British Fobbed off by the roc Guardian

wanderer


Joined: 05/02/2009
Posts: 1653

Message Posted:
20/11/2010 15:15

A UK-based woman of mixed British and Turkish Cypriot origin says she plans to sue the Guardian of Turkish Cypriot properties over what she says is gross mismanagement of hundreds of donums of her family’s land in Nisou.

Vedia Izzet, 40, says she will take legal action against the Guardian - the Interior Ministry – because a portion of her family’s property was parceled off and given to land developers to build luxury homes. Other parts of the 300-donum site have allegedly been used accommodate warehouses, a garden centre and a number of business outlets.

“The Guardian is not looking after the properties of Turkish Cypriots in the interests of the owners, as it claims to do. This is not protection; this is a protection racket,” Izzet told the Cyprus Mail.

http://www.cyprus-mail.com/cyprus/fobbed-guardian/20101120

AlsancakJack



Joined: 14/08/2008
Posts: 5762

Message Posted:
20/11/2010 15:22

I hope she has copies of her original title deeds as the chances are the original title deeds lodged in the ROC will have been altered to show GC ownership.

LordJim


Joined: 12/10/2010
Posts: 221

Message Posted:
20/11/2010 15:32

have you ANY evidence this has ever been done AJ ?

wanderer


Joined: 05/02/2009
Posts: 1653

Message Posted:
20/11/2010 15:38

AJ as good EU citizens I am sure that the "rest of cyprus" would never cheat lie go back on their word or use /appropriate other peoples assets to their own advantage

AlsancakJack



Joined: 14/08/2008
Posts: 5762

Message Posted:
20/11/2010 15:41

LordJim

Absolutely

I have spoken to (and seen original documents from) some of my CT neighbours that are taking out a 'class' action against the ROC. These people were all displaced from Pafos and at the latest count there are 32 land owners that now know that their original title deeds have been falsified. The ROC is trying to buy them out. As you are taking an interest I will let you know what happens.

AJ

LordJim


Joined: 12/10/2010
Posts: 221

Message Posted:
20/11/2010 15:47

many thanks most interesting BUT not surprising.

AlsancakJack



Joined: 14/08/2008
Posts: 5762

Message Posted:
20/11/2010 16:02

wanderer

Re: message 4

I trust the GC's implicitly

AJ

pc4854


Joined: 23/08/2009
Posts: 243

Message Posted:
21/11/2010 09:37

What surprises me about TC land in the south, is the quantity that is still supposedly in private hands ie the original owners, I was under the impression that most of the deeds for TC land in the south was now held by the TRNC in exchange for land that the Tc's were allocated here, or have I missed something?

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
21/11/2010 11:55

pc4854



You didn't fall for that 'exchange' line..



The GCs didn't 'agree' to an exchange.. that's why THEY are still the owners of land property in the north and WHY Turkey has had to create the Immoveable Property Commission.



As for the 'rump' RoC .. they have now had to abandon their unfair 'six month' residency rule to claim their properties, and and they need to review their rules re compo for land used in public works projects as they will 'lose' should any such case go to arbitration at the ECHR.



The fact remains that the GCs set in motion a body to ensure the rights of TCs.. but I hope the passage of time hasn't weakened their resolve - as any non-adherence to these rules is punishable criminally.

malsancak


Joined: 23/08/2009
Posts: 2874

Message Posted:
21/11/2010 12:42

AJ, I do hope these weren't Pafos deeds given to the TRNC government in exchange for esdeger title deeds

vincehugo


Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 208

Message Posted:
21/11/2010 14:06

Mmmm, Msg 9



"You didn't fall for that 'exchange' line.. The GCs didn't 'agree' to an exchange.. "



Pc4854 didn't say anything about GC involvement in an exchange. But there most definitely was an exchange between TC's and the TRNC Government. I think most people are pretty clear about this.



And it does seem pretty relevant to the discussion, as the land which was exchanged is now owned by the TRNC Government. Turkey, through the IPC, are working to resolve GC claims on land in the North but they do have this "land bank" in the south to assist in balancing the books.

wanderer


Joined: 05/02/2009
Posts: 1653

Message Posted:
21/11/2010 17:19

Discuss from the article

"zzet’s family connection to the land goes back to Ottoman times. Her great grandfather was the Kaymakam or District Officer of the area and is said to have lowered the Ottoman flag in Nicosia when the British took over in 1878. She says her case will hinge on the fact that in this case the Cyprus government has not, as it claims to, looked after the interest of the Turkish Cypriot landowners.

Another dimension to Izzet’s case is that although her family had lands in the southern part of the island, they did not live there in 1974.

In an effort to settle her property claim without resorting to the courts, Izzet said she offered to sell the government a portion of her family’s lands on which refugee housing had been built.

“I think they didn’t accept the offer because they want to keep their refugees as refugees,” she said."

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
21/11/2010 17:51

Dear VH, re msg 11



You seem a little 'confused' - you seem to be trying to apply some sort of legitimacy for the questionable acts and 'institutions' that are legally invalid.



Neither Turkey or 'TRNC' own anything in the 'south' - The TC does.... a GC may own something in the 'north' .



I refer you to various ECHR decisions..

vincehugo


Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 208

Message Posted:
21/11/2010 21:02

Mmmmm Re Msg 13,



Not confused at all, but thanks for your concern.



I was picking you up because you jumped down PC4854's throat when he mentioned exchange, even though he was pretty clear what he meant. You preferred to jump on one of your old hobby horses.



I am really intrigued as to how you would plan to untangle the property issues in any form of solution. You say that the TRNC doesn't own any land in the South - that it is owned by the TC. So if the TC took land in the North in exchange for their land in the South and then sold this land on to someone else they will also still have their plot in the South to sell. They have effectively doubled their return on land ownership - very nice.

Meanwhile Turkey are paying out compensation to GC's through the IPC for the land which this TC sold on, allowing the new owner to carry on living on the land they bought.



I think Turkey is smart enough to do the maths on this and avoid the TC profiting at their expense.

pc4854


Joined: 23/08/2009
Posts: 243

Message Posted:
22/11/2010 08:48

How right you are vincehugo and thanks for reading my posting correctly. I'm afraid odd words in a posting like "exchange" tend to draw a veil over some eyes and they often miss the point. I also think your analysis about TR setting the land in the south against the compensations it is paying out, is absolutely correct.

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
22/11/2010 10:55

Dear VH, re 14



Nice bit of deflection, there..



The FACT are simple..



1/ A GC still owns the place in the 'north' and the TC still owns their place in the 'south' unless an internationally recognised body says different, or an uncontested award is made by the IPC of Turkey - as recognised by the ECHR.



2/ Any settlement HAS to recognise that a TC may have relinquished his/ her property to an unrecognised institution, but the GC owner still owns the property in the 'north' and the TC in the 'south'. Naturally, the TC cannot expect to have two properties, and many have taken money from the 'awarded' property / land and developed it for profit and may have even left the island.



It is TURKEY that is held monetarily responsible for this.

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
22/11/2010 10:58

(cont)



3/ As any settlement would have human rights derogations - preventing a mass GC population shift back to their homes for a considerable period of time - we all know that any deal will effectively mean a confirmation of the 'status quo' - the only way this can ever be 'sold' to the GCs is a leasehold deal - whereby many GCs get the ownership of the land confirmed, but they must lease the land for a ( say ) generation



4/ Effectively, we are arguing about semantics.. not too many folk should get thrown out - especially Cypriot families .. the issue is the continued use of the word 'exchange' with implies some sort of reasoned process - it was anything but.

vincehugo


Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 208

Message Posted:
22/11/2010 19:49

Mmm Re Msg 16/17



Not sure what you see as deflection ..



I'm sure you are aware that, under TRNC law a TC can be fined an imprisoned for attempting to profit from land in the South which they have given up under the TRNC Exchange system. Also that the IPC is administered under TRNC law and in TRNC courts.



So despite your "FACT" and the suggestion that we are arguing semantics, the issue of the exchange (which did occur) will have to be unravelled as part of a solution.



What I would suggest is not a FACT, but indeed your opinion, is that the only solution for GC's is a leasehold deal (unless of course you have conducted research which supports this). My opinion is that any arrangement which simply postpones resolution of the property issue is the worst of all worlds.

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
22/11/2010 20:24

Dear VH re msg 3



I'll readily concede that my point 3 is an opinion..