GP, A bit rich – accusing Embargoed of distorting …
Comment posted ECHR ruling [on TRNC Property Commission] a victory for common sense and Cyprus by VinceHugo.
GP,
A bit rich – accusing Embargoed of distorting the truth. The ECHR reference to illegal occupation is not hot news – right or wrong it’s been their position for some time.
What is news is that “if applicants wished to lodge an application before the ECHR, its admissibility would be decided in line with the principles laid out in today’s ruling – essentially, all local remedies including the IPC in North Cyprus, must have been exhausted first”. So it’s not just the process that has been established but also the principles, including “no obligation to effect restitution in all cases”. The ECHR are saying that they are comfortable with the approach of the IPC and will view any cases escalated to them on this basis.
VinceHugo also commented
- Masta,
If the RoC aren’t prepared to pay compensation how is this going to work? Does it mean the only choice most TC’s will get is restitution, even if they don’t want to move to the South?
And what about all the TC deeds that have been surrendered to the TRNC Government in return for land in the North. If restitution is the only option I guess the TRNC will be putting an awful lot of land/property up for sale in the South to recover the money they/Turkey are paying out through the IPC.
- Jerry,
Please explain how you defend the argument that you should get more compensation for your “field” if someone has built a house on it. It doesn’t seem to make any rational sense. You didn’t pay for the house so why should it be a feature of your compensation?
Recent comments by VinceHugo
- “Talat Kursat is not an ISO 9001 registered client of WCS and never has been”
Thomas,I can fully understand and accept that a solicitor (or advocate) might well act for a range of clients including buyers and sellers of property. This would also be perfectly normal in the UK too. The bit that would be unacceptable is a solicitor (or advocate) was acting for both sides on a specific transaction ie. both the buyer and the seller of a particular property. Is that what you are saying Talat Kursat has been doing?
- “Talat Kursat is not an ISO 9001 registered client of WCS and never has been”
Malcolm,
The general thrust of the comments in this thread is that the the questionmark over ISO9001 certification demonstrates questionable practices by Talat Kursat.
Displaying an accreditation which they are not entitled to, IF this turns out to be the case, is a serious matter, but not as serious as failing to do what they say they will do for their clients. So the point I wanted to make, to add a little balance to the debate, is that in my personal experience Talat Kursat has proved to be a good advocate. That’s all. - “Talat Kursat is not an ISO 9001 registered client of WCS and never has been”
I would like to add my voice to Bryn’s on this one. I have used Talat Kursat for many years and always found him to be diligent, dependable, proactive and a nice bloke to boot. Now it has been raised, I hope the position on ISO9001 is clarified but I can honestly say that I relied on personal recommendations when choosing my Advocate – ISO9001 didn’t come into it. - North Cyprus entertainer defends right to perform without work permit
“Whether they are singers, DJs or, bands, in whatever way these people generate an income, they will be liable to pay tax as well!”If Barry isn’t charging for his services then I guess that means he doesn’t have to pay tax. So there isn’t a problem, is there?
- Embargoed! stepping up the battle against racism
Haier,To be clear, the ECHR looked at the IPC set up by Turkey several years ago and administered by the TRNC courts under TRNC law. They decided that it was an acceptable domestic remedy for GC’s seeking settlement on property in the TRNC. I saw the “legal battle” and would say that it was a very clear win for Turkey.
Furthermore, the ECHR accepted that the IPC did not need to provide compensation for loss of use, emotional damage etc. OTHER THAN as part of a full and final settlement of their property claim – in other words GC’s can’t just claim for loss of use and keep their rights to the property. So it was never intended to be an adequate remedy purely for loss of use.
It seems you missed Dominic’s question asking what GC’s were doing about returning land or compensating TC’s. I’d be really interested to hear what’s planned by the RoC on this as it seems they are rather falling behind Turkey in attempting to put things right.
powered by SEO Super Comments
polly on 
Dominic Freeman on 
David Waters on 
Ian Edwards on
A bit of good news for the TRNC for a change.
I don’t get the big celebration. The ECHR statement mentions Turkey’s illegal occupation numerous times which predictably, Embargoed didn’t quote.
All this means is someone has to go to the property commission in the north before the ECHR. If they don’t like the property commission’s judgment, they can still apply to the ECHR.
Good old Embargoed! You can always trust them to distort the truth
GP,
A bit rich – accusing Embargoed of distorting the truth. The ECHR reference to illegal occupation is not hot news – right or wrong it’s been their position for some time.
What is news is that “if applicants wished to lodge an application before the ECHR, its admissibility would be decided in line with the principles laid out in today’s ruling – essentially, all local remedies including the IPC in North Cyprus, must have been exhausted first”. So it’s not just the process that has been established but also the principles, including “no obligation to effect restitution in all cases”. The ECHR are saying that they are comfortable with the approach of the IPC and will view any cases escalated to them on this basis.
So basically you’ve just underlined what I said. Anyone wishing restitution or compensation for their properties will have to go through the IPC first. If they don’t like its judgment, they can still approach the ECHR.
What Embargoed also didn’t mention is that Turkey admitted the IPC was set up by themselves and not the ‘TRNC’, subsequently admitting it’s illegal occupation on the island.
It also means Turkey will have to be consistent in the compensation it shells out, which would amount to billions. Even then it wont see any return in capital because this ECHR has cemented the fact that the north legitimately comes under the sovereignty of the RoC, hence the occupied territories being returned sooner or later.
By the way, any Greek Cypriot refugee can still go through the Apostolides / Orams route, as both cases are separate.
In my view, this case my have saved face for Turkey slightly, but it’s going to cost them a hell of a lot now and not see them get much in return.
Working on the assumptions that Turkey will wish to pay as little as possible for each case but enough to reflect a “market value” and GC claimants would expect to receive more compensation for developed or improved property – how will this impact on the already dead construction industry in the north?
The IPC will probably value land in its oringinal state at current market value any sebsequent development that has taken place will probabley be discounted as it will be argued by the IPC that G/Cs are not entitled to the benefits of development as that would be tantamount to unjust enrichment in the form of semi-completed or completed properties and commercial investments. The Court was not convinced by the allegation that IPC members lacked subjective impartiality, due among other things to the presence of Turkish military personnel or the appointment of members of the IPC by the “TRNC” President. Nor was it of the opinion that the sums of compensation awarded under Law 67/2005 would fall short of what could be regarded as reasonable compensation. So it remains to be seen how much it will cost.
what this ruling means is quite simple…
if a GC is trying to seek compensation for land or property that belonged to them before the Turkish intervention in 1974 to protect the turkish cypriot people from being massacared …they now have to apply to the IPC instead of serving notice on an individual …this is now an effective remedy for compensation that must be adhered to….its a much fairer and simple way to claim compensation , if proved .
The IPC is now “recognised” as an effective remedy…it won’t be long before the rights of the Turkish Cypriot people are also recognized…
The GC’s have been waving the legal stick at the world for ages…now the legal stick is being waived at them they should accept this gracefully and admire this legal remedy recommended by the European Courts Of Human Rights…..
One day , it will become clear that the ROC , which is internationally recognised as the Government of Cyprus , is actually unconstitutional and fundamentally flawed.How can a constitution with principles and guidelines established giving “political equality”…to both GC and TC’s which is meant to represent both communities exist if there is no representation or equality for the TC’s?
It’s like agreeing to marry…divorcing and then one side still trying to tell the other how to live their lives…
Compensation, for both TC’s and GC’s is the only answer for a simple reason. If the historical anger is over displacement ,GC’s complaining they have been removed from their homes, TC’s losing their homes and land in the south…then trying to claim back the property will only displace the occupiers now and so the anger will simply shift from one displaced owner to another.
The IPC in the North has proved its integrity which is why the ECHR has recognised it.
This ruling will cannot prevent another Orams like lawsuit. After all that involved the enforcement of a GC Court ruling (a local remedy) in the UK and the precedent has been established. Orams involved the ECJ ruling, this one is ECHR. It remaind to be seen which course the GCs will prefer to take.
Whether or not the IPC offers enhanced payments because the property has subsequently been developed remains to be seen. As a GC I can tell you that if I saw that my field had been built on I would expect more for it. Someone has profited from the enhanced use without my consent and I would expect the compensation to reflect that.
Jerry wrote, This ruling will cannot prevent another Orams like lawsuit.”
All GCs now have to initially either go to the IPC or wait for a settlement. If they are not happy with the IPC’s decision they then have to go to the ECHR who if they agreed that the IPC’s decision was inapproriate, I guess, would then agree to the use of UK courts. Now if you see this differently Jerry, then I’d like to see where this is stated. Local remedies (IPC) first. The process taking you to a settlement in the UK courts could take 10 years considering the IPC backlog.
Jerry, I believe you get the value of the field and that’s it. I’m fairly sure of that.
Malcolm perhaps you can explain how this ruling could stop a GC going to a Court in the ROC as Apostolides did. Below is the opinion of a regular lawyer on CF. Sorry to copy and paste.
“The relationship with the Apostolides v.Orams judgment at ECJ is tangential to this ECHR judgment. This ECHR judgment does not in any way alter (nor did the case under judgment seek to alter) and does not address (nor did the case under judgment seek to address) the issues contested in A v. O. This ECHR case refers to the appropriateness and effectiveness of the property remedy available in the north’s effective jurisdiction. The A v. O case refers to the justiciability and enforcement of judgment of a case heard in RoC (Neither A nor O ever made a case in the north).”
Msg 5062 Then you would find that most GCs would not accept – I certainly would not. Turkey would find most of its offers rejected, I wonder what the ECHR would make of that.
Jerry, whatever the lawyer believes, the route has now changed. GC cases are not going to be held in the RoC as they were for Mr A, otherwise what would be the point of the ECHR’s decision. The RoC route will now be for TCs only. The IPC has now been confirmed as having justiciability over cases in the north.
Of course the GCs can reject the IPC’s decision but the ECHR has to be convinced that this rejection was reasonable.
Chef , you appear to have privileged information on the” massacre ” that the Turkish invasion put a stop to in 1974.
Would you perhaps enlightens by telling us how many T/Cs lost their lives SIX YEARS PRIOR TO THE TURKISH INVASION .
Either tell us with a link to your stupid assertion or shut it !!
Maybe the Cyprus Mail will convince you:
“As a result of the landmark ruling, Greek Cypriot refugees seeking compensation or restitution for their properties in the occupied areas will now have to exhaust all domestic remedies in the occupied areas before applying to the ECHR in Strasbourg.
Up until yesterday, Greek Cypriot refugees had bypassed the occupied areas on the grounds that there was no effective remedy there.
The ECHR decision is final and not subject to any appeal to either the court or any other body.”
http://www.cyprus-mail.com/cyprus/echr-recognises-north-s-immovable-property-commission/20100306
the reason why this ruling was taken was:
a. the court was worried that it might find itself (in the future) involved in situation where more people had to be made refugees (yet again), namely the tcs. it is sensitive to the fact that people that had nothing to do with the events in 74 (due to the fact that it was so long ago now). this was a known risk for the GC lawyer.
b, it considers the IPC a court of law of T. (not the trnc). It did want to deal with the “fairness” of the ipc since citizents have the right to appeal to the ECHR anyway.
This indirectly acknowledges the right of TCs (or whoever else?) to stay in the current residence. The court made special refference so that it weakens the above statement.
lets see if T. picks up the money game to entice GCs to accept the ruling. has anyone ever done the math? it would be interesting to see what this might cost.
The IPC will change the rules as to whatever it suits it better politically. lets see
ME, if compensation was awarded in every case then the expectation is that Turkey may have to pay £2-3bn but this could be offset by returning some unused land to the original owners and supposedly the TRNC are holding 1000s of deeds for property in the south, surrendered by TCs in order to be given GC property. Perhaps these could be used instead of financial compensation, as Jerry believes they may.
hmmm
2-3b. gbp bn is “peanuts” for t. in order to take care of this…
as far as the number …im not so sure..
180K refugees means about 40K households…assuming none lived in caves and that the avg worth of a house/aptment is …ammm… 200K EUR (including loss of usage) which in my estimate is cheap, the bill is 8B eur.
Then there is other property and say each household had avg 4 plots each @ 100K eur each. thats another 16B EUR.
I have no idea if my numbers are accurate but I doubt it is as low as 2-3B GBP
still 24B EUR is relatively speaking a small number for T. But it would “feel it”.
ME, I think your calculations are fairly accurate. TC Sofi had 2 houses and 2 plots of land and she accepted €500,000. The 85 cases settled in the IPC ended up with “361,493 square metres of property had been restituted and approximately 47 million euros paid in compensation.” But even though both these examples seem to work out at €500,000 per refugee and a €20bn compensation bill, I believe that Turkey does not believe this will be the figure. What about the RoC’s €5bn bill?
I dont think the RoC will be prepared to pay TCs compensation as such, apart from tc land that is currently used. a small pc of the total tc land.
I can tell you though there would be a second junta if the bill came to 5B.
Jerry,
Please explain how you defend the argument that you should get more compensation for your “field” if someone has built a house on it. It doesn’t seem to make any rational sense. You didn’t pay for the house so why should it be a feature of your compensation?
Masta,
If the RoC aren’t prepared to pay compensation how is this going to work? Does it mean the only choice most TC’s will get is restitution, even if they don’t want to move to the South?
And what about all the TC deeds that have been surrendered to the TRNC Government in return for land in the North. If restitution is the only option I guess the TRNC will be putting an awful lot of land/property up for sale in the South to recover the money they/Turkey are paying out through the IPC.
I notice that Cyprus Weekly News hasn’t quite got the gist of the ECHR’s recognition of the IPC. They call it “the self-styled immovable property commission (IPC)”
http://www.cyprusweekly.com.cy/main/92,1,283,0,6571-.aspx
a very honest appraisel…the truth will set us all free
http://www.parliamentarybrief.com/articles/1/new/mag/83/1054/britains-duty-if-no.html