EU property decisions now contradict each other

malsancak


Joined: 23/08/2009
Posts: 2874

Message Posted:
08/03/2010 13:51

The ECJ and ECHR's decisions are now contradictory, read more at http://www.northcyprusfreepress.com/2010/03/08/eu-property-decisions-now-contradict-each-other/

deecyprus4


Joined: 27/07/2008
Posts: 3452

Message Posted:
08/03/2010 13:53

I do hope so for the Orams sake..

malsancak


Joined: 23/08/2009
Posts: 2874

Message Posted:
08/03/2010 14:07

It just seems strange that they'll now be the only ones forced to pay compensation, vacate and demolish.

greylag


Joined: 08/04/2009
Posts: 1110

Message Posted:
08/03/2010 14:48

Mal,

Who will demolish their villa,

Grey.

caulkhead


Joined: 03/01/2009
Posts: 149

Message Posted:
08/03/2010 15:51

I don't think there is any conflict in these decisions as they are on different points of law. The ECHR decision is about property. The ECJ decision was about jurisdictions and enforcement of decisions between one EU state and another. The Oram decision would apply to a case about bags of flour as much as it does to property. As I see it the only property decision in the Oram case was made by the lowly ROC courts. How the ECHR decision retrospectively applies or not to the ROC Oram decision will no doubt be the subject of much speculation.

willyhoops


Joined: 12/03/2009
Posts: 89

Message Posted:
08/03/2010 16:00

caulkhead I think you are right - "How the ECHR decision retrospectively applies or not to the ROC Oram decision will no doubt be the subject of much speculation. "



But it looks to me like the appeal by the Orams to the European Court of Justice has a very good chance and this really is very very good news.



I thought this article is very good: http://www.cyprus-mail.com/opinions/our-view-echr-ruling-time-has-finally-run-out/20100307

willyhoops


Joined: 12/03/2009
Posts: 89

Message Posted:
08/03/2010 16:00

sorry I meant European Curt of Human Rights

willyhoops


Joined: 12/03/2009
Posts: 89

Message Posted:
08/03/2010 16:02

The Decision, against which there can be no appeal, states unequivocally that there is no such thing as an immutable property right, setting the entire issue within a political context, and repeatedly underlining the effects of the passage of time.



“The Court finds itself faced with cases burdened with a political, historical and factual complexity flowing from a problem that should have been resolved by all parties assuming full responsibility for finding a solution on a political level,” the Decision says, adding: “This reality, as well as the passage of time and the continuing evolution of the broader political dispute must inform the Court's interpretation and application of the Convention which cannot, if it is to be coherent and meaningful, be either static or blind to concrete factual circumstances.”

willyhoops


Joined: 12/03/2009
Posts: 89

Message Posted:
08/03/2010 16:02

Again and again, the Court comes back to the passage of time, making a mockery of the GC's insistence on the sacred nature of property rights, and especially on the inheritance of refugee status from one generation to the next.



Now many decades after refugees lost their homes, “those claiming title may have never seen, or ever used the property in question,” it says, coming to the most damning conclusion: “The issue arises to what extent the notion of legal title, and the expectation of enjoying the full benefits of that title, is realistic in practice. The losses thus claimed become increasingly speculative and hypothetical… with the passage of time the holding of a title may be emptied of any practical consequences.”

willyhoops


Joined: 12/03/2009
Posts: 89

Message Posted:
08/03/2010 16:03

Worse still for the government, the ruling – just like the Annan Plan before it – acknowledges the rights of current occupiers. It is necessary, the Judges say, “to ensure that the redress applied to those old injuries does not create disproportionate new wrongs”, adding that the Court could not support “a blanket policy of restoring property to owners without taking into account the current use or occupation of the property in question”.

willyhoops


Joined: 12/03/2009
Posts: 89

Message Posted:
08/03/2010 16:09

At the very least I can't see another orams case being brought beucase it would so contradict this judgement by the ECHR. So it looks like the TRNC has won for now - although in the long run there has to be a limit to how much money Turkey is prepared to shell out in compensating people via the IPC. But all in all this has to be a huge flip to the property market.

malsancak


Joined: 23/08/2009
Posts: 2874

Message Posted:
08/03/2010 16:16

What the Orams ECJ ruling RESULTED in was Mr A being able to apply the RoC's judgement in the UK, even though this judgement was later found to not be theirs to make. What should happen next is that the RoC judgement is overturned which should then automatically quash the judgement in the UK. The RoC has no right to make a judgement on the issue according to the ECHR.

willyhoops


Joined: 12/03/2009
Posts: 89

Message Posted:
08/03/2010 16:22

Yes exactly. But the point is in the light of this decision it is impossible to envisage any more Orams style cases at least for the next several years until the IPC has fallen apart. The TRNC is off the hook and we can all go on buying greek land. Shame I own turkish :-(

malsancak


Joined: 23/08/2009
Posts: 2874

Message Posted:
08/03/2010 16:34

willyhoops, YOU'RE RIGHT!!! The GC forums seem to be very quiet on the matter.

willyhoops


Joined: 12/03/2009
Posts: 89

Message Posted:
08/03/2010 16:44

I have been in hiding all weekend and only just read the news. Good on the European Court of Human Rights - I have a lot more respect for them than I do the Uk Court of Appeal now. A minute before midnight they have come out and saved the TRNC from disaster. What a victory for common sense and what a surprise! I just called an estate agent friend- he said they have had more enquiries today than they did all year! The TRNC propery maket is back on!!!

willyhoops


Joined: 12/03/2009
Posts: 89

Message Posted:
08/03/2010 16:47

Here is a nice article from this weekend's Daily Mail:



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1255884/Britains-grey-exodus-55s-fed-crime-weather-abroad.html



Britain's grey exodus of over-55s so fed up with crime and weather they want to move abroad.... Happier: Pamela and Paul Moulton with their granddaughter Millie enjoying the sunshine in northern Cyprus... Lfe is sunnier in Cyprus....

Stewart


Joined: 19/07/2008
Posts: 1107

Message Posted:
08/03/2010 17:07

I think this press article is the ASS...the ruling the EJC made ( against the Orams ) was due to the IPC not being in place when the Orams case first started, hence its final judgement.



For all other cases ECHR have decided that the FIRST step must be via IPC



re mess 5 is correct

Geoff


Joined: 25/06/2008
Posts: 1370

Message Posted:
08/03/2010 17:12

Re Msg 17: First and last step. The ECHR said that if no joy via the IPC then they would have to wait for a political settlement of the Cyprus problem before being able or allowed to take it to ECHR or any other EU court or Court of any EU Member State. However, to be fair, the IPC has a good record of coughing up the readies.

Geoff

Famagusta City.

willyhoops


Joined: 12/03/2009
Posts: 89

Message Posted:
08/03/2010 17:18

Stewart, I think the European Court Of Human Rights has looked at the implications of the ECJ judgment and was aware of the utterly disastrous impact on the TRNC as well as the likelihood of Northern Cyprus Politicians walking away from the peace process forever. So it has come out and saved the day. When you really look at what they are saying it is a revelation. Greek Land in the TRNC is safe again for the forseeable future. In the much longer term there is some risk that the Immovable property Commission runs out of steam as the numbers start building up, but basically the cat is out of the bag and the Greek Cypriot cause is deeply damaged. The Greeks have been told in no uncertain terms that they must work toward a settlment very like the Annan Plan and there can be no mass evicition of people in the TRNC. With their aggressive stance on the Orams they brought this decision onto themselves.

willyhoops


Joined: 12/03/2009
Posts: 89

Message Posted:
08/03/2010 17:23

God damm, someone offered me a 2 bed villa with a pool on greek land for £25k last week and I said no. I am gutted!

millzer


Joined: 12/04/2007
Posts: 978

Message Posted:
08/03/2010 17:46

Imo, the best thing the two sides could do now IF they REALLY DO desire reunification, would be to halt the start of any building on undeveloped land by putting a hold on any further 'new' planning permissions for the respective TC & GC lands.



If the TC's were to do this first, I believe this gesture would only further the cause of the TC's in the eyes of the international community, and thus if the talks then failed again, it would be yet another feather in the bow of the TRNC in their pursuit for international recognition.

willyhoops


Joined: 12/03/2009
Posts: 89

Message Posted:
08/03/2010 17:54

Milzer, its a nice idea environmentally but its impossible. Imagine you paid £30k per donum for Greek land in Esentepe to build houses and suddenly you are told that it is agricultural land which is worth about 50p per donum. You have just lost a vast amount of money and possibly gone bankrupt if it was borrowed. There is no solution other than that it in Annan plan – compensation according to condition of all land pre partition and talking into account claims on both sides. Fortunately there are still a lot of unsold houses out there so I don’t think the TRNC will go under concrete yet.

millzer


Joined: 12/04/2007
Posts: 978

Message Posted:
08/03/2010 18:09

willy, good point and I accept it was a simplistic idea, but I think you got my drift. Yes I agree people who had paid for the land they can no longer develop would feel hard done by I suppose, but I wonder how much land is still in the 'ownership' of the respective TC & GC administrations?



The whole situation now seems so complicated it'd be easier to untangle a skip load of spaghetti.

malsancak


Joined: 23/08/2009
Posts: 2874

Message Posted:
08/03/2010 18:16

stewart, the ruling the ECJ made on 28 April 2009 was that the RoC could make judgements on TRNC property cases, the ECHR rejected this and said they couldn't and that the first stop for such cases is the IPC. If the RoC is not allowed to make these judgements then they cannot be applied in the UK as they did in the case of the Orams.

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
09/03/2010 10:20

No Malc re 24 ,



The ECJ ruling said that RoC court case judgements were enforceable in third party EU states - it also said that the fact that the property in question was not under the area effectively controlled by THE only recognised govt. was not an issue. [ legal ruling re protocol 10 ]



The ECHR has enforced the premise that the IPC is Turkey's local remedy to the property and that this should be the route used by claimants seeking redress for the loss of use of their properties.



In THEORY there is nothing to stop another civil claim for trespass via a 'rump' RoC Court



QUITE different interpretations.. I believe MINE is more accurate..