What score does that make it then. (Property)

newlad



Joined: 02/03/2008
Posts: 7819

Message Posted:
16/02/2010 20:19

http://www.northcyprus.biz/north_cyprus_FeedRedir.asp?FID=10303





Where next then.Dig up Larnaca airport,

Paul.

newlad



Joined: 02/03/2008
Posts: 7819

Message Posted:
16/02/2010 20:21

http://businessneweurope.eu/story1962/BRICKS__MORTAR_Cyprus_concedes_to_Turks_on_property

newlad



Joined: 02/03/2008
Posts: 7819

Message Posted:
16/02/2010 20:25

http://news.google.co.uk/news?sourceid=navclient&rlz=1T4ACAW_enGB304GB304&q=bricks+and+mortar+cyprus+concedes+to+turkey+on+property&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&ei=i-J6S86ZIpr20gTQ5_jrCQ&sa=X&oi=news_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CAwQsQQwAA

newlad



Joined: 02/03/2008
Posts: 7819

Message Posted:
16/02/2010 20:32

http://businessneweurope.eu/

newlad



Joined: 02/03/2008
Posts: 7819

Message Posted:
16/02/2010 20:33

Mess 4, look under the bricks and mortar heading,

Paul.

cooper


Joined: 23/10/2007
Posts: 3386

Message Posted:
16/02/2010 20:33

Have you cracked up Paul )

Woodspeckie


Joined: 25/01/2009
Posts: 2263

Message Posted:
16/02/2010 21:00

More repeats than the BBC.

No1Doyen


Joined: 04/07/2008
Posts: 16617

Message Posted:
16/02/2010 21:07

Message 7. ) ) )

greenman


Joined: 16/02/2008
Posts: 526

Message Posted:
16/02/2010 21:45

This again raises the question I asked some while back but didn't get any responses, so I'll try again.

Esdeger (exchange) land means the TC land owner must have had land in the south. A purchaser of the Esdeger land should therefore have a claim on the land in the south, in the event of a GC wanting to reclaim their property. This seems fair but would it be supported legally?

Stonehousepub


Joined: 21/05/2009
Posts: 755

Message Posted:
16/02/2010 23:22

There is no such thing as EXCHANGE LAND no land was ever exchanged, there is Turkish Cypriot owned land & Greek Cypriot owned land.



Exchange deeds were created by the TRNC goverment in the early nineties & thats when people began to receive deeds for the land & properties they were occupying.



This was something the TRNC goverment had to do in order to restore confidence in the North but unfortunately it was never legal but it was the most viable option at the time.

TJinthesun



Joined: 06/05/2009
Posts: 40

Message Posted:
17/02/2010 12:07

Doesn't change the very valid question.

Assuming

1) The TC land owner had/has land in the south

2) The TC landowner gave his deeds to land in the south to the TRNC authorities in return for land in the North.



Has any subsequent purchaser of said land (in the North) a claim on land in the south should they find themselves forced to leave/pay compensation as per the Orams?



TJ

Stonehousepub


Joined: 21/05/2009
Posts: 755

Message Posted:
17/02/2010 15:52

Can I just make this clear, NO DEED EXCHANGE took place, exchange land has been created by the TRNC goverment but is not recognised by the Greek Cypriot goverment.



Nobody handed over deeds to the Greeks for land or property they had in the south infact most Turkish Cypriots are still in possesion of there deeds for land in the south.



In Cyprus you have, Turkish land, Greek land, British land, Palestinian land & so on but no such thing as exchange land...

malsancak


Joined: 23/08/2009
Posts: 2874

Message Posted:
17/02/2010 16:26

Stonehousepub, I think the point being made is that a TC exchanged their internationally recognised deeds for TRNC/Turkey only recognised deeds. The former can be exchanged for cash in the south and the latter for cash in the north. The trouble with law is that when it collides with reality it can be very confusing. The reality is that an exchange took place and the TRNC government allegedly holds these deeds for land in the south.

greenman


Joined: 16/02/2008
Posts: 526

Message Posted:
17/02/2010 16:30

"Nobody handed over deeds to the Greeks for land or property they had in the south infact most Turkish Cypriots are still in possesion of there deeds for land in the south."



If the TC's have Esdeger land then one would hope that they don't also hold deeds for land in the South. The exchange that is said to have taken place is the exchange of these ROC deeds for a piece of land in the north.

vincehugo


Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 208

Message Posted:
17/02/2010 16:39

Stonehousepub,

There definitely IS such a thing as EXCHANGE land. But the exchange was between the TC and the TRNC government. So addressing Greenman's question, if a current owner of Exchange (Es deger) land ended up having to give this land back to a GC then they would have to go to the TRNC Government to ask for the relevant deeds signed over by a TC for land in the South. IF the TRNC Government were to agree to this then it would be interesting to see how the GC courts would deal with the claim.

malsancak


Joined: 23/08/2009
Posts: 2874

Message Posted:
17/02/2010 17:11

The GC courts have just been told by the EU that they have to allow TCs access to their property and this is beginning to panic the government into making statements like they are going to buy the land from TCs and issue GC refugees with proper title deeds.

The fact that a TC has "exchanged" their land should be irrelevant as all the TC has to do is prove they were the original owners and the sign documents to transfer them to, for example, an ex-pat who is being sued by a GC. If the land was contentious, e.g. part of a state project in the south, then that would definitely be interesting. Especially if the ex-pat was angry and, like Mr A, did not want to accept compensation.

Troodo


Joined: 12/06/2008
Posts: 1002

Message Posted:
17/02/2010 18:09

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Of course the GC's are in a panic a lot of TC's are going to find the name on their deeds have been changed in the South.

malsancak


Joined: 23/08/2009
Posts: 2874

Message Posted:
17/02/2010 18:32

Didn't Clerides give 9,500 GCs title deeds to TC land in the south?



http://www.hri.org/news/cyprus/cmnews/1998/98-05-14.cmnews.html#03

billyboy1


Joined: 01/06/2009
Posts: 590

Message Posted:
17/02/2010 18:40

so, how do you go about claiming your property that is now in the south and you have the deeds to.....

greenman


Joined: 16/02/2008
Posts: 526

Message Posted:
17/02/2010 18:48

If you're lucky to be in that position, pop into the Nicosia Tourist Information Office. I'm sure they will bend over backwards to help. he he!!

vincehugo


Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 208

Message Posted:
17/02/2010 19:02

Mal Re Msg 16



"The fact that a TC has "exchanged" their land should be irrelevant as all the TC has to do is prove they were the original owners and the sign documents to transfer them to, for example, an ex-pat who is being sued by a GC."

Easy to say but ;

a) what is the motivation for the TC to do this if they have already sold the land and got their money (they would need to be encouraged by the TRNC Government)

b) I'm guessing that any transfer of ownership would need to be done under RoC law rather than TRNC law otherwise it would not be viewed as valid by the RoC authorities. How would this work in practice?

Stonehousepub


Joined: 21/05/2009
Posts: 755

Message Posted:
17/02/2010 20:49

I respect all your views & comments, and deep down I would like to think that you are all correct and that I am the wrong one on this..



Es deger (exchange land) deeds only exists in the TRNC, they are only recognised by the TRNC. Try and find one single bank on this island that would finance the purchase of a so called exchange property.



After the divide of the island in 1974 many TC's were obviously left homeless as were GC's, some had deeds some did'nt, most people were more worried about their lives so the last thing they were thinking about was to get their deeds out of the cupboard.



Homes, land, hotels etc were allocated willy nilly, some people lost out some people gained, some people just knocked doors down and starting living in homes of their prefered choices... At the time many people TC's & GC's were under the illusion that the divide was temporary and that eveyone would be going back to their homes, businesses etc within a few months...



contd..

AlsancakJack



Joined: 14/08/2008
Posts: 5762

Message Posted:
17/02/2010 21:00

Troodo

' Of course the GC's are in a panic a lot of TC's are going to find the name on their deeds have been changed in the South.'



' are going to' They already have and the ROC is trying to fob them off in the hope that it does not become a political scandal.

Watch this space.

AJ

Stonehousepub


Joined: 21/05/2009
Posts: 755

Message Posted:
17/02/2010 21:05

Obviously this did not happen so in 1983 the kktc was officially formed & declared, bearing in mind that the TC's did not get the same recognition and worldwide assistance & support that was given to the GC's, the TRNC goverment had to use its own initiative and one of these initiative was the ES DEGER KOCAN..



In theory if ES DEGER is recognised, then whoever owns ES DEGER land or property would actually now be the legal owner of whatever land or property the original owner left in the south, but this is not the case.



I have grown up with the Cyprus issue being talked about at almost every family meal & gathering and it will still be talked about well after I die...



Its like me finding Pauls car, changing the number plate & chassis number then selling it to Peter with a lovely new exchange log book hoping that someone gave Paul a replacement car...

greenman


Joined: 16/02/2008
Posts: 526

Message Posted:
17/02/2010 21:35

Stonehousepub, We are singing from the same hymn sheet, but you are a page ahead of me. The question I ask is reflected in your paragraph:



"In theory if ES DEGER is recognised, then whoever owns ES DEGER land or property would actually now be the legal owner of whatever land or property the original owner left in the south,............"



But I left out ".... but this is not the case" - as that is the bit that I think needs further examination.

greenman


Joined: 16/02/2008
Posts: 526

Message Posted:
17/02/2010 21:47

Your analogy using the cars doesn't work for me. Would it be better to say that Paul sold Peter a car. Peter found out that Paul didn't own that car, but he did own a similar one.



Now what should happen?

Paul says 'tough' you should have checked the log book or Paul hands over his legally owned car?

vincehugo


Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 208

Message Posted:
18/02/2010

Stonehousepub,

"In theory if ES DEGER is recognised, then whoever owns ES DEGER land or property would actually now be the legal owner of whatever land or property the original owner left in the south, but this is not the case."

I do understand what you are saying.

However one problem is that there are two different legal systems at work here. Under the TRNC legal system the owner of this Es Deger land is very clear. Under RoC law the ownership is viewed differently. But in any event it seems unreasonable to suggest that someone can be both the owner of the Es Deger land AND a plot in the south. This is the bit that needs to get resolved, and ideally through a politically agreed solution rather than individual legal cases (which appear to be achieving nothing other than making lawyers rich and producing sensational headlines).

The underlying question is the rigour with which the Es Deger system was executed by the TRNC government. Whether it really was "a donum for a donum"!

Stonehousepub


Joined: 21/05/2009
Posts: 755

Message Posted:
18/02/2010 00:25

Thats exactly what is happening I know of many cases where TC's have sold land they owned or inherited in the South to GC's which is all above board and legal, but I have not yet heard of a case where a GC has sold his or her land in the North, they can't because we have already done that for them...



The Greeks have in some cases made use of previously Turkish owned land in the south but they have not sold to third parties, which is where the root of the problem is. In most cases where Turkish land is being used, monies in the way of rent is paid into a fund which is in the name of the TC owner..



For example the chap who owns part of the land which Larnaca Airport sits on was given the Bristol Hotel in kyrenia town which he still runs & owns but the payout which he will eventually recieve from the GC goverment will not mean that he has to give up the hotel because that is a completely separate issue.

vincehugo


Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 208

Message Posted:
18/02/2010 00:35

Stonehousepub,

Firstly, if the TC's you mentioned sold land in the South which had already been "exchanged" under the Es Deger arrangement with the TRNC Government then they would have committed a crime under TRNC law and be liable to prosecution and imprisonment.

Secondly, whilst I know it is not fashionable to mention it, Annan V appreciated these issues and (IMO) came up with a very balanced, but also pragmatic way of resolving property issues. But this would require both "sides" agreeing to it (and laying aside other claims).

Stonehousepub


Joined: 21/05/2009
Posts: 755

Message Posted:
18/02/2010 02:23

Which ES DEGER agreement ?? There is'nt one..... nothing has been exchanged, this is the point i am trying to make. No land or property was ever exchanged, there was no exchange, how can you exchange something without the owners consent??



TC's have sold land in the south that is legally their's, wheather they have aquired land or property here through whatever means is totally irelevant..



I agree that the Annan did come up with a balanced formula for resolving the property issues, how it would have worked in practice we will never no.



Are you aware that shortly after the 1974 division of the island Denktas & klerides signed a joint agreement stating that no land was to be sold to Non-Cypriots, under this agreement you could rent, lease or use certain areas GC'S have unfortunately stuck to this agreement.



What did our goverment do?? They gave land away to mainland Turks, they invented kocans etc etc

BIG MISTAKE!! As the Orams case has proved..

malsancak


Joined: 23/08/2009
Posts: 2874

Message Posted:
18/02/2010 08:21

"Are you aware that shortly after the 1974 division of the island Denktas & klerides signed a joint agreement stating that no land was to be sold to Non-Cypriots, under this agreement you could rent, lease or use certain areas GC'S have unfortunately stuck to this agreement."

So are you saying that if the Orams property had reverted to a 999year lease then they would have been safe?

vincehugo


Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 208

Message Posted:
18/02/2010 12:23

"Which ES DEGER agreement ?? There is'nt one..... nothing has been exchanged, this is the point i am trying to make. No land or property was ever exchanged, there was no exchange, how can you exchange something without the owners consent??"



Sorry, I thought we had done this one to death. There are Es Deger agreements - these agreements are between TC's and the TRNC Government whereby the TC signs away their right to property they own in the South in exchange for land in the North. I fully understand that this does not include consent from the owner of the land in the North but it is nevertheless an exchange under TRNC law.

Stonehousepub


Joined: 21/05/2009
Posts: 755

Message Posted:
18/02/2010 12:52

;) 999 leases are granted in parts of th U.K on large blocks of flats where it is impossible to determine the freeholder. Unfortunately 999 year leases do not apply to the TRNC.



Reverting to lease at this point in time is'nt an option im afraid, but 25 -100 year leases would have been ideal.



For example on a 50+ year lease the purchaser would pay a larger premium for the property and a annual groud rent to the landowner. On leases less than 50years a smaller premium would be paid for the property with a small monthly rent instaed of having a Kocan which is not worth the paper it is written on people would have a lease contract, that is renewable, transferable and breakable.



This method would have ensured that all lands would have in theory still be owned by Cypriots, therefore leaving no loophole for court cases and making negotiations with the Greeks a lot more practicle.

Stonehousepub


Joined: 21/05/2009
Posts: 755

Message Posted:
18/02/2010 13:11

Vincehugo



I seriously do not know where you are getting your information from because I do not no of one single TC that has signed away their right to property or land in the south.



ES DEGER is not an agreement it is a name made up for previosly Greek owned land. Do you have a kocan? Does it state ES DEGER on any part of it? Is there an extra sheet stapled to it with the signature of whoever signed their rights away? NO....

TJinthesun



Joined: 06/05/2009
Posts: 40

Message Posted:
18/02/2010 13:17

Stonehousepub



Are you saying that the TRNC authorities gave GC land to Turks and/or TC's without receiving titles or at least knowledge of lands owned by these people in the South?



If that is the case then we are looking at 2 different situations here for subsequent buyers of "exchange title" land



1) TRNC holds deeds or has knowledge of land owned in the south.

2) TRNC holds or knows of neither.



In 1) there should be an arguable case to go after land in the South if challenged.

In 2) there would be no case.



In both cases it should be down to the TRNC to assure suitable recompense to subsequent buyers. So far they have done this in the Orams case but it would be interesting to work out the costs of doing this across the board - even with the discrepency of land prices between North and South this is unlikely to be feasible.

Even if we thought the will would be there.......

TJinthesun



Joined: 06/05/2009
Posts: 40

Message Posted:
18/02/2010 13:19

Cont.



Is ther any way of finding out which land in the Soth the TRNC thinks they have rights over? And which TC/Turk gave them said rights/deeds?

malsancak


Joined: 23/08/2009
Posts: 2874

Message Posted:
18/02/2010 13:51

Stonehousepub:"This method would have ensured that all lands would have in theory still be owned by Cypriots, therefore leaving no loophole for court cases and making negotiations with the Greeks a lot more practicle."

I'm afraid you haven't been following the Orams case very closely. It's not about ownership, it's about trespass, trespass, trespass...

TJinthesun



Joined: 06/05/2009
Posts: 40

Message Posted:
18/02/2010 13:59

Malsanak,

The Orams particular battle was about trespass......The war is about a lot more, including ultimate post settlement ownership!

briggus


Joined: 25/07/2007
Posts: 161

Message Posted:
18/02/2010 14:43

Msg 38:



Re trespass correct - but who then is trespassing on the land in the south of the island - that was exchanged by a turkish cypriot - for the Land the Orams bought?

malsancak


Joined: 23/08/2009
Posts: 2874

Message Posted:
18/02/2010 15:04

This is the stupidity of the Orams judgement, because trespass is a civil case then only the owner of a property can sue. In the south, it is alleged, the TC part-owner of Larnaca aiport has been bought off to stop them demanding that the GC government removes itself from their land.

It is a situation created by the lawyers for the lawyers' benefit, hence the £2m legal bill for a piece of land worth £1000s. It is obscene that in order for the Orams to defend themselves they had to risk, and lost, that amount of money. It was obvious to everyone that Mr A was never going to get his land back but the legal system still allowed him to go ahead with the case and, in doing so, keep all those lawyers rich.

TJinthesun



Joined: 06/05/2009
Posts: 40

Message Posted:
20/02/2010 01:53

So



Is there any way of finding out which land in the South the TRNC thinks they have rights over? And which TC/Turk gave them said rights/deeds?

Oleander


Joined: 03/05/2009
Posts: 302

Message Posted:
20/02/2010 02:46

malsansac wrote:



"It is a situation created by the lawyers for the lawyers' benefit, hence the £2m legal bill for a piece of land worth £1000s. It is obscene that in order for the Orams to defend themselves they had to risk, and lost, that amount of money. It was obvious to everyone that Mr A was never going to get his land back but the legal system still allowed him to go ahead with the case and, in doing so, keep all those lawyers rich."



And there was me thinking it was just about some bloke suing the people squatting on his property

Oleander


Joined: 03/05/2009
Posts: 302

Message Posted:
20/02/2010 02:54

TJinthesun wrote:



"Is there any way of finding out which land in the South the TRNC thinks they have rights over? And which TC/Turk gave them said rights/deeds?"



How could a state that the RoC and everybody else doesn't recognise have a claim over property in a sovereign country? Especially when that state is occupying one third of that sovereign country? Even if it were possible for a non-entity to become a party litigant, just think of the counterclaim!



If you think about it, this premise alone underlines the falsehood of the claim that the TRNC has any control or influence beyond territory currently held by the Turkish army.

TJinthesun



Joined: 06/05/2009
Posts: 40

Message Posted:
25/03/2010 12:11

Oleander,



You seem to be missing the point. The key statement is "....the TRNC thinks they have rights over......."



Anyone actually any idea?