| Author |
Message |
Viewpoint
Warnings : 2
Mukhtar/is
Joined: 14 Aug 2005
Posts: 971
Location: Lefkosa/Nicosia
|
|
| The ECHR ruled in favor of the property commission stating that it is a viable local remedy and that Greek Cypriots should apply. The full details are yet to be announced as they have a few conditions attached. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Bananiot
Warnings : 1
Deputy
Joined: 13 Aug 2005
Posts: 1214
Location: Nicosia
|
|
| Papadopoulos's policy and tactics have backfired miserably, while he is taking a holiday in China where he finally admitted that the north is about to be Taiwanised. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Khan
Deputy
Joined: 13 Nov 2005
Posts: 1092
Location: London
|
|
| This is good news, i'd like to see more on their decision. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Issy1956
Villager
Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Posts: 10
|
|
Bananiot,
Did Tpap really say the north is about to be Tawanised? Do you have any links for this? |
|
| Back to top |
|
Bananiot
Warnings : 1
Deputy
Joined: 13 Aug 2005
Posts: 1214
Location: Nicosia
|
|
| Yes he did. It was on the news last night. it was reported by the RIK reporter that is accompanying Papadopoulos in China. |
|
| Back to top |
|
pg
Deputy
Joined: 17 Jan 2006
Posts: 1485
Location: Cyprus
|
|
No clear winner - there never is at the ECHR...
http://www.financialmirror.com/more_news.php?id=5522&nt=Politics
| Quote: |
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has unanimously awarded a Greek Cypriot refugee 800,000 euros in respect of pecuniary damage for being prevented from living in her home and having access to, using and enjoying her property in the Turkish-occupied eastern town of Famagusta.
The Court also awarded Myra Xenides-Arestis 50,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage and 35,000 euros for costs and expenses. |
The Turkish Property commission:
| Quote: |
The Court welcomes ''the steps taken by the Turkish government in an effort to provide redress for the violations of the applicant's Convention rights as well as in respect of all similar applications pending before it.''
It notes that ''the new compensation and restitution mechanism, in principle, had taken care of the requirements of the decision of the Court on admissibility of 14 March 2005 and its judgment of 22 December 2005.'' |
but the awarded amounts are about double those offered by the TP commission.
Still, I have not seen any info yet with regards to the most important part - restitution. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Khan
Deputy
Joined: 13 Nov 2005
Posts: 1092
Location: London
|
|
bah pg, you are one step ahead of me on all the news sources, i was going to paste that  |
|
| Back to top |
|
pg
Deputy
Joined: 17 Jan 2006
Posts: 1485
Location: Cyprus
|
|
| great minds think alike, again... |
|
| Back to top |
|
repulsewarrior
Deputy
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Posts: 1735
Location: Canada
|
|
| Thanks guys, hoping to hear more about it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
s300
Senior Villager
Joined: 18 Apr 2006
Posts: 219
Location: MAROUBRA BEACH, SYDNEY
|
|
Some questions about the refugee commission:
Are the 3 refugees who were allowed to return by the commission, able to execise the "legal" rights of other "citizens"?
Can the family of the refugees return or are the individual refugees only allowed to return? |
|
| Back to top |
|
bg_turk
Deputy
Joined: 08 Oct 2005
Posts: 1316
Location: Bulgaria
|
|
And that is how it should be - the only winner should be human rights, and people should stop using the ECHR to achieve their political purposes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
pg
Deputy
Joined: 17 Jan 2006
Posts: 1485
Location: Cyprus
|
|
The whole ruling can be found here:
http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/search.asp?skin=hudoc-en
Search for application ID: 46347/99
| Quote: |
2. The Court’s assessment
36. The Court recalls that in its principal judgment it held that there had been a continuing violation of the applicant’s rights guaranteed by Articles 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 by reason of the complete denial of the rights of the applicant with respect to her home and the peaceful enjoyment of her property in northern Cyprus (§§ 22 and 32 of the principal judgment). It further held that the applicant was still the legal owner in part of two properties situated in the area of Famagusta (§ 28 of the principal judgment) and that its finding of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 was based on the fact that, as a consequence of being continuously denied access to her land, she had effectively lost control as well as the possibility to use and enjoy her property (§ 32 of the principal judgment).
37. The Court welcomes the steps taken by the Government in an effort to provide redress for the violations of the applicant’s Convention rights as well in respect of all similar applications pending before it. The Court notes that the new compensation and restitution mechanism, in principle, has taken care of the requirements of the decision of the Court on admissibility of 14 March 2005 and the judgment on the merits of 22 December 2005. |
In general, it is clear that Arestis still owns her property..., but nothing about the return... at least not what I can find with a quick read. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Birkibrisli
Deputy
Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 1404
Location: Australia
|
|
I am a bit confused. The ECHR decision leaves the property in the hands of the original owner,and allows compensation for lost rights etc.
The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus commission on the other hand decides on compensation,but demands that the owner gives up the title deed. So why would those 1400 or so Greek Cypriot refugees apply to the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus commission while they can have their compensation and keep their property as well?
What am I missing here?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
erolz
Site Admin
Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 4195
Location: Kyrenia / Girne
|
|
| Birkibrisli wrote: |
I am a bit confused. The ECHR decision leaves the property in the hands of the original owner,and allows compensation for lost rights etc.
The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus commission on the other hand decides on compensation,but demands that the owner gives up the title deed. So why would those 1400 or so Greek Cypriot refugees apply to the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus commission while they can have their compensation and keep their property as well?
What am I missing here? |
The commission tries to give people what they want. If they want compensation instead of restitution then the commission will award that along with an amount for loss of use.
If they was restitution and the commission is able to give that they give that and an award for loss of use.
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.
The commission can do no more.
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 ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
Birkibrisli
Deputy
Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 1404
Location: Australia
|
|
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? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Register 
Log in 
Album 
Home 
