Turkish Cypriot winner in property case

No1Doyen


Joined: 04/07/2008
Posts: 16617

Message Posted:
28/01/2010 13:17

A citizen of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (KKTC) has reached an amicable settlement with the Greek Cypriot administration in a complaint filed by the former concerning her properties in the southern part of the divided island of Cyprus.

Turkish Cypriot Nezire Sofi filed her complaint with the European Court of Human Rights in 2004. A public hearing scheduled to be held in the court on Jan. 28 was recently cancelled after the two parties reached a settlement on the issue, with lawyers for the Greek Cypriot government offering to pay 500,000 euros to 83-year-old Sofi, who now lives in Britain. Sofi’s properties in Larnaca consist of two houses and two plots.



http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/news-199319-100-turkish-cypriot-winner-in-property-case.html

Vidal


Joined: 14/05/2009
Posts: 867

Message Posted:
28/01/2010 13:22

Is the property still hers or did she give it up in exchange for her deeds?

apples


Joined: 10/11/2009
Posts: 43

Message Posted:
28/01/2010 16:37

is there any other publicity on this case that any one know's of ?

No1Doyen


Joined: 04/07/2008
Posts: 16617

Message Posted:
28/01/2010 16:38

In a declaration signed by the two parties via the intermediation of the court, the Greek Cypriots pledged to make amendments to their legislation, which currently prevents Turkish Cypriots from claiming their rights to property in the southern part of the island, admitting that the existing legislation is not in compliance with human rights.

A Greek Cypriot chief prosecutor and Zaim Necatigil, Sofi’s lawyer, signed the declaration, which is a landmark in the complex issue of property in Cyprus.

Referring to the fact that a total of 10 Turkish Cypriot complaints have been filed with the European court, Necatigil told Today’s Zaman that he expected the amicable settlement to set a precedent for those complaints.

yorgozlu



Joined: 16/06/2009
Posts: 4437

Message Posted:
28/01/2010 16:43

What anyone may/maynot have in TRNC is irrelevant,all you need to do is PROVE that you have land/property in the south.

What matters most(financialy)is the fact that,the Greeks have now shoot themselves on the foot.Regardless how far they are prepaired to go,they will never get anything in TRNC unless of course there is a settlement.



The best thing to do now in my opinion,for TRNC government to put a STOP to Turkish Cypriots flooding to south for their claims if they had already been given EXCHANGE/ESDEGER.

But,as far as the south is concerned,they have no legs to stand on if one turns up with "proof" of their title deeds for their land/property.



AN OPPORTUNITY FOR OPPORTUNIST,sad but fact.

vincehugo


Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 208

Message Posted:
28/01/2010 17:34

Yorguzlu,



As I understand it, under TRNC law it is illegal for anyone who has accepted an Es Deger exchange of land to attempt to reclaim their land in the South. Which seems reasonable on the basis that they cannot expect to own both plots.



I can only assume that Sofi's land in the South was not "exchanged".



Vince

yorgozlu



Joined: 16/06/2009
Posts: 4437

Message Posted:
28/01/2010 17:48

msg 6;

Remember the good old sayig:Where there is gain,there'll always be FIDDLE.



But,for us Turkish Cypriots,I hope it stays like that.Otherwise,if one day a solution is found,the TRNC government would come UNSTUCK.

girne 29


Joined: 06/12/2007
Posts: 1488

Message Posted:
28/01/2010 18:23

I thought the TRNC had taken the title deeds of the southern property in exchange for land in the North,and that the only reason ROC didnt accept an exchange had taken place back then, was because that would have meant recognising the status quo, and accepting the trnc existed. Accepting the exchange system would have by default meant the ROC accepting that the situation was not temporary.



If the TC didnt give title to the TRNC then no exchange has taken place, therefore Esdeger title is anything but.

vincehugo


Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 208

Message Posted:
28/01/2010 18:33

My belief is that the TC did have to "sign away" their rights to land in the South in order to take Es Deger land. So there was an agreed exchange between the TC and the TRNC Government - implying that the TRNC Government hold the deeds for the land in the South. However whether they physically hold the deeds is another matter.

girne 29


Joined: 06/12/2007
Posts: 1488

Message Posted:
28/01/2010 18:59

vincehugo.



Thats what I presumed.I dont think the TRNC govt will have the deeds in their physical possesion.I am sure they will be with the ROC, but the TC in question would have signed over his land in the south .The trnc would have some proof of ownership from the TC, if not the actual deeds then something in place.

Its inconceivable that no legal ,in the eyes of the TRNC, exchange took place.That would be theft and the Orams wouldnt have lasted 5 mins in court appeals, never mind 5 years if that had been the case.

greenman


Joined: 16/02/2008
Posts: 526

Message Posted:
28/01/2010 21:42

The Oram's built, as many have, on exchange land. As this has not been recognised by the ROC does this mean the Oram's now own a piece of Turkish Cypriot owned land in the south? or does the TC seller of the Oram's land now have another bite of the cherry with their southern plot?

No1Doyen


Joined: 04/07/2008
Posts: 16617

Message Posted:
28/01/2010 21:55

Surely the land in the south now belongs to the government.

yorgozlu



Joined: 16/06/2009
Posts: 4437

Message Posted:
28/01/2010 22:04

You are all starting to talk non-sense again.

TRNC government stands by their own title deeds.It's weater they are recognised anywhere else or not.

yorgozlu



Joined: 16/06/2009
Posts: 4437

Message Posted:
28/01/2010 22:06

msg 12

No1 Doyen;

"Surely the land in the south now belongs to government."



Where do you get that conclusion from?

No1Doyen


Joined: 04/07/2008
Posts: 16617

Message Posted:
28/01/2010 22:21

I assumed that when the TC produced his deeds (to the land he owned in the South) to the Trnc government, they then 'exchanged' his deeds for the piece of land in the North. Hence they (the trnc government) now own the deeds to the TC land in the South.



What's your thinking Yorgozlu?

walkerscott


Joined: 13/08/2009
Posts: 901

Message Posted:
28/01/2010 22:58

re 15 of 15



worth reading is:



http://www.internal-displacement.org/8025708F004CE90B/(httpCountrySummaries)/7D0D770D77A297E4C12573A80050B962?OpenDocument&count=10000

yorgozlu



Joined: 16/06/2009
Posts: 4437

Message Posted:
28/01/2010 22:59

No1Doyen;

Do you honestly beleive that,every person during the war had time for.............oh shit,I must pick my title deeds up?

vincehugo


Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 208

Message Posted:
28/01/2010 23:50

Yorgozlu,



I'd really like to understand what you are saying. I can appreciate that TC's didn't necessarily bring their deeds with them when they fled from South Cyprus. But if they exchanged their land and are prevented by TRNC law from claiming it back, and if any new owner is not in a position to claim it back then who does currently "own" the land. My conclusion is that it is owned by the TRNC Government but it doesn't appear to be your view.



Vince

yorgozlu



Joined: 16/06/2009
Posts: 4437

Message Posted:
29/01/2010 00:08

vincehugo;



So what happens if one fled over during the war without manageing to pick their title deeds up,but managed to get as exchange/esdeger after the war,more then what THEY HAD!!



Here is a princeble(?) for you:When one has to graft for ones living all ones life,one has to think 1000,000 times before one spends 150,000 euro on a car,even when one has the sums.



However,do please have piece of mind regarding your own TRNC deeds,it is backed by the government %100 .

vincehugo


Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 208

Message Posted:
29/01/2010 00:23

Yorgozlu,

I can appreciate your point that there may have been some "errors" in the exchange process. But my main point was that, where TC's gave up rights to land in the South I presume that this land is now technically owned by the TRNC Government, as the TC is legally prevented from reclaiming it and any subsequent purchaser does not appear to have the right to claim it.

Vince

billyboy1


Joined: 01/06/2009
Posts: 590

Message Posted:
29/01/2010 00:29

what is the position if:



you had land and property in the south



you had all the deeds



the trnc gave you points (which is what was actually done) for the property/land you had in the south



you use some of your points to get esdeger land



you still have points left over



and u still have deeds to propertys that you never received points for..



and the property you live in is pre 74 and was bought and paid for with money , not points...from a non cypriot



answers would be enlightening

yorgozlu



Joined: 16/06/2009
Posts: 4437

Message Posted:
29/01/2010 00:54

vincehugo;

Since no agreement has been reached,no solution has been found,who is to stop one as an EU citizen to claim their land/property in the south,even if they had an exchange for it in TRNC?

But,lets just hope,all the ones making claims in the south are INNOCENT!!!

yorgozlu



Joined: 16/06/2009
Posts: 4437

Message Posted:
29/01/2010 01:00

msg 21;

Why do you bring in to question a property with pre74 title deeds?

vincehugo


Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 208

Message Posted:
29/01/2010 01:28

Yorgozlu,

I guess that if you are a TC but are outside the "control" of the TRNC then there is nothing to stop you. It would be interesting to speculate on whether the TRNC Government would "come after you" because you had made an agreement with them in "exchanging" your property.

I'm still not quite sure where you are coming from in your postings.

Vince

yorgozlu



Joined: 16/06/2009
Posts: 4437

Message Posted:
29/01/2010 01:44

vincehugo;

In a nice way,allow me to rest this case,for 2 reasons:

1-You are not Cypriot

2-You hadnt lived those days.



But,beleive me,no solution will bring more complications.

I do not expect you to be able to understand it either.

girne 29


Joined: 06/12/2007
Posts: 1488

Message Posted:
29/01/2010 02:30

yorgozlu.

like vince dont know where you are coming from.



"Since no agreement has been reached,no solution has been found,who is to stop one as an EU citizen to claim their land/property in the south,even if they had an exchange for it in TRNC?"





Defintions of "exchange"

1. To give in return for something received; trade:

2. To give and receive reciprocally; interchange: exchange gifts; exchange ideas.

3. To give up for a substitute: exchange a position in the private sector for a post in government.

4. To turn in for replacement:



If the TC did not sign over control of, or the deeds to, his property in the South to TRNC Govt in exchange for land from the TRNC ,then an exchange as defined by any or all of the definitions above, did not take place, The deeds issued to the TC's and transferred to other TC's,Turks and Brits later should not have been called "exchange"

yorgozlu



Joined: 16/06/2009
Posts: 4437

Message Posted:
29/01/2010 17:55

msg 26:

I did my home work,HAVE YOU....?

girne 29


Joined: 06/12/2007
Posts: 1488

Message Posted:
30/01/2010 00:10

message 27



I did my homework, but not well enough.

I will concede you are better informed than me .I was not saying you were wrong, merely commenting that from your statement it would appear that exchange land is not really exchange land.While conceding the Greeks have never considered it was so ,I had always been led to believe that in the TRNC is was considered thus.Everything I have read on the matter states that the TC "gave up" the right to his land in the South .

"This is land previously owned by a Greek Cypriot prior to 1974 and abandoned when the owner relocated and normally now owned by a Turkish Cypriot who fled from the south, who has lodged the title deed to his own land with the Land Registry in exchange and waived his/her ownership rights on the South".



However I will not labour the point as in my own case I am not affected. Chance would be a fine thing.

girne 29


Joined: 06/12/2007
Posts: 1488

Message Posted:
30/01/2010 00:12

Message 27 cont



1) ESDEGER (pronounced eshter) - This is property that prior to and at the time of the conflict and separation was owned by a Greek Cypriot but after the conflict was allocated to a Turkish Cypriot. This type of title deed was issued to Turkish Cypriots using a government backed points system to determine either the type of, and or, the amount of land or property that was allocated to them. The points were allocated to the Turkish Cypriots by the government, the amount being based upon the amount and type of property that they had been forced to leave behind in Southern Cyprus. The title deeds for their former property in the South were handed to the Turkish Cypriot government who are holding on to them pending a settlement to the Cyprus problem being reached.

twaddle


Joined: 06/07/2008
Posts: 245

Message Posted:
30/01/2010 07:02

I am sure that many TCs did not have the time/ forethought to bring their title deeds with them when they moved North. Those that didn't could therefore not hand in their deeds. I am presuming that they will have thus signed a declaration to say that they disclaim their rights to land owned in the South. Surely there must be someone in a position to be able to confirm this one way or the other. How can it be so difficult to get those in government or even just at the land registry to confirm or disprove this point. Surely it shouldn't be a state secret!!

yorgozlu



Joined: 16/06/2009
Posts: 4437

Message Posted:
30/01/2010 08:09

`msg 28-29;

You clearly not done enough homework.



HOW ABOUT THIS ONE:

Why dont you pop in to the governmemt office (TRNC) and asked them if you could STILL claim your immovables in the SOUTH,even thogh you had claimed an exchange land/property in TRNC.

vincehugo


Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 208

Message Posted:
30/01/2010 11:09

Yoguzlo, Re Msg 31



What would be the answer at the TRNC Government office please? And would it be a different answer for the TC who was originally provided with the Es Deger land (as opposed to someone who had subsequently bought the land from the TC).

The answer from my advocate is that you would be told that such an act would be treated as fraud and subject to a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison.

yorgozlu



Joined: 16/06/2009
Posts: 4437

Message Posted:
30/01/2010 14:24

vincehugo;

You seem to want to beleive in what you want,but I dont wish to waste my time anymore.

You carry on beleiving what your "solicitor" and other expats tell you.

vincehugo


Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 208

Message Posted:
30/01/2010 14:36

Yorgozlu,



I would have thought it was fairly apparent that I am trying hard to understand the situation by seeking information from others - rather than "believing what I want". But I am struggling to understand the various cryptic comments you have added to this thread. I would like to understand your perspective on things but I am not convinced that you would like it to be understood.

TheSaints



Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 1369

Message Posted:
30/01/2010 14:43

I was informed that in 2009 the government changed the Title to land in TRNC in thet there will be only one recognised title on all new deeds issued as of 2009 irespective of what was on the old deeds.

The only Title is TRNC Freehold.....this was to do away with Esdeger, TMD, Pre 74 etc.

girne 29


Joined: 06/12/2007
Posts: 1488

Message Posted:
30/01/2010 14:55

yorgozlu.



You are right its not worth anymore time .

Thanks for your input. Hopefully any future buyers, EU and Non EU,will have been forwarned by reading this thread and not make the mistake of believing the estate agents lawyers etc regarding the type of title available.

One final point though ,would it not have been better for the trnc govt to issue a statement that the term exchange title was not correct and that every body involved,estate agents etc should designate title for such land as "pre 74 greek land",

That would have stopped the confusion.

Bradus


Joined: 25/02/2007
Posts: 2641

Message Posted:
30/01/2010 19:51

Measures are also in place in the ROC to stop TC's from claiming their property in the South, having accepted an exchange in the North. The 6 months rule is supposedly to allow the GC Government to investigate and prevent "double dipping"



People are apparently thoroughly investigated before any land/property is handed back.

I don't agree with the 6 month rule but I feel that if anyone accepts GC property in the North and then attempts to get back their land in the South, this is surely fraud?

You can't have your cake and eat it

vincehugo


Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 208

Message Posted:
30/01/2010 20:14

I can understand the GC's wanting to take some time to investigate any claim but I fail to understand why this requires them to move to the South for the 6 months whilst this investigation is underway. What difference does it make to the investigation?



I know that this 6 month rule has been often questioned on these boards. But if the GC argument relates purely to the investigation then they really haven't got a leg to stand on should it be tested through the courts.

Bradus


Joined: 25/02/2007
Posts: 2641

Message Posted:
30/01/2010 20:34

I would agree entirely. My point is, that it is not as easy, as some would make out to accept land in TRNC and then reclaim their land in the South.



"Why dont you pop in to the governmemt office (TRNC) and asked them if you could STILL claim your immovables in the SOUTH,even thogh you had claimed an exchange land/property in TRNC"



The above statement, if true, says it all!

vincehugo


Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 208

Message Posted:
30/01/2010 21:30

Bradus,



"Why dont you pop in to the governmemt office (TRNC) and asked them if you could STILL claim your immovables in the SOUTH,even thogh you had claimed an exchange land/property in TRNC"



Do we understand that the answer would be "yes" or "no" to this question? If the answer is no then that is consistent with the approach adopted by the TRNC Government. If it is yes then the TRNC Government, IMO, are complicit in the fraud.