TC property commission reaches two huge settlements

Aussie


Joined: 17/06/2007
Posts: 657

Message Posted:
07/07/2009 13:50

http://www.cyprus-mail.com/news/main.php?id=46652&cat_id=1

dobbo



Joined: 13/06/2007
Posts: 72

Message Posted:
07/07/2009 15:09

Just a thought but if Turkey is paying compensation and returning land to GC s in the north and has title deeds to lots of TC s land in the south surely this is a two way street and therefore Turkey will be a major land owner in the south.

pilgrim



Joined: 11/05/2007
Posts: 1404

Message Posted:
07/07/2009 15:50

Wonder who has built on these parcels of land.

Bradus


Joined: 25/02/2007
Posts: 2641

Message Posted:
07/07/2009 15:59

"The first settlement, which has been finalised, involves the immediate return of 234 donums of land – mainly around Kyrenia"



What will the settlement/plans be for those people currently living on the 234 donums of land?

No1Doyen


Joined: 04/07/2008
Posts: 16617

Message Posted:
07/07/2009 16:25

Can we expect an influx of GC builders now?

ROBnJO


Joined: 30/06/2008
Posts: 1289

Message Posted:
07/07/2009 17:10

234 donums?

2 M Euros?



So about £7k per donum?



Might not even be residential land, could even be the girne bypass?



But if a Villa on 1/2 donum, £3.5k?



Apartment on 12th donum £600?



I think most would be happy with that.



Am I reading this right?



Rob

Bradus


Joined: 25/02/2007
Posts: 2641

Message Posted:
07/07/2009 17:17

Is it me that's reading this all wrong? My immediate fear is that they do not want compensation, just the land back?

Brinsley


Joined: 04/04/2009
Posts: 6858

Message Posted:
07/07/2009 17:24

Where is the fleet of those Greek JCB's? Can't wait, potassium nitrate ready!



Richard

ROBnJO


Joined: 30/06/2008
Posts: 1289

Message Posted:
07/07/2009 17:30

I really cannot believe that any GC or TC would actually want to move back, reclaim their land or even try to develop it.

There is so much endemic animosity that how could they possibly think they would be welcomed or their 'redevelopment' of their land not be vandalised/thwarted.



Surely both sides, after all this time, must be looking purely to compensation.

thetruth


Joined: 11/01/2009
Posts: 268

Message Posted:
07/07/2009 17:34

if turkey has so much money to give away,why not give some to the poor people in turkey.or come to that what about the orams.why thay giving to some rich gc......what is going on?

ROBnJO


Joined: 30/06/2008
Posts: 1289

Message Posted:
07/07/2009 18:14

thetruth



Maybe the GC's are poor as well.



They lost their homes as did many TC's.



Oram's aren't poor either.

westender


Joined: 14/05/2009
Posts: 328

Message Posted:
07/07/2009 20:16

How do you know the Orams are not poor either, do you have access to their bank accounts?

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
07/07/2009 20:48

GC's are significantly richer than the Turks. Average wage in the ROC is 24k per year, whereas in Turkey it is 8k.



ps nice to see you back Bradus. Long time no hear, and I was wondering where you had got too.

Bradus


Joined: 25/02/2007
Posts: 2641

Message Posted:
07/07/2009 21:24

Thanks ilovecyprus,



I was only thinking the other day that you also don't post as much.



Nice to see you are now a forum admin.You will do a good job because you have always been open to debate from differing view points. I found it stifled my ability to say exactly what I thought so it was certainly not a job for me. Hope you are well and getting lots of use from that apartment of yours.



Take care

Sue (still without PTP and title deeds)

natalie


Joined: 03/05/2009
Posts: 323

Message Posted:
07/07/2009 21:27

A reply to wesenders comment would be nice. How rich are we all when it comes to our investment in the TRNC

pilgrim



Joined: 11/05/2007
Posts: 1404

Message Posted:
07/07/2009 21:35

Hi Sue,

nice to see you posting again, missed your inteligent credible comments said with integrity.

cheers

p

WAZ-24-7



Joined: 18/10/2008
Posts: 695

Message Posted:
07/07/2009 21:55

I find it hard to believe that Turkey are involved in the return of TRNC land to any ROC citizen.

Turkey may be involved in negotiations over compensation linked to outright purchase.

Can anyone shed further light on the Cyprus mail article and its author?

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
07/07/2009 21:57

Dear RoBnJo



re msg 9

>>There is so much endemic animosity that how could they possibly think they would be welcomed or their 'redevelopment' of their land not be vandalised/thwarted.

<<



Ah, such a common misconception.. If YOU had a choice between Kyrenia/ Girne and Limas(s)ol areas - which would YOU choose ? ;)



May be the GCs are happy to take their chances - as many TCs do in the south..



The most important thing is whether the ECHR accept TR can continue to be the local remedy - or would the ECHR deal with the cases.



As things were it would have been VERY unlikely that TR had convinced the ECHR of "reasonableness" as I believe few - if any- *occupied* land had been returned .



THIS is FAR more important than the "Orams' case "...

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
07/07/2009 22:06

Dear Warren/ Waz



re msg 17



>>I find it hard to believe that Turkey are involved in the return of TRNC land to any ROC citizen.

<<



I believe the realisation may, actually, be dawning upon you .... :o



TR will HAVE to pay compo for loss of use for all these claims and has been VERY lax in agreeing to hand over land currently occupied by a third party.



In all previous ECHRs - where the ECHR dealt directly - the GCs have refused compo for the land / property - they just accepted compo for loss of use.. it is STILL their land ..



I think we need to wait until November, as TR has always had it's offers WAY upped by the ECHR as inadequate in the "direct" cases.



The RoC will be worried that the ECHR will "rubber stamp" the IPC ( please remember that it is TURKEY's local remedy) and *I* reckon they have been foolish not to encourage GCs to pile in and test TR.

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
07/07/2009 22:07

BTW - and MOST importantly



the title of this thread is incorrect..



It is TURKEY's IPC..

WAZ-24-7



Joined: 18/10/2008
Posts: 695

Message Posted:
07/07/2009 22:22

msg 19 mmmmm thank you.

It is clearly the case that the IPC may well offer compensation for loss of use. Turkey may well seek to fall into the favour of the ECJ and ECHR.



With compensation paid. The case for reclemation and or further claim upon land is somewhat diminished. Furthermore, I still cannot understand the logic or advantage in handing back land, particularly as the land is very unlikely to be re-occupied by any original displaced persons.

Perhaps a compulsory purchase route may be explored in order to attain resolution. Unfortunately, I think that many ROC citizens still feel that they have a chance to destroy the TRNC and what it stands for.

I think that this aspiration continues to loose credibility and becomes even less likely with time.

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
07/07/2009 22:22

Dear ILC



re msg 13



>>GC's are significantly richer than the Turks. Average wage in the ROC is 24k per year, whereas in Turkey it is 8k.

<<



Where is the source of this data, please ?!.. my GC Bank manager was on 12 cyp ( 18 K euro) a year, and most GCs got 500- 800 CYP ( 750 -120 Euro) - info approx one yr old..



I'm sure the ave wage in RoC is WAY less than that - even in Euro.. are you quoting in yTL ?

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
08/07/2009 09:14

re 19 Waz/ Warren





I thought for a moment you had nearly got it ... ;( Let me try, again !



1/ ECJ has nought to do with this - this is the council of Europe.. of which TR is a member.. so they are subject to the rulings of the ECHR..as our RoC.. "TRNC" is recognised as a vessel of TR and the 2004 Annan vote did not ( sadly for TCs voting yes ) change that.



2/ When GCs accept compo - for loss of use - it does not diminish the fact that they still own the land.. they don't WANT compo for the actual land.. they want the right to be able to move back - something the ECHR can't enforce - hence the continued liability for loss of use. So the "logiical" conclusion is TR will be paying out , indefinitely, or hoping for a soln., or change of ECHR policy.



3/ TR believed it HAD "Compulsorily purchased " the land - or it had been "swapped" - but the ECHR didn't go for that HUGE "assumption". The flip side is the "rump" RoC cannot been seen to have sold TC land for private gain.

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
08/07/2009 09:35

cont from 23



4/ The "rump" RoC also can't make it too difficult for a TC wanting to return to his/her property , either, which is why I think the six month residency rule is something they won't want tested at the ECHR.





>>Unfortunately, I think that many ROC citizens still feel that they have a chance to destroy the TRNC and what it stands for.



I think that this aspiration continues to loose credibility and becomes even less likely with time.<<



It's got "B all" to do with destroying "TRNC".. most GCs accept the concept of bizonality - the thorny issue - for them and TCs - is how long will they be prevented from ( if ever) having the *right* to live / work where they choose on island.



That and how many TR troops will remain..



So, for me, how the ECHR views the future remedy route is THE most important thing - and may be something that would influence the talks.

Aussie


Joined: 17/06/2007
Posts: 657

Message Posted:
09/07/2009 12:46

As an update on this Cyrus Today July 8, 2009 page 3 states that the land handed back was Forestry land in Karisiyaka and was only able to be returned because no TRNC titles were issued for the property and it wasn't close to military areas or threaten national security. Other cases/ returns are pending as well.



As I understand it though this doesn't mean they can come and live on the land etc (but could be wrong).



Interestingly if the GC owner later sells it it it would seem to create a new and presumable more valuable category of land in the trnc with no prior claims and presumably none of the permission to purchase issues that appear to be occurring with pre 74 Turkish title. It would presumable be on par with pre 74 foreign title property.



Aussie

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
09/07/2009 12:53

Dear Aussie



For some time I have been giving some thought to the issues of "ptps" for pre 74 TR / Foreign owned title.. this post of yours has given me an idea..



IF someone has been refused "PTP", they could register the sale with the RoC land registry and then claim via Turkey's ECHR local remedy the IPC?



I just have a feeling that these refusals are a deliberate attempt to "devalue" such indisputable title..



Any thoughts..?

Aussie


Joined: 17/06/2007
Posts: 657

Message Posted:
09/07/2009 13:04

6m



Perhaps your idea could work if the contract could be registered in the ROC in its current form but I would assume not as it was specifically written to apply only in the TRNC. I think you would need a cooperative vendor who would be prepared to sign a new ROC contract under its laws to make this work and of course in most cases they have no incentive to do so as they would have been paid the full purchase price long ago.



It would probably be best to exhaust domestic TRNC appeals etc first.



As to the policy of PTP refusals for pre 74 no one really knows what the agenda there is. I assume that a fair percentage could have been refused for military base reasons which were often set up near pre 74 TC areas but for the rest its unclear.



Aussie

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
09/07/2009 13:17

re 27



hard to type as holding a new born baby some foolish neighbour has temporarily entrusted to me..



agree with "probably be best to exhaust domestic TRNC appeals etc first."

pilgrim



Joined: 11/05/2007
Posts: 1404

Message Posted:
09/07/2009 13:33

Bearing in mind ECHR are dealing with issues relavent to TRNC affecting EU residents , a president has been set, therefore surely the question of seeking redress for PTP refusal relative to pre 74 TR title deeds could be pursued on that basis alone.

pilgrim



Joined: 11/05/2007
Posts: 1404

Message Posted:
09/07/2009 13:37

I also wonder whether Turkey have set a damaging president in settling these claims in this manner.

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
09/07/2009 14:12

Hi Paul



TR hasn't set a precdent.. the ECHR did that !



TR is trying to ensure that the ECHR don't take the descision back "in house" .. they have ALWAYS upped TR's liability and penalties beyond TR's offer.



Still waiting to hear if ONE case of a GC being allowed to return home - displacing a TC / Turk - has happened..

Bradus


Joined: 25/02/2007
Posts: 2641

Message Posted:
09/07/2009 21:26

"probably be best to exhaust domestic TRNC appeals etc first."



What is this appeals procedure you refer to? As far as I know once PTP is refused the government simply wash their hands suggesting that you should have followed the correct procedure and not purchased until your PTP was granted. It would also appear that many pre74 purchasers are not necessarily being refused but kept waiting indefinitely.



Advice from British Consul in ROC is to contact a solicitor in the south to act on your behalf and register your contract and evidence of monies being paid at land registry office. The ROC then have information as to who and where land has been purchased. I have been reluctant to do this but it will be an option to explore if action is not forthcoming.



Hi Paul,

Are you in the same boat with PTP and have you been given an explanation as to why it has not been approved?

pilgrim



Joined: 11/05/2007
Posts: 1404

Message Posted:
09/07/2009 22:07

Hi Sue

Same boat , but now got to stage where I am going to go on the offensive , ie make direct approach threatening action and exploring registration in south. Visiting solictor in August.

regards

P

WAZ-24-7



Joined: 18/10/2008
Posts: 695

Message Posted:
09/07/2009 22:30

mmmmmm

msg 23.



Got what?

I fear that your interpretation of many posts is somewhat confused.



The ECJ is indeed a body very much involved in current Cypriot issues. I hope that you get that!

Payment of compensation can resonably be expected to reduce the scope for further claim. Land ownership is not clearly defined because of both the legal and possession influences. I hope you get that!

I firmly believe that very many ROC citizens aspire to a TRNC free Cyprus. Can you understand and get that?

The ECHR is certainly a body that has a considerable influence upon Cypriot issues and problems. I too have no problem in understanding this.



I respecfully feel that I am most certainly in a position to "get it"

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
15/07/2009 12:24

msge 22



Where is the source of this data, please ?!..



Dear MM



I have checked in to this and my interpretation of my source is incorrect. It seems that you are right and the GC average wage is not much better than Turkey. This has surprised me.

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
15/07/2009 12:42

Dear Waz/ Warren



re msg 34



As you have said, yourself.. the ECJ rule on legal matters..



TR knows ( seems only you don't) that the ECHR confirm that the RoC land reg as of July 74 is the starting point to prove ownership..



So.. if the GC doesn't wish to relinquish that right TR would only be paying out continued loss of use..



>>I firmly believe that very many ROC citizens aspire to a TRNC free Cyprus. Can you understand and get that? << ..and many of 'em are TCs....



Respectfully, your responses continue to demonstrate the contrary.. if you realise the ECHR ruling have considerable effect of things CY, why are you surprised by TR realising it has got to pay out better loss of use compo, or risk losing the "local remedy" solution !!??



Don't worry, you aren't alone.. many GCs don't realise what a golden opportunity the IPC could be to bring about a solution - and that by NOT using it - they play into TRs hands...

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
15/07/2009 12:44

re 35, Mark ILC



NP..



for certain the average GC is better off than Mr Ave TC.. but they start from a low base.. :(

girne 29


Joined: 06/12/2007
Posts: 1488

Message Posted:
15/07/2009 13:19

To avoid paying out continued loss of use,why arent the GC's allowed back if they wish.If the areas are not very populated,there should not really be any intimidation. The could be treated by TRNC immigration etc in much the same way as non residents in the trnc at present.