Agamemnon
2010-04-01 18:11:50 UTC
Greek-Cypriot refugees see European rights court ruling as ethnic cleansers'
charter
The Irish Times - Friday, March 26, 2010
For Greek Cypriots who lost homes and businesses, a fair property settlement
is key, writes MICHAEL JANSEN
MANY GREEK Cypriot refugees from the Turkish invasion of 1974 are coming to
regard a recent ruling of the European Court of Human Rights as an ethnic
cleansers' charter.
The ECHR decided that refugees seeking legal recourse are obliged to apply
to a property commission established by Turkey, the power exercising control
in the breakaway state recognised only by Ankara. This commission has
resolved 85 of 433 cases brought before it, none involving full restitution
of ancestral homes or lands. If applicants do not receive just satisfaction
within five years they can return to the ECHR.
The ECHR observed that restitution may not always be possible because 35
years had elapsed since Greek-Cypriot applicants "lost possession of their
property. The local population has not remained static . . . Turkish-Cypriot
refugees from the south have settled in the north; Turkish settlers . . .
have arrived in large numbers. Greek-Cypriot property has changed hands . .
. whether by sale, donation or inheritance".
The court also mentioned that bases housing 30,000 Turkish occupation troops
could negatively affect restitution. Greek-Cypriot property constituted 58.2
per cent of land in the north, 16.2 per cent belonged to Turkish Cypriots
and 22.8 per cent was public land.
Loukis Loucaides, a former judge on the ECHR (1998-2008), told The Irish
Times , "This decision is a political judgment expressing positions
incompatible with basic principles of international law and even with
previous judgments of the court itself."
He argued that under international law, an occupying country cannot expel
inhabitants of an occupied area or deprive them of their property, dispose
of expropriated property, settle its own citizens in this territory, or
change laws or create institutions. With this judgment, he said the court is
"illegally implying that the occupying country . . . may be justified in
keeping properties to serve its illegal occupation" and "policy of ethnic
cleansing". He asked what the reaction would have been if during the second
World War French citizens had been told to apply to Berlin for recourse
after their rights had been violated by the Nazis.
In his view, "political pressures" have been exerted on the court by Turkey,
the UK and US with the aim of securing a judgment Ankara favours. This
judgment is "to my mind a catastrophe not only for human rights or for the
Greek Cypriots but for the standing and credibility of the court itself".
Other Cypriot lawyers agree. Constantis Candunis said, however, the
Strasbourg judgment "does not impact on" the recent verdict of a British
court awarding a Greek-Cypriot refugee damages for trespass and ordering a
British couple to demolish their house built on his land. The British court
also called on other European courts to uphold and implement decisions of
courts in EU member Cyprus.
Achilleas Demetriades stressed the importance of the court's statement that
Turkey recognises its responsibility for what happens in the occupied area
as well as for providing remedies for violations of Greek-Cypriot property
rights.
Since Turkey will not allow Greek Cypriots to return to their property, he
said mass appeals to the Turkish property commission could be considered so
that Ankara could be compelled to "pay the rent" in the form of compensation
for loss of use. He estimated that compensation claimed for the period from
1974 through 2010 could amount to $16 billion. He noted the ECHR still has
to award damages on 30 cases decided before the recent judgment.
Cyprus president Demetris Christofias does not favour mass legal action and
argues that "all aspects" of the Cyprus problem "must be resolved by
political means".
During 18 months of negotiations aimed at reunifying the island in a
bizonal, bicommunal federation, Mr Christofias and Turkish Cypriot leader
Mehmet Ali Talat have not yet discussed the property issue.
This effort could be complicated by the ECHR's decision.
The ruling could prompt developers in the north to rush to build on
Greek-Cypriot property, making negotiations on property all the more
difficult.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2010/0326/1224267097653.html
charter
The Irish Times - Friday, March 26, 2010
For Greek Cypriots who lost homes and businesses, a fair property settlement
is key, writes MICHAEL JANSEN
MANY GREEK Cypriot refugees from the Turkish invasion of 1974 are coming to
regard a recent ruling of the European Court of Human Rights as an ethnic
cleansers' charter.
The ECHR decided that refugees seeking legal recourse are obliged to apply
to a property commission established by Turkey, the power exercising control
in the breakaway state recognised only by Ankara. This commission has
resolved 85 of 433 cases brought before it, none involving full restitution
of ancestral homes or lands. If applicants do not receive just satisfaction
within five years they can return to the ECHR.
The ECHR observed that restitution may not always be possible because 35
years had elapsed since Greek-Cypriot applicants "lost possession of their
property. The local population has not remained static . . . Turkish-Cypriot
refugees from the south have settled in the north; Turkish settlers . . .
have arrived in large numbers. Greek-Cypriot property has changed hands . .
. whether by sale, donation or inheritance".
The court also mentioned that bases housing 30,000 Turkish occupation troops
could negatively affect restitution. Greek-Cypriot property constituted 58.2
per cent of land in the north, 16.2 per cent belonged to Turkish Cypriots
and 22.8 per cent was public land.
Loukis Loucaides, a former judge on the ECHR (1998-2008), told The Irish
Times , "This decision is a political judgment expressing positions
incompatible with basic principles of international law and even with
previous judgments of the court itself."
He argued that under international law, an occupying country cannot expel
inhabitants of an occupied area or deprive them of their property, dispose
of expropriated property, settle its own citizens in this territory, or
change laws or create institutions. With this judgment, he said the court is
"illegally implying that the occupying country . . . may be justified in
keeping properties to serve its illegal occupation" and "policy of ethnic
cleansing". He asked what the reaction would have been if during the second
World War French citizens had been told to apply to Berlin for recourse
after their rights had been violated by the Nazis.
In his view, "political pressures" have been exerted on the court by Turkey,
the UK and US with the aim of securing a judgment Ankara favours. This
judgment is "to my mind a catastrophe not only for human rights or for the
Greek Cypriots but for the standing and credibility of the court itself".
Other Cypriot lawyers agree. Constantis Candunis said, however, the
Strasbourg judgment "does not impact on" the recent verdict of a British
court awarding a Greek-Cypriot refugee damages for trespass and ordering a
British couple to demolish their house built on his land. The British court
also called on other European courts to uphold and implement decisions of
courts in EU member Cyprus.
Achilleas Demetriades stressed the importance of the court's statement that
Turkey recognises its responsibility for what happens in the occupied area
as well as for providing remedies for violations of Greek-Cypriot property
rights.
Since Turkey will not allow Greek Cypriots to return to their property, he
said mass appeals to the Turkish property commission could be considered so
that Ankara could be compelled to "pay the rent" in the form of compensation
for loss of use. He estimated that compensation claimed for the period from
1974 through 2010 could amount to $16 billion. He noted the ECHR still has
to award damages on 30 cases decided before the recent judgment.
Cyprus president Demetris Christofias does not favour mass legal action and
argues that "all aspects" of the Cyprus problem "must be resolved by
political means".
During 18 months of negotiations aimed at reunifying the island in a
bizonal, bicommunal federation, Mr Christofias and Turkish Cypriot leader
Mehmet Ali Talat have not yet discussed the property issue.
This effort could be complicated by the ECHR's decision.
The ruling could prompt developers in the north to rush to build on
Greek-Cypriot property, making negotiations on property all the more
difficult.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2010/0326/1224267097653.html