any case down, just simply the government has asked them to do so, if the case has a merit. Turkey has been trying to tell ECHR that they should turn all teh Kurdish cases down, because they have lost in the local venues, but ECHR keeps on declining this request.
In a nutshell, everybody no matter what Annan Plan says has a right to appeal to ECHR, but he/she must first use all the local avenues first. And there is nothing wrong in new republic asking ECHR to uphold the decisions of its courts. Otherwise nobody will be happy with the decisions of property commission anyway. Who would like to accept some of their property going to TCs, while they can get it all, in ECHR. So everybody will eventually would want to apply to ECHR. So I think it imperative that the government says that I am the responsible party on this matter and ask ECHR to turn the cases down.
Have a great day