ECHR and the Property commision

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
10/03/2009 19:38

This thread is a tangent from an earlier one and starting a new thread here is an attempt to not take the orgianl one off topic.



The original thread is this one and I refer to msg 18 in it by MM



http://www.cyprus44.com/forums/11995.asp



"....GCs may well STILL feel that they have international law on their side.. unless the ECHR rule that IPCs are THE only recourse the property resolution."



I am wondering what option the ECHR has other than to continue to insist that Turkey / TRNC ammend the operation of the property commision in the North until it meets their requirement of a valid local remedy ? Even if it was to hear every pending case re property itself, something clearly it does not want to do, the execution of the merits of each of these case would still be pending. The property commision that meets ECHR standards seems to me to be the ONLY way the ECHR can rule the execution of the merits of current (or future)



[cont]

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
10/03/2009 19:40

cases as having been met. Other than that the only other thing I can see they could do is expel Turkey from the CoE, in which case the ECHR would have no jurisdiction re Turkey or TRNC.



Have I missed something ?

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
11/03/2009 15:51

Dear ErolZ



re msg 2



The GCs who don't at least TRY the local remedy are playing into the hands of TR in my opinion...



the RoC can't pick and choose ECHR rulings to suit..



In case you've missed my posts on this before, ErolZ, I maintain GCs SHOULD pile in and test the remedy...



The policy of "Liealot's" govt to shame folk taking such a route is INCREDIBLY short sighted and STUPID..

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
11/03/2009 19:05

The question I am asking MM is there any other way that Turkey can have been deem by the ECHR to have met the execution of the merits of judgments laready made by the ECHR OTHER than a property comission in the North that meets the ECHR standards?

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
11/03/2009 19:25

Hi ErolZ re msg 4



Sorry, I misunderstood.



As I understand it judgements per the inception of the IPC are still valid.. i.e the rulings re Aresti, or Loizidou, for example



Turkey has paid out a sizeable some for loss of use compo.



Even if TR pulled out of the "club" I'm sure it would be liable to pay it's obligations



What would the penalties be for non compliance- if TR DID leave the CoE? ..good Q in the light of the fact the west needs TR on side re Gas transit pipeline alternatives and possibly bases ..



I was away for a few days, but I did't see anyone pick up on the fact that Mrs Clinton, failed to mention Cyprus as an "issue" re Turkey !...

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
12/03/2009 00:02

As I understand it MM the Loizidou case judgments have been met re 'just satisfaction' (compensation to plantiff) but remain open and unexecuted re the 'merits' of the case, namely that Turkey can not violate peoples right to enjoyment of their property. As I understand it the way the ECHR seeks to make Turkey execute this requirment of the judgment (merits of the case) is for them to set up the IPC. One of the reasons that the first IPC version did not meet ECHR requirments was because it excluded return of / to totaly - and thus did not meet the merits judgment. One that allows return in some cases and other options in others may.



The point I am trying to make is what else could the ECHR try and convince Turkey to do , that would meet the merits of these outstanding cases, other than the IPC that it accepts as valid local remedy ? I can not think of any and thus question the logic of GC 'hoping' the IPC will not be ECHR soloution ?