Immovable Property Commission –the facts as requested by Middle Easter

Raman


Joined: 01/06/2008
Posts: 10

Message Posted:
06/05/2009 01:12

Hi I’ve followed the forum for a long time but never got round to posting on here before. So for a first time and in reply to Middle Easter’s recent requests here is the link to the two ECHR judgements in the Arestis case which refer to the IPC. http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/portal.asp?sessionId=23233732&skin=hudoc-en&action=request



You will see that it is para 40 of the judgement dated 22 Dec 2005 that calls for the TRNC to introduce a remedy for the HR violations in light of that case and you will also see that the judgement dated 7 Dec 2006 in particular in paras 10 & 11 refers to the introduction by that time of the Immovable Property Commission which has, quote “the competence to decide on the restitution, exchange of properties or payment of compensation. A right of appeal lies to the “TRNC” High Administrative Court”. cont..

jay76


Joined: 17/07/2008
Posts: 532

Message Posted:
06/05/2009 01:14

Tried to open link but no joy.

cooper


Joined: 23/10/2007
Posts: 3386

Message Posted:
06/05/2009 08:27

jay76 when you open the link you have to go into search on the left and then press the box for judgments once you have done this a new page will open. if you type the date 07/12/06 into both the date boxes at the bottom of the page and then press search it will show all cases for that day. The Arestis case is at the top, just click on the little word doc and it will open.



Cooper

jay76


Joined: 17/07/2008
Posts: 532

Message Posted:
06/05/2009 10:26

Thanks cooper very helpfull indeed.

Middle Easter


Joined: 13/06/2007
Posts: 146

Message Posted:
07/05/2009 15:15

Raman (& Cooper)..many thanks

Middle Easter


Joined: 13/06/2007
Posts: 146

Message Posted:
07/05/2009 15:30

Raman (anyone) - one more question



I read that the IPC wasn't set up until after the Orams case was started in the RoC courts. However now that the IPC is in place, that all subsequent claims should/would be referred in the first instance to the IPC, rather than trawling through the Courts.



Is this true OR is it that the a GC from RoC can opt to pursue via the IPC or the Courts? As I also read that the RoC government were trying to put GC's off from using the IPC, on the grounds that they felt the IPC is/was set up by TRNC authorities who the RoC do not even rocognise.



Appreciate any feedback...

rtddci


Joined: 29/12/2007
Posts: 842

Message Posted:
08/05/2009 22:58

If you read the AG opinion in the Orams case (paras 55 -73), she puts the view that GC's have to go down the IPC route firmly in its place. THE ECHR is for private citizens to sue public bodies for breaches of their human rights. It is not for private citizens to use to sue in purely civil cases if they have proper recourse to the civil courts. A GC can therefore opt to take either route. I'd be interested to know how quick the IPC route is and how satisfied those that have used it have been.

Raman


Joined: 01/06/2008
Posts: 10

Message Posted:
09/05/2009 00:38

BRT reported this week that nearly GBP10m has been paid in compensation by IPC with a total of just over 50 cases settled so far out of 390 applicants. See http://www.brtk.cc/index.php/lang/en/cat/2/news/49204 Therefore on average that's around GBP200K per claim settled if those figures are correct? If a GC has the choice of going to the IPC (and presumably not risking incurring any legal fees) or going down the route of an Orams then the IPC must surely be worthy of consideration. Imagine a GC with 20 villas built on land he occupied in 1974 - if he went the orams route that would be 20 sets of legal fees for the cases assuming he could trace each and every one of the current users, with no gurantee that they're all EU citizens or have any EU assets to seize that aren't already mortgaged or already put in a UK trust to protect them from such claims anyway. I'd have thought a simple appication to IPC would be the least hassle and produce the quickest result for receiving compensation.

Moover321


Joined: 11/04/2009
Posts: 649

Message Posted:
09/05/2009 01:49

Two very separate issues. The IPC is the vehicle which gives GC the opportunity to follow a process for restitution and or compensation. The Orams case is the enforcement of a GC court judgement in any EU country where the respondent has assets. The ECJ and the ECHR are separate institutions. The ECJ deals with EU law and the enforcement of the same!



Raman is correct that most GC would logically follow the Orams example which is cheaper and less complicated. However, once the precedence has been established if any GC wanted to be punitive he or she could still pursue the same route.



The issue of fees is important and as yet we are unclear in the Orams case who has been stumping up the cash for the huge fees. It is likely to be someone close to the GC authorities, but we don't know yet!



End result? This is just politics being played out in the courts. The sad part is that it affects real people on all sides!

Moover321


Joined: 11/04/2009
Posts: 649

Message Posted:
09/05/2009 01:51

"Raman is correct that most GC would logically follow the Orams example which is cheaper and less complicated. However, once the precedence has been established if any GC wanted to be punitive he or she could still pursue the same route".



Ooopppsss...I meant "....logically most GC would NOT follow the Orams example....but the IPC system"



It's a bit late.....and I am a bit tired! Apologies to all!