Orams and ECHR, what do you think?

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
28/04/2009 16:23

Please read my comments below as it appeared in Famagusta Gazette.

http://www.famagusta-gazette.com/default.asp?sourceid=&smenu=69&twindow=&mad=&sdetail=8525&wpage=1&skeyword=&sidate=&ccat=&ccatm=&restate=&restatus=&reoption=&retype=&repmin=&repmax=&rebed=&rebath=&subname=&pform=&sc=2350&hn=famagusta-gazette&he=.com

This is a substantial legal victory for Greek Cypriots but they have only won a battle, the war is not over.



1. The court of Appeal and the House of Lords have not had their final say yet. Nothing is certain in court matters, let us wait and see.



2. Orams argued that they were not given a proper chance to defend themselves and my view is that they can now go and seek redress at the European Court of Human Rights. This is the court which deemed that the Compensation Board set up in TRNC is a valid local remedy. Let us not confuse the jurisdiction of ECJ and ECHR, two different entities. ECJ decides on EU Law and its application but it has no right to interfere in the decision of the courts of member countries even if that decision is unjust and abominable. However the ECHR can interfere, so this is the difference.



So there is a great deal of legal cat and mouse game to be played yet. On the other hand the powers be (UK, USA etc) may be alarmed and they may try to impose their own settlement. All the indications are there already.

ismet

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
28/04/2009 16:32

Elko as I understand it the point of the ECJ ruling was that it was about the generic senario as to if such RoC rulings could be enforced by other member states courts or not. If it had decided that such cases could not be enforced by other member states courts under EU law then any prosecutions by the RoC would have been meaningless for anyone without assets in the RoC.



Any defense by the Orams now in the UK courts would be about the specifics of their case alone and would not be relvant to others unless they too were able to show to the UK courts that they did not recieve a fair trial in the RoC.



As I understand it as long as a UK court accepts that the RoC judgment followed correct procedure, UK courts will have no option but to enforce such RoC rulings should they be asked to do so.



Or have I got myself confused here ?

dobbo



Joined: 13/06/2007
Posts: 72

Message Posted:
28/04/2009 16:42

Constantinos Kantounas, lawyer for Apostolides, said he was ‘ecstatic’ at the outcome but doubted the ruling would open the way for hundreds more Greek Cypriots to demand restitution for properties they were forced to flee.



“This was a total vindication for Mr. Apostolides. I doubt it will open the flood gates it is not easy at all, I very much doubt that many will follow,” he told Radio Napa

Quote in the famagusta-gazette from the Greek Cypriots lawyer!

rtddci


Joined: 29/12/2007
Posts: 842

Message Posted:
28/04/2009 16:44

I agree with erolz, the UK High Court has to accept the ECJ judgement. It can't now say 'ah, yes, we did ask for your opinion but don't like the answer.' On what grounds can the Orams appeal in the UK? The ECJ says that they had a fair trial in RoC. Where is the TRNC government in all this? Have they made a statement? Has the Orams legal team made a statement?

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
28/04/2009 16:49

The application of the judgements of member countries are subject to specific rules and therefore the courts in UK may very well find loopholes in these specific rules. The ECJ cannot interfere with the rulings of member countries unless they contravene EU law. ECJ functions like a Constitutional Court but not as a court of Appeal. Whereas the ECHR can act as a court of appeal and can interfere with the ruling of the courts. That is the distinction. In a recent case ECHR found that the verdict of the court of appeal of TRNC was faulty. In TRNC we have no court to overturn the decision of the appeal court and therefore at the moment they do not know what to do with it. There is no system for retrial and if they do nothing Turkey faces another hefty penalty.

ismet

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
28/04/2009 17:13

Dear Ismet, re msg 1



1/ You REALLY must use the link I sent you for http://tinyurl.com for you links



2/ If you remember - we discussed this scenario over a year ago on "trnc"villaowners .. I said then that the Court of Eng and Wales had not interpreted Protocol 10 , correctly ..



Any appeal within the UK is a waste of time and money. I expect a sort of delaying tactic - via an appeal in the UK - but it will cost money and will fail.



3/ This ruling does indeed set a "collision course" between the ECJ and ECHR - but in as much that the ECHR have asked GCs to use Turkey's local remedy. The ECJ rule on the LAW.



4/ The Orams' were foolish to ignore the writ, Ismet, and the ECJ took that into account. The Writ was valid. The ECHR isn't likely to rule that this legal ruling was "wrong" or affected the Orams' Human Rights.



5/ the IPC is NOT a "TRNC" institution. Claiming it is is why GCs stay away



6/ the UK / USA already tried to impose their will on Cyprus back in

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
28/04/2009 17:15

( Cont) 6/ the UK / USA already tried to impose their will on Cyprus back in 74

ROBnJO


Joined: 30/06/2008
Posts: 1289

Message Posted:
28/04/2009 17:30

This reminds me of the Johnny Nash record:



"There are more questions than answers

And the more I find out the less I know"



*It's 'buck' passing.



*The ECJ had no option but to award to the plaintiff within EU Law, without redress to appeal.

*The ECJ have passed the buck back onto Member States and the ECHR, with redress to appeal.

*The judgement is Enforcable but currently Unenforcable in NC.

*This was a simple case with 1 property on 1 plot with Esdeger title in place.

*Multiple plots would be a massive problem with some sold, some not, some with title etc.

*The ECJ have not indicated as to whether any action against a EU Defendant could be against the Defendants other EU assets without redress or resolution to their NC assets in the first instance.







I feel more questions coming on!



Rob