Mr A ,amount of land involved

girne 29


Joined: 06/12/2007
Posts: 1488

Message Posted:
28/01/2010 19:09

Were the Orams the only people on Mr A's land.

Moover321


Joined: 11/04/2009
Posts: 649

Message Posted:
28/01/2010 19:34

Apparently not only the Oramses. The land was divided and there are / were TCs living on the other part. This is only one of two pieces of land that Mr A's family 'own'. The other is the 'family home' where Mr A was born and brought up!



The astonishing fact that most people have missed with respect to Mr. A is that he chose to take the Oramses to court as opposed to TCs who are living in his 'family home' where he has childhood memories and greater attachment.



The rationale is three fold.



1. Under the 1960-63 Constitution a TC has the right to have his case heard by a TC judge. Since 1974, the ROC has suspended this part of the constitution under a provision called 'law of necessity' and as such a TC cannot have a TC judge. If they brought proceedings against a TC they would have to relook at this and it would be very embarrassing for them!



2. TCs have land in the south and if they attacked a TC refugee - it would also be a publicity own goal.



Cont'd...

Moover321


Joined: 11/04/2009
Posts: 649

Message Posted:
28/01/2010 19:39

Cont'd..



3. By attacking an ex-pat they get - worldwide publicity for the GC narrative; Generate fear for potential investors and existing investors and affect the fragile TRNC economy where it hurts!



There is evry likelihood that at some point they will single out a TC who was not a refugee from the south but has land in the north and in the EU - then they will go for him / her.



At the end they can get as many judgements as they can - they still have to physically enforce it! Unless and until they can do that (unlikely that the TRNC will enforce it) - Possession has been and is always 9/10ths o the law.



Enjoy

girne 29


Joined: 06/12/2007
Posts: 1488

Message Posted:
28/01/2010 20:05

strange that the ROC court ruling was not that Mr A should get his land back ,but that he should only get that part of the land back that was occupied by a particular nationality,and this was not commented on.

If I was to ask the Echr to enforce a British court ruling that said that squatters in my land were to be evicted but I specified that I only wanted to enforce the law where the defendants were Black or Moslem etc, I would receive short shrift.

girne 29


Joined: 06/12/2007
Posts: 1488

Message Posted:
28/01/2010 20:07

mess 4 cont



Racial equality directive /2000



Implements the principle of equal treatment between people irrespective of racial or ethnic origin.



Allows for positive action measures to be taken, in order to ensure full equality in practice.



Gives victims of discrimination a right to make a complaint through a judicial or administrative procedure, associated with appropriate penalties for those who discriminate.

Maz


Joined: 29/03/2009
Posts: 1924

Message Posted:
28/01/2010 20:21

There are two other very interesting factors here:



1. The land was bought for £6,000 and sold to the Orams by the TC that bought it from the earlier TC's. TC no.2 started to build a house and had erected two walls before selling to the Orams who then developed it. Why should Mr A feel this was such an important and valuable piece of land.



2. He has stated that he is happy with TC's living there, but NOT foreigners, but as Linda says 'Mr A and they (the Orams) are all in the EU, so are brothers and sisters. How, then, are they the 'foreigners' and not the TC's who are NOT in the EU.



The Law continues to be A Ass.

girne 29


Joined: 06/12/2007
Posts: 1488

Message Posted:
28/01/2010 21:09

marieb

' He has stated that he is happy with TC's living there, but NOT foreigners.'



Is he on record as having said this before the ruling, if so ,the Orams team are at fault for not pointing out that the law as enforced by the ROC was discriminatory.



4 men rob my shop, 1 black 3 white ,can I insist that the 3 whites are let off,and if that happens ,would the black have a case in ECHR against UK

I dont think the discrimination will apply for long tho,so its probably too late for the Orams.

Soon enough ,if people in the south see a way of earning a bit ,TC's will be targeted as well. The ROC cannot bring out a law and then demand its citizens only use it to get money off non TC's.

Private prosecutions are just that, private.

If I as a GC find that only TC's are on my land, am I going to forego the chance to make an earner,just because the ROC dont want to rock the boat. What happens when negotiations fail ,dont suppose anyone will care about rocking the boat then.

Lilli



Joined: 21/07/2008
Posts: 13081

Message Posted:
28/01/2010 21:14

the implications do not bear thinking about. Policital correctness human rights etc the world has gone mad. ECHR must work 24 hours a day sorting cases out x

newlad



Joined: 02/03/2008
Posts: 7819

Message Posted:
28/01/2010 22:01

Why dont the guarantors sort it out,

Paul.

Bradus


Joined: 25/02/2007
Posts: 2641

Message Posted:
28/01/2010 22:07

Having read much about the hearing, I am not entirely sure that the Oram's had the best representation in past and present hearings. Arguments appeared to centre on unfair discrimination because a Greek was on the panel. This was was immediately shot down as this could have been raised and challenged prior to the hearing but wasn't. Further argument seemed to concentrate on the impact any negative decision would have on the current talks. This also seemed a stupid argument, a delaying tactic at most, as courts are about adhering and implementing the laws of the land and can't be swayed by future possible outcomes.



Was it a mistake employing Mrs Blair? Although she has a well deserved good reputation for being a human rights lawyer, I suspect an international property lawyer would have been more appropriate. Why didn't the question of the other "trespassers" on Mr. A's land contributing to any compensation ever arise? Why was he not asked to reside in the TRNC for 6 months, as in R

Bradus


Joined: 25/02/2007
Posts: 2641

Message Posted:
28/01/2010 22:14

CONT/



the ROC laws? An ideal opportunity to point out to the world the complexities and unfairness of the situation appears to have been lost.

teatime


Joined: 20/10/2008
Posts: 852

Message Posted:
28/01/2010 22:40

And, if you and the rest of us can see this Bradus, why the hell couldn't the lawyers???

Lilli



Joined: 21/07/2008
Posts: 13081

Message Posted:
28/01/2010 22:44

teatime you have to wonder when they had cherie, it stinks. How they could use these two people as political pawns in thier game and nobody could see. i hope to god they sell or tell the story so the world can see how the law stands x

cyprusishome


Joined: 31/03/2007
Posts: 2381

Message Posted:
29/01/2010 07:58

Paul, msg 13



One of the guarantors tried to sort it out in 1974. Another ran away and the third stuck its head in the sand and hoped their failings of 1960 would not be found out.



A word of praise for for Linda & David Orams. Throughout all of this the have acted with great dignity and should be a role model for the rest of us.

No1Doyen


Joined: 04/07/2008
Posts: 16617

Message Posted:
29/01/2010 09:22

"You have to wonder why a top West End firm of lawyers were not given the chance to defend the Orams, given that the EU courts would be involved. Why not go for experts in the field?

Secondly, why were there no objections to the head of the judges ruling in the EU court being from Greece? (Is it at all possible that a Greek judge could be unbiased in this issue?)



Read the full article here.



http://www.londragazete.com/yazar.asp?yaziID=3836

No1Doyen


Joined: 04/07/2008
Posts: 16617

Message Posted:
29/01/2010 09:42

There are some very strong legal argument here in some of these posts.



I'm not convinced this is all over. The next appeal will be very interesting.

girne 29


Joined: 06/12/2007
Posts: 1488

Message Posted:
29/01/2010 12:27

Mr A took the case to ECHR to get his land back,surely that was false as he in actuality only claimed 10% of his land. That should have indicated to any court that they were being used not to get a mans land back but rather to aid the political agenda of the ROC.Especially when the court has evidence that TRNC authorities ,regardless of what the court decided ,would not be allowing Mr A to get even that 10% that he is claiming,and MrA and team would have been aware of this.



The Orams team should take a further look at this. I agree with those who say the Orams appear to have been ill served by their legal team. Instead of attacking the right for a EU country to be able to enforce its laws in another EU state and indicating that the one Greek judge would have made any difference to the outcome.,both no brainers,they should have been using the EU laws themselves.

Maz


Joined: 29/03/2009
Posts: 1924

Message Posted:
29/01/2010 19:59

Couple of points.

1. The statement made by Mr A about not wanting 'foreigners' was said somewhere along the line - can't remember when, but I expect someone does, and it definitely shows bias and racism.

2. The lawyers used. I have received a note from a top barrister in London who gave the run down on what he thinks was 'how the Orams got the wrong representation' - or words to that effect. And so, yes, there are those who feel they may have been better served to have stayed with the first laywers on the scene, who may well be the future lawyers on any other wrangling.

3. It seems a shame that so many of us in the public can see what we think are howling errors in all of this, and yet the clever legal beagles haven't.



Summit wrong sumwhere!

rowlo



Joined: 12/10/2008
Posts: 4796

Message Posted:
29/01/2010 20:44

just a thought , why would you pick the wife of the prime minister to represent you ,when the prime minister wont even admit the trnc exists strange .