| Author |
Message |
erolz
Site Admin
Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 4211
Location: Kyrenia / Girne
|
|
| Birkibrisli wrote: |
Thanks,Erol.
I didn't know they could keep possession if they wanted to.
I guess the question now is whether they will be happy with the amount of compensation offered by the Commission in the North...
Does this decision mean the cases waiting at the ECHR court now have to go to the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus commission first? |
I believe there are 36 ish cases already accepted / started by the ECHR. These may not have to go to property commission first - though that's not totally clear. Almost certainly now the reaming 1300 or so will have to go there first after this ruling. |
|
| Back to top |
|
pg
Deputy
Joined: 17 Jan 2006
Posts: 1485
Location: Cyprus
|
|
| erolz wrote: |
So how long will it be before Turkish Cypriot can claim back their properties in the south, without having to live in the Republic of Cyprus for 6 months first, or claim their compensation for such property if it has been used for other purposes ? |
If anyone thinks the present rules are not good enough, they should go to court... |
|
| Back to top |
|
pg
Deputy
Joined: 17 Jan 2006
Posts: 1485
Location: Cyprus
|
|
From the ruling:
| Quote: |
| 47. The Court is of the opinion that an award should be made under this head in respect of the anguish and feelings of helplessness and frustration which the applicant must have experienced over the years in not being able to use her property as she saw fit and to enjoy her home. Making an equitable assessment, the Court awards the applicant EUR 50,000 under this head. |
That is 50,000 EUR per refugee..., and if the Turkish commission are to be up to the standard of the ECHR it must make this compensation at the same level... otherwise the ruling will be appealed to the ECHR. |
|
| Back to top |
|
pg
Deputy
Joined: 17 Jan 2006
Posts: 1485
Location: Cyprus
|
|
| erolz wrote: |
If they want restitution and the commission is unable to give that (as in the case of artesi) then they offer either compensation in exchange for the property or the owner retains the property but can not take back use until a settlement - and they still get compensation for loss of use. The choice is with the owner. |
Most likely that part is not good enough..., but possibly such a ruling will have to wait for the next case...
Basically, since the court said that Aresti does not need to go to the Turkish commission, it did not need to rule on if that is good enough or not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
erolz
Site Admin
Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 4211
Location: Kyrenia / Girne
|
|
| pg wrote: |
| That is 50,000 EUR per refugee..., and if the Turkish commission are to be up to the standard of the ECHR it must make this compensation at the same level... otherwise the ruling will be appealed to the ECHR. |
Yes that is my understanding that the ECHR has established the amount for non pecuniary damages in such case for the property commission at 50,00 euros. Aretstis had claimed for CYP 180,000 and CYP 24 per day that the property was still not available to them for non pecuniary damages. The ECHR has set the amount at 50,000 euros and the property commission will have to reflect this in any cases it rules on.
| pg wrote: |
| erolz wrote: |
If they want restitution and the commission is unable to give that (as in the case of artesi) then they offer either compensation in exchange for the property or the owner retains the property but can not take back use until a settlement - and they still get compensation for loss of use. The choice is with the owner. |
Most likely that part is not good enough..., but possibly such a ruling will have to wait for the next case...
Basically, since the court said that Aresti does not need to go to the Turkish commission, it did not need to rule on if that is good enough or not. |
I am no expert ans these things are complicated it is true. I agree that as far as I can tell the ECHR has not given a total green light to the commission and that will require another case to be fully heard first by the commission and then referred back to the ECHR, or the ECHR will have to make a 'special' ruling on the commission. However my understanding is that the Aresti case is consider to have been heard in full now in the ECHR and with the payment of the awards granted the ECHR considers the case fully closed and all parts of the claim made not covered by those payments have been dismissed by the ECHR. |
|
| Back to top |
|
repulsewarrior
Ministerial
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Posts: 2152
Location: a cypriot in canada
|
|
Thanks pg,
| Quote: |
| 26. In their earlier observations on the admissibility of the application, the Government had contended that the applicant’s complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 related in essence to freedom of movement, guaranteed under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4, which Turkey had not ratified. They therefore argued that the right to peaceful enjoyment of property and possessions did not include, as a corollary, the right to freedom of movement. |
I found this most troubling, and it is something to which we can take note; Turkey expects to limit free movement, although it may allow for the enjoyment of homes.
Secondly,
| Quote: |
THE LAW
I. THE GOVERNMENT’S PRELIMINARY OBJECTION
14. The Government in their submissions on the merits raised the same objection as at the admissibility stage concerning the victim status of the applicant. In particular, they maintained that the property allegedly owned by the applicant had been registered in the books of the Turkish Muslim religious trust (vakf) as having been dedicated to the religious trust in perpetuity in accordance with the relevant rules and principles and could not be transferred to individuals as private property. They noted that the applicant had not produced an authentic title deed showing registration of her name as recorded in the books of the Land Office but a document certifying that the properties in her name were “Turkish-held properties”. Turkey was not in possession or control of the Land Office records of the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” and the Government therefore wished to reserve their position to finalise the information about the history of the title to the properties in question.
15. The Court notes that the Government’s objection was duly examined and dismissed in its admissibility decision of 14 March 2005 in which it found that the applicant could claim to be a “victim” within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention. In its decision, among other things, the Court pointed out that the respondent Government had not substantiated their arguments. The Government have not submitted any new information in this regard within the time allowed. The Court therefore sees no reason to depart from its findings in this respect. |
Turkey, to which the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, in its Constitution pledges fielty, somehow could not provide this information...a question of credibility...which
belies their closeness,... implying that Greek Cypriots may not find an unbiased commission in the north, or a government authority that is basing their arguments on indisputable fact.
It remains unclear how the matter will end, but there is money due because the military of Turkey (not unlike the US and Isreal) acts illegally, still. |
|
| Back to top |
|
pg
Deputy
Joined: 17 Jan 2006
Posts: 1485
Location: Cyprus
|
|
I was doing some numbers...
750,000 EUR for the loss of use of property,
50,000 EUR for moral damages, I believe for being thrown out of "home".
Assume there are 200,000 refugees, and 50,000 of them are property owners (10% up or down).
That would mean:
750K x 50K = 37.5 Billion EUR
50K x 200K = 10 Billion EUR
All in all 47 Billion EUR, and the the properties still belong to their original owners.
Note also that the actual size of the compensation are based on internationally recognized principles, and it is Turkey that are pushing for using them in the Turkish compensation commission.
In short, Turkey wants all Greek Cypriots to come and ask for the money.
If they do, and Turkey delays processing the applications, there would most likely be additional moral damages.
---
The size of the amount also indicates what the occupation has cost the Cypriot people.
And note that the amounts are not something I made up - it is those Turkey are very happy with based on this weeks ruling.
---
Now, lets keep the money in mind, and look at a solution. While discussing the AP it was said that rebuilding Cyprus could cost 2 to 8 billion CYP, say 3.5 to 13 billion EUR. One big worry was how people would afford that too.
Now, it is unlikely that a new solution plan would be able to limits the refugees rights to seek their rights at the ECHR, which means Turkey will need to pay up one way or another.
Since the 37 billion EUR are for loss of use, or loss of income, it should be possible for the Republic of Cyprus (the reunited one) to tax that money. Let's assume that the government would take as tax 25% - about 10 billion EUR - and put this into a reconstruction fund.
The rest of the compensation received the individual would use to rebuild their private properties.
One thing solved... |
|
| Back to top |
|
Birkibrisli
Deputy
Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 1466
Location: Australia
|
|
| And the above is without taking into account the compensation that will have to be paid to the Turkish Cypriots who left everything in the South. Lets remember that most of them have not been compensated at all,especially those who left before 1974... |
|
| Back to top |
|
zan
Warnings : 2
Mukhtar/is
Joined: 31 Dec 2005
Posts: 962
|
|
| Turkey may be willing to accept the amounts but is it saying that it will take all the blame. Do you see Turkey paying all the compensation or has the Republic of Cyprus got to cough up some of this? |
|
| Back to top |
|
Dhavlos
Warnings : 1
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Aug 2005
Posts: 4697
Location: Birmingham
|
|
| Birkibrisli wrote: |
| And the above is without taking into account the compensation that will have to be paid to the Turkish Cypriots who left everything in the South. Lets remember that most of them have not been compensated at all,especially those who left before 1974... |
bir, if you look at one of my posts further down, you can see that Turkish Cypriots can already get compensation for expropriated land ....
http://www.talkcyprus.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4928 |
|
| Back to top |
|
Birkibrisli
Deputy
Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 1466
Location: Australia
|
|
| Dhavlos wrote: |
| Birkibrisli wrote: |
| And the above is without taking into account the compensation that will have to be paid to the Turkish Cypriots who left everything in the South. Lets remember that most of them have not been compensated at all,especially those who left before 1974... |
bir, if you look at one of my posts further down, you can see that Turkish Cypriots can already get compensation for expropriated land ....
http://www.talkcyprus.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4928 |
Thanks for that, Dhavlos.
But what if the properties have not been officially expropriated,but just destroyed? Any allowances for that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
Dhavlos
Warnings : 1
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Aug 2005
Posts: 4697
Location: Birmingham
|
|
| duno to be honest....anyone ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
pg
Deputy
Joined: 17 Jan 2006
Posts: 1485
Location: Cyprus
|
|
| zan wrote: |
| Turkey may be willing to accept the amounts but is it saying that it will take all the blame. Do you see Turkey paying all the compensation or has the Republic of Cyprus got to cough up some of this? |
This is what Turkey proposes to pay as compensation for hindering people from accessing their homes and properties. In short, Turkey is the accused party in this case.
I do not think that using words like blame or vivid description of what Turkey is accused of is very productive.
Do I see Turkey paying all the compensation..., well it is Turkey that is proposing to pay the compensation, and it is Turkey that is doing everything in its power to make the Greek Cypriots apply for the compensation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
pg
Deputy
Joined: 17 Jan 2006
Posts: 1485
Location: Cyprus
|
|
| Birkibrisli wrote: |
| Dhavlos wrote: |
| Birkibrisli wrote: |
| And the above is without taking into account the compensation that will have to be paid to the Turkish Cypriots who left everything in the South. Lets remember that most of them have not been compensated at all,especially those who left before 1974... |
bir, if you look at one of my posts further down, you can see that Turkish Cypriots can already get compensation for expropriated land ....
http://www.talkcyprus.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4928 |
Thanks for that, Dhavlos.
But what if the properties have not been officially expropriated,but just destroyed? Any allowances for that? |
Bir, 'just destroyed' has most likely not happened..., but if the property is not maintained it will fall down after 3 decades... However, who has stopped the Turkish Cypriots from maintaining the property?
Also, Turkey has not yet been sued for not maintaining the property... |
|
| Back to top |
|
arysta
Village guest
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 1
|
|
| It's time for the giant to wake up. I think it's about time for the church to apply for retributions for their property. That would be a painful check for Turkey to write. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Register 
Log in 
Album 
Home 
