| Author |
Message |
Birkibrisli
Deputy
Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 1466
Location: Australia
|
|
| pg wrote: |
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?
|
Houses might fall down,pg, and orange,plum and apple orchards might die from lack of care...but hundreds of year old walnut,olive and carob trees do not just disappear from the face of the earth. They need to be cut down and used somehow,probably as timber and logs for fire...
What stopped the Turkish Cypriots from maintaining their properties?
The fear of death installed into them by the EOKA and the TMT...
But if you've never experienced that fear,you will not believe me...  |
|
| Back to top |
|
depurple
Warnings : 1
Ministerial
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Posts: 2880
Location: Australia
|
|
Boys I hate to wipe the smile from ALL your faces but Apparently Turkey must pay Myra Xenides-Arestis EUR850,000 and also CAN NOT claim the land in Famagusta:
That is not much BUT hey will will do for the moment!
NOW let see if the mighty Turkey pays UP or sweeps it under the CARPET like with ALL its ECHR and UN commitments !!!!!!
cheers!
PS Now it is Meletis and Miss Piggy soon!
How will any court in the WORLD support people who stole ANYTHING?
Is Turkey for REAL!
BUT Turkish Court and Indonesians COURTS might support crooks!
DP! |
|
| Back to top |
|
erolz
Site Admin
Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 4211
Location: Kyrenia / Girne
|
|
| depurple wrote: |
| Boys I hate to wipe the smile from ALL your faces but Apparently Turkey must pay Myra Xenides-Arestis EUR850,000 |
This is not news DP. This ruling was made on 7 Dec 2006 and this thread started as a discussion of that ruling. Actually the plaintiff was awarded 885,000 euro including costs - broken down as follows
pecuniary - 800,000 euro (they had claimed for 1,240,000 euro)
non pecuniary - 50,000 euro (they had claimed for 310,000 euro + 40 euro per day until return)
costs 35,000 euro (they had claimed 45,000 euro)
| depurple wrote: |
and also CAN NOT claim the land in Famagusta: |
The case was never about how much Turkey had to pay to expropriate her property - the plaintif was claiming damages for Turkey denying the use of said property.
| depurple wrote: |
NOW let see if the mighty Turkey pays UP or sweeps it under the CARPET like with ALL its ECHR and UN commitments !!!!!! |
Sigh
| depurple wrote: |
How will any court in the WORLD support people who stole ANYTHING?
Is Turkey for REAL!
BUT Turkish Court and Indonesians COURTS might support crooks!
DP! |
But of course the Australian courts that do not allow any aboriginal claims against private 'freehold' land stolen from them by those that have issued the 'freehold' deeds is of no concern to you is it DP? Clearly the australian colonisers are too white, too christian and too not turkish to have their laws and theft of land condemned. Best stick to those Turks and Indonesians I guess ?
If you accept that westerners were invaders of australia and they took the land by force of arms from those already there, then if we apply their laws to Cyprus - then no Greek Cypriot , by law, would be able to make a claim against land in the north for which the invaders/occupiers had issued a freehold title deed for. They would only be able to make claims on north cypriot state owned land and some land that had been leased by the state to others - and they would have do male such claims in the invaders / occupiers courts.
Your adopted homeland is a state built on 'stolen land' , which has not yet comprehensively addressed this 'theft' and supports and continues to support the 'theft' of land in its legislation. Given your commitment to 'justice' and not 'sweeping things under carpets' I assume you regularly protest at your states 'theft' of land and its laws that support such 'theft' today ? Hmmmm. |
|
| Back to top |
|
depurple
Warnings : 1
Ministerial
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Posts: 2880
Location: Australia
|
|
BKP describes the allegations that the ECHR recognized the so-called Property Compensation Commission as unrealistic
Turkish Cypriot daily KIBRIS newspaper (05.06.07) reports that the United Cyprus Party (BKP) issued a statement yesterday and argued that the allegations that the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has recognized the so-called Property Compensation Commission with its recent decision are unrealistic.
In a written statement, Abdullah Korkmazhan, member of the executive committee of the party, reminded that the ECHR found Turkey guilty of violating the human rights in Cyprus and convicted it to pay one million euros as compensation. He noted that according to the decision, the issue of the Commission will be discussed in a subsequent case.
cheers DP! |
|
| Back to top |
|
Mete
Warnings : 3
Deputy
Joined: 16 Aug 2005
Posts: 1150
Location: Boston
|
|
| Quote: |
BKP describes the allegations that the ECHR recognized the so-called Property Compensation Commission as unrealistic
|
Even if the ECHR recognized that commission in reality, what would that change? Greek Cypriots will (rightfully) either get their property back or they'll get compensation. The mere existence of the property commission is an admittance by Turkey/Turkish Cypriot leadership in bold letters that the property policy in the north is dead. Sooner or later, Turkish Cypriots will wake up to this fact. |
|
| Back to top |
|
depurple
Warnings : 1
Ministerial
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Posts: 2880
Location: Australia
|
|
Great work Mete!
Just want to add my little bit to your posting!
Greek Cypriot will get Property, Compensation or BOTH!
cheers!
PS I hope this applies to Turkish Cypriot as well!
DP! |
|
| Back to top |
|
-mikkie2-
Mukhtar/is
Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 603
|
|
| Quote: |
| Even if the ECHR recognized that commission in reality, what would that change? Greek Cypriots will (rightfully) either get their property back or they'll get compensation. The mere existence of the property commission is an admittance by Turkey/Turkish Cypriot leadership in bold letters that the property policy in the north is dead. Sooner or later, Turkish Cypriots will wake up to this fact. |
The property commission set up in the north simply is a delaying tactic. Even if the ECHR approves the commission it still doesnt stop refugees from applying to the ECHR.
The ECHR has been awarding 2 or 3 times the compensation for loss of use (compareed to the property commission) AND the demand for the return of the property as in the Loizidou case as well as the Aresti case.
The ECHR will only approve the commission only if it is seen to be equivalent to what the ECHR would do - ie compensation for loss of use and return of property and if not return of property, then a sum equal to its market value. Clearly, the property commission in the north is not fulfilling these obligations.
So essentially, the commission in the north will only delay the inevitable. It would only take one case to go to the ECHR after any such commission is approved for the whole deck of cards to come tumbling down again.
So, yes, the Turkish Cypriot's and Turkey need to wake up to the fact that they are shooting themselves in the foot by developing other peoples land. In their effort to make political gains the Turkish Cypriot's are overlooking the legal side of the problem, much in the same way that the Republic of Cyprus is putting too much emphasis on the legal arguments and overlooking the political. |
|
| Back to top |
|
brother
Warnings : 3
Site Admin
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 8938
Location: London/Cyprus
|
|
| -mikkie2- wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Even if the ECHR recognized that commission in reality, what would that change? Greek Cypriots will (rightfully) either get their property back or they'll get compensation. The mere existence of the property commission is an admittance by Turkey/Turkish Cypriot leadership in bold letters that the property policy in the north is dead. Sooner or later, Turkish Cypriots will wake up to this fact. |
The property commission set up in the north simply is a delaying tactic. Even if the ECHR approves the commission it still doesnt stop refugees from applying to the ECHR.
The ECHR has been awarding 2 or 3 times the compensation for loss of use (compareed to the property commission) AND the demand for the return of the property as in the Loizidou case as well as the Aresti case.
The ECHR will only approve the commission only if it is seen to be equivalent to what the ECHR would do - ie compensation for loss of use and return of property and if not return of property, then a sum equal to its market value. Clearly, the property commission in the north is not fulfilling these obligations.
So essentially, the commission in the north will only delay the inevitable. It would only take one case to go to the ECHR after any such commission is approved for the whole deck of cards to come tumbling down again.
So, yes, the Turkish Cypriot's and Turkey need to wake up to the fact that they are shooting themselves in the foot by developing other peoples land. In their effort to make political gains the Turkish Cypriot's are overlooking the legal side of the problem, much in the same way that the Republic of Cyprus is putting too much emphasis on the legal arguments and overlooking the political. |
Mikkie the fact that the property commission in the north has RESOLVED 22 case's to the refugees satisfaction is going to work in the favour of the property commission my friend and will be recognised by the ECHR, i know you do not want to see this but it is a fact. |
|
| Back to top |
|
-mikkie2-
Mukhtar/is
Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 603
|
|
Brother,
One of the main aspects of ECHR rulings is that it awards compensation for loss of use AND it upholds the ownership of the land to the refugee.
The commission in the north does not appear to do this. All it seems to be offering is to simply exchacnge land in the south, or to pay a nominal market value for the property, or to offer reinstatement AFTER a solution to the Cyprus problem. It does not appear to compensate for loss of use.
Even if the ECHR aproves it, it does not mean that Greek Cypriot's can't go back to the ECHR. If a refugee applies to this commission and doesn't get what they deem to be fair they can go back to the ECHR. So basically all the commisson is doing is to delay the inevitable! |
|
| Back to top |
|
brother
Warnings : 3
Site Admin
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 8938
Location: London/Cyprus
|
|
| -mikkie2- wrote: |
Brother,
One of the main aspects of ECHR rulings is that it awards compensation for loss of use AND it upholds the ownership of the land to the refugee.
The commission in the north does not appear to do this. All it seems to be offering is to simply exchacnge land in the south, or to pay a nominal market value for the property, or to offer reinstatement AFTER a solution to the Cyprus problem. It does not appear to compensate for loss of use.
Even if the ECHR aproves it, it does not mean that Greek Cypriot's can't go back to the ECHR. If a refugee applies to this commission and doesn't get what they deem to be fair they can go back to the ECHR. So basically all the commisson is doing is to delay the inevitable! |
While i agree with most parts there is one thing you forgot and that is most refugees will be happy to close this state of affairs once and for all and take compensation or exchange of lands and get on with their lives which have been on hold for 33 years, or would you have them not apply and wait for the wealthy politicians to do a big fat NOTHING that they have been doing for 33 years, i have to say but i really do not care for the political aspects of this i care for the humanitarian aspect of it that the refugees can claim their land, compensation etc. and finally get on with their lives.
I am afraid for me this is not debatable it is the right thing under the current circumstances. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Mete
Warnings : 3
Deputy
Joined: 16 Aug 2005
Posts: 1150
Location: Boston
|
|
| brother wrote: |
I am afraid for me this is not debatable it is the right thing under the current circumstances.
|
I agree. And hopefully this will force the political fools to stop playing games and find solutions as they're supposed to do. Otherwise, people will find their own solution. |
|
| Back to top |
|
repulsewarrior
Ministerial
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Posts: 2152
Location: a cypriot in canada
|
|
Swift doesn't seem to be in the interest of the Turkish State.
But I don't think that the rest of the world's Statesmen have forgotten their history, indeed, Turkey is to be envied, as a power.
The Art of Attrition, "the Turkish Hordes", a tradition which the Army upholds, indeed, refines, to this very day. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Mete
Warnings : 3
Deputy
Joined: 16 Aug 2005
Posts: 1150
Location: Boston
|
|
| repulsewarrior, I have no idea what you just said. Do you intentionally try to be confusing or does it come out naturally? Just curious. |
|
| Back to top |
|
repulsewarrior
Ministerial
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Posts: 2152
Location: a cypriot in canada
|
|
Comes naturally, and then I work on it to have more meanings between the words, as well as the lines.
But, to try to explain- Turkey as a State has always successfully used the tactic of attrition against its adversaries from the time before the Ottoman empire when the Arabs were overwhelmed by their Armies and their bureaucracy. Cyprus is just another case in point, wait three generations, then negociate with the remnant of the society you subjugate.
Getting to the Aresti case took thirty years, and it will take another thirty tears for the decision to be digested.
Anyone who makes Policy or who works as a Diplomat would know that this pace is classicly Turkish, and none do it better. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Mete
Warnings : 3
Deputy
Joined: 16 Aug 2005
Posts: 1150
Location: Boston
|
|
| Thanks, repulsewarrior. Much clearer now. Hope you continue your posts in the latter style. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Register 
Log in 
Album 
Home 
