TURKEY IS bluffing about giving compensation to Greek Cypriot property owners, said top human rights lawyer Achilleas Demetriades yesterday.
He argued that one way of calling their bluff was for Famagusta refugees to apply en masse to the property commission in the north.
Demetriades called for some “lateral thinking” on how to call Turkey’s bluff following last week’s European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) decision which approved the Immoveable Property Commission (IPC) in the north as an effective remedy for Greek Cypriot property owners. The decision of the Strasbourg court effectively makes it mandatory for Greek Cypriot property owners who wish to take Turkey to the ECHR for occupying their lands, to pass through the IPC and the “High Administrative Court” in the north first.
As the dust begins to settle on the legal tornado caused by the ruling, a number of questions are surfacing. What happens to the 1,400-odd cases already at the ECHR? Do they now apply to the IPC for restitution of their property rights? Are they more likely to receive compensation than the return of their property, which in turn will reinforce the ethnic divide on the island? If they do a ‘land swap’ with Turkish Cypriot properties in the south, how can they get that registered at the Land Registry?
Following the decision, Constantis Candounas, the lawyer who represented Meletis Apostolides in the Orams case, called on every Greek Cypriot refugee to apply to the IPC to seek restitution of their property rights.
Demetriades, who won a breakthrough case at the ECHR for refugee Titina Loizidou, argues that people must decide what they want to do. “If people want to apply to the commission to reach Strasbourg then they should go to the IPC. It doesn’t mean they have to apply. A lot won’t want to for emotional, political or moral reasons.
“If yes, however, then there should be a methodology in how people apply. Before deciding on an individual level, there is a need for some lateral thinking because I think Turkey is bluffing and cannot afford to pay the compensation for loss of use or effect restitution. Is it serious about giving a really effective remedy?”
He argued that one way of calling that bluff is to plan a first wave of applications for refugees from Varosha, the fenced-off part of Famagusta.
“We flood the commission with 10,000 applications. They will have to award compensation for loss of use from 1974 to 2010 plus interest,” he said, noting that the rate of compensation has already been set by the ECHR judgement on the Arestis case. “The indicator is there in the Arestis judgement.”
However, applicants will ask for restitution first and compensation for loss of use later. “They want to go home. What is the public interest of Turkey in not allowing restitution to the legal inhabitants of Famagusta? None. They cannot justify it,” said Demetriades.
Former Attorney-general Alecos Markides disagreed, saying that Turkey could surprise everyone by allowing people to return to the fenced-off part of Famagusta which remains solely under the control of the Turkish occupation forces.
“I do not agree that the so-called committee has no discretion to order the reinstatement of the properties, especially in cases where the properties are not occupied, as happens with the enclosed part of Famagusta.
“Turkey has proved to be able to follow an elastic policy and one should wonder what would happen if the committee ordered the reinstatement of properties. Would owners be prepared to go and live under the control of the Turkish army?” asked Markides.
Asked to comment on the possibility of returning to Famagusta under the control of the Turkish army, Demetriades said: “Yes of course, what else can one expect?”
“The best case scenario of the ECHR is award for loss of use and restitution under Turkish occupation. Strasbourg cannot offer more than that. This is the fallacy people have been labouring under.
“People have been saying go to the ECHR and they will throw the Turkish army in the water. The system cannot deliver this. This is its maximum. If you are looking for legal answers, these are our options. Legally, there is no other solution,” he said.
Asked to comment on the decision, President Demetris Christofias yesterday said he planned to chair a meeting with experts early next week to have an in-depth discussion about the whole subject.
“We shouldn’t paint everything black…The issue will be dealt with thoroughly with the solution of the Cyprus problem and solving the property issue through that solution,” he said.
Source:cyprus-mail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment