The Immovable Property Commission is vindicated

ECHR Court Room
The ECHR applicants were 17 Cypriot nationals of Greek-Cypriot origin, living in Nicosia, Limassol, Lakatamia and Larnaca. They were complaining that they’d been deprived of the use of their property and/or access to their homes in northern Cyprus as a result of the Turkish military operations in July and August 1974 and the division of Cyprus.
Since December 2005 property owners could bring a claim before the Immovable Property Commission (“IPC”), for a fee of 100 TL per application provided they submitted title deeds or proof of ownership. As of November 2009, 433 cases had been brought before the IPC and of these 85 had been concluded, the vast majority by a friendly settlement. Over 70 applicants took a total of €47m compensation and 361,493 square metres of property had been “restituted”.
The Court reiterated that “an appropriate domestic body, with access to the relevant information, was clearly the more appropriate forum for deciding on complex matters of property ownership and valuation and assessing financial compensation,” In other words the IPC. The Court also stated that “it would risk being arbitrary and injudicious for the Court to impose an obligation to effect restitution in all cases – which would result in the forcible eviction and rehousing of many men, women and children.”
The Court also stressed that there was not an obligation to use the IPC and that claimants could, if they wished, wait for a political solution instead.
number of views: 1603




Yes, it’s a copy/paste summary. No, don’t have time to do more but I’m sure you’ll love something to comment about!!!!
The press release is here ;-
http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=1&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=Cyprus&sessionid=48131573&skin=hudoc-pr-en
Sounds like a pretty convincing YES to the IPC.
Good Contribution. Constructive or Abusive:
6
0
No surprise here for me, i was expecting this call.
Its common practice for ECHR to ask from all European citizens to first use their domestic judicial alternatives and THEN appeal to ECHR.
Up to now GC were able to go directly to the ECHR thus ”violating” the fundamental law of ECHR only because there were no other alternatives since Turkey said cyprus problem is solved by land exchange.
ECHR asked from Turkey several times to create a judicial court that GC can use (if they want) to ask and take compensations for the loss of their properties since land exchange was not a fair argument (1/3 of GC land vs 1/16 of TC land)
So Turkey ”complied” and went ahead to create IPC.
IPC is considered by the ECHR as a TURKISH JUDICIAL NOTION
(since North Cyprus is considered under Turkish occupation. )
So long story short GC must first go to the IPC sue turkey (?) and then appeal to ECHR if they are not happy with the decision.
The GC argument was that since IPC has very low compensation standards it can’t be accepted as a legal judicial mean. [witch is an irrelevant argument if you ask me because if low compensations were a standard for the legal existence of a court then lots of European courts (including cyprus court) must be declared illegal as well.
Just last month Cyprus government sent me a 10,000 euro check for the rainwater damages to my house last month. I have the right to sue- then appeal- and then reappear and go to the ECHR if i don't like it.. ]
so.. ECHR by a majority vote (not unanimous decision) says it doesn’t matter if IPC or any other court gives to you humiliating compensations. If people feel the compensation its not OK they can always come to us later.
Good Contribution. Constructive or Abusive:
9
4
this a great victory for the TRNC….After the Orams debacle this will be a bitter pill for most GC’s to swallow…
I get the feeling that the IPC will be very busy….and also most property owners in the TRNC will sleep much better tonight knowing that the IPC will evaluate each claim and provide a fair option.The TRNC government has guaranteed any deeds and this will encourage developers and speculators alike to buy land which can only push up prices in the north….
North Cyprus is now the place to invest in…Im sure this will annoy the die hard GC’s ….
don’t get mad at me….just take it up with the IPC if you feel you have a legitimate claim to compensation…
after all..the TC’s have a legitimate claim to the ROC…
The TRNC does exist…only the blind cannot see it
Good Contribution. Constructive or Abusive:
9
6
This court decision unlike the orams Case can actually be used to promote a solution
its obvious that ECHR is showing us the way:
TC you forgot about recognition (it mentions Turkish occupation 3 times)
and
GC forgot about legal war.
I don’t think Turkey prefers to compensate all GC refugees/ we talk about BIllions here.
so Turkey logically will promote a solution.
And i don’t think GC prefer compensation rather than their actual land so they will keep pushing for a solution like they did all those years before orams case. (when they started thinking they can solve all aspects of cyprus problem to the ECHR)
Either way even this ”bad” court decision is 100 times more advantageous for us than the ANNAN plan.
In the Annan plan Refugees that their land was in the TC state would have automatically lost 2/3 of their land and the compensation were supposed to be given by the newROC (us) and NOT Turkey (IPC)
So at least now Turkey will have to spend some money to fix some problems..
@Chet
How on earth did you came up with all those conclusions mate?
The Court STRESSED that this decision was not to be interpreted as an obligation to make use of the IPC; the claimants could choose to await a political solution.
Further more this case does not Undone ORAMS case nor its implications. They still are two separate court decisions that do not even share the same subject. / i am not an evil GC here/ its just wrong to mess around with lives by propagandizing inaccurate conclusions.
The only ”save” choice for both sides and the foreigners is a political solution. This is where we need to focus in..
Good Contribution. Constructive or Abusive:
10
2
of-course i meant forget not forgot
Good Contribution. Constructive or Abusive:
5
2
Sense prevails – for the time being……………
Good Contribution. Constructive or Abusive:
7
1
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Unacceptable Behavior. Constructive or Abusive:
7
11
K, the EHCR statement that their decision “was not to be interpreted as an obligation to make use of the IPC; the claimants could choose to await a political solution” was interpreted by Chet, I believe, as meaning that, as he believed there would not be a solution in the short term, one GC property alternative would be to wait a very, very long time. Something he didn’t believe they would want to do. The Orams case MAY now become a one off and will cease to be the legal course open to GCs, in other words Brits COULD now relax and forget about their assets being seized, especially as there is no mention of trespass in the IPC’s decisions.
Good Contribution. Constructive or Abusive:
6
1
Yiannis
I hope ex pats wont be rushing to buy here until there is a
settlement. That said, people will make up their own minds
but at least they will have the present legal troubles and
the Orams case to be guided by which is more than some of the
earlier purchasers had.
Good Contribution. Constructive or Abusive:
6
0
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Unacceptable Behavior. Constructive or Abusive:
4
7
Hey Yiannis, the north part of Cyprus is as much occupied by Turkey as the south part is by Greece. In fact, I’ve heard someone in the know quietly claim that there are significantly more Greek troops in the south than Turkish troops in the north.
Don’t you ever get tired of writing the same repetitive garbage day after day?
We get tired of reading it…
Good Contribution. Constructive or Abusive:
11
4
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Unacceptable Behavior. Constructive or Abusive:
3
10
YS, I’ve made many comments; which are you referring to? Why is a mouse when it spins?
Constructive or Abusive:
1
1
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Unacceptable Behavior. Constructive or Abusive:
3
4
Kyriacos
I couldnt agree more – a political solution is the answer, it is no good keep sticking a plaster on the wound – lets heal it for
everyones sake.
Good Contribution. Constructive or Abusive:
7
1
@ Kyriacos
You wrote “The Court STRESSED…….
Not sure why you used capitals but I am assuming because you feel that this point needs to be highlighted and holds more weight than the actual conclusion of the courts….
The ECHR threw out the Greek Cypriot claims.They rejected the arguments.They recognised the IPC.
Good Contribution. Constructive or Abusive:
6
2
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Unacceptable Behavior. Constructive or Abusive:
0
4
I like most people realise there is a long way to go
but at least it is a step in the right in the right direction.
To say the TRNC does not exist is a nonsense, it is like saying
the people who live here do not exist. It lacks international
approval with the exception of Turkey but still has managed
to carry on for the last 36 years, the TCs too are just ordinary
people who have found themselves in an extraordinary situation and
they have made the best of it.
Whatever the solution found is, I just hope it is fair to everyone
involved.
Good Contribution. Constructive or Abusive:
4
0
Yiannis, you complete tool, Malcolm didn’t make the comment, I did. You really are past your use-by date old man.
Even after 50 years in the UK, you still clearly have trouble with the language. You should look in a dictionary and try to understand the difference in meaning between “occupy” and “invade”.
My comment is a recount of something a man who was in a position of knowledge told me. Non judicious is meaningless, shallow it’s not and neither you nor anyone not part of the Turkish high command would know whether it’s erroneous.
Good Contribution. Constructive or Abusive:
4
1
Ian why is Yiannis a complete tool – a tool is useful!
Good Contribution. Constructive or Abusive:
3
0
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Unacceptable Behavior. Constructive or Abusive:
3
5
I expect God will, he’s merciful to your single brain cell, is that your complete tool?
Have a nice Sunday.
Good Contribution. Constructive or Abusive:
4
0
YS wrote, “Malcolm’s asserion that the RoC IS OCCUPIED BY….GREECE”
What are you rambling about? At a guess I think you’ve been reading half a conversation with Jerry, not understood what we were talking about and then gone off on one
Good Contribution. Constructive or Abusive:
3
0
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Unacceptable Behavior. Constructive or Abusive:
1
3
YS wrote, “Malcolm , you addressed that particular post to me !!Here it is :”
Not me YS, that was Ian Edwards. Use the search facility to confirm that.
Good Contribution. Constructive or Abusive:
3
0
Which is why, Yiannis, I said you were a complete tool, and well past your use-by date…
Good Contribution. Constructive or Abusive:
5
2
So, Yiannis, speaking of “MAN ENOUGH TO DO SO”, are you man enough to get up on your hind legs and apologise to Malcolm for your error?
Good Contribution. Constructive or Abusive:
2
1
My apologies Malcolm , I can see that I used Malcom , instead of Ian !
That explains the total stupidity of that assertion , Ian the brains has inside information that we are not privy too.
Good Contribution. Constructive or Abusive:
2
0
That’s OK YS, I thought I was having a senior moment there.
Constructive or Abusive:
0
0
Now now boys – play nicely.
Good Contribution. Constructive or Abusive:
1
0
Good boy Yiannis…you had me worried there for a minute.
Now, let me try to clarify for you, as I realise you are still having problems with the language, exactly what point I was making. I said that “the north part of Cyprus is as much occupied by Turkey as the south part is by Greece”. You claim Greece doesn’t occupy the south part of Cyprus, so what do you reckon I’m saying? Do you need it spelled out any more clearly?
We see and feel the effects of the Turkish troops in the north about as much as the GCs in the south do the Greek troops. Do you understand now?
And my comment about the relative troop numbers is simply that…a comment I heard from someone who seemed to know. You may take it with the same grain of salt you’ve been using for most of the comments on this site you don’t agree with.
Good Contribution. Constructive or Abusive:
5
1
Well, all I can say is if I were to put that ‘grain of salt’
in my salt shaker, I would never have to buy any again.
Still what a ‘good news’ weekend it has been and we sure need some.
All this posturing – the air reeks of testosterone.
Good Contribution. Constructive or Abusive:
1
0
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Unacceptable Behavior. Constructive or Abusive:
2
3
YS Please consider changing your medication, its not working.
Good Contribution. Constructive or Abusive:
2
1
Sorry it’s taken me a while to get back to you, Yiannis…I had to go to the doctor because I sprained my back when I fell off my chair laughing at your last post. I realise now that you are simply not capable of understanding my point about occupancy, so I won’t bother with it any more.
But disparage you??!! For a start, all I said was that you clearly had trouble with the language, which after 50 years you really should not have. That’s a fact, mate.
But Yiannis, I ask you in all seriousness, who would you consider to be the King of Disparagement, the Master of Abuse and the Grand Poobah of Insult on this site? I’ll tell you later if you can’t decide…
Like most GCs and all bullies, Yiannis, you dish it out incessantly, but when someone bites back ever so gently you can’t take it and run home to mummy to complain.
Gawd…
Good Contribution. Constructive or Abusive:
3
2
Ian you have gone from a single cell brain to a birdbrain – so
you cannot fault his vocabulary.
Good Contribution. Constructive or Abusive:
1
0
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Unacceptable Behavior. Constructive or Abusive:
0
2
YS,
Obviously some relevant date here “6 years prior…”
Are you referring to the year 1968 or the period 1968 to 1974?
Good Contribution. Constructive or Abusive:
1
0