War Chest

The RoC government estimates as many as 10,000 foreigners living in Greek Cypriot property in the North. The Turks are obviously selling off occupied land to citizens from Western Europe in an attempt to prevent Greek Cypriots from returning to their properties. Greek Cypriot refugees like Mr. Apostolides continue to claim their title deeds through legal means, because of this...thousands of EU citizens, mostly Britons, this year formed a UK-registered lobby group to defend the rights of foreigners living in properties formerly owned by Greek Cypriots. This lobby group has built a huge war chest that is currently being used in the Orams trial. An assault on this war chest should be made immediately by opening up new lawsuits against foreigners who are citizens of an EU member State other than Britain and who have purchased property in the North that is in dispute. Speaking of the Orams, new developments today...please read below for more details.

British court to hear Orams case
Meanwhile criticism mounts over Cherie Blair’s involvement in the case

By Philippos Stylianou

As Greek Cypriot reaction to the involvement of the British Prime Minister’s wife Cherie Blair in the controversial Orams case widens, the High Court in London is today expected to hear the positions of the two sides and decide how to proceed.

Turkish Cypriot UK solicitor Hassan Vahit, who appears for Linda Orams, said Cherie Blair had made a significant contribution in drafting Mrs Orams’ appeal. He noted that he expected the trial to open towards either the end of January or the beginning of February 2006.

Constantis Kandounas, the Nicosia lawyer of Greek Cypriot refugee Meletis Apostolides who won a Nicosia District Court decision against the Oramses, said they were waiting to hear what the Attorneys of the other side had to say in the British Supreme Court.

He did not rule out that Cherie Blair acting for the Orams would ask for a postponement until an appeal by Linda Orams in the Supreme Court of Cyprus was heard. A date for the hearing of the Cyprus appeal has yet to be set.

The Cyprus court ordered Linda Orams and her husband David to demolish a luxury villa they built on land they had bought from a Turkish Cypriot in the occupied part of Cyprus and which belonged to Meletis Apostolides.

British assets

In the light of being unable to enforce the decision in the occupied areas, Apostolides asked the decision to be enforced in the British Courts against the Orams’ British assets under an EU arrangement.

The British High Court will not dwell on the merits of the case but on matters of procedure and public interest.

Asked to comment on the retaining of Cherie Blair from the Matrix Chambers to represent the Orams in the case, Candounas simply said: “We are delighted.”

His client Meletis Apostolides has retained the services of Blackstone Chambers, one of the most prestigious of the UK, with Thomas Beazley QC leading a team of other lawyers and solicitors. They include Simon Congdon of the Holmans Fenwick Willan Solicitors and another QC from Brickstone Chambers.

“We regard the issue as a strictly legal one and we shall fight along the lines of an impartial and objective process,” Apostolides himself said when asked about having the British Prime Minister’s wife against him.

Cherie Blair nee Booth spoke out on Wednesday for the first time in the face of mounting criticism for undertaking the defence of the Oramses.

Autonomous

Repeating what the British High Commissioner in Nicosia had already said, she told the daily ‘Simerini’ that her capacity as wife of the British Prime Minister had nothing to do with it. “I am an autonomous lawyer and follow the rules of my profession,” she said.

Mrs Blair added that the Orams had bought the property in good faith and now they risked losing that property and their property in the UK without any compensation.

Commenting on Cherie Blair’s statement, Government Spokesman Kypros Chrysostomides said yesterday that he did not think the rights of the Orams weighed more heavily than the rights of the Greek Cypriot refugees.

He added that all these matters would be raised with the British government in the context of the dialogue established when President Papadopoulos met Prime Minister Tony Blair in London.

The British Charge d’ Afaires in Cyprus Robert Fenn Peter was summoned to the Foreign Office to hear a complaint from Permanent Secretary Sotos zakhaios about Mrs Blair involvement in the Orams case.

Although President Papadopoulos and Foreign Minister George Iacovou expressed their strong displeasure at the development, they both stated their trust in the impartiality of British justice.

Cypriot reactions to Cherie Blair embracing the cause of Britons who bought stolen Greek property in the occupied areas against official British policy was given wide coverage by the British press.

The National Federation of UK Cypriots said the Cypriot community was upset, bitter and disappointed at the action of Mrs Blair to support before the court of justice those who violated the human rights of Greek Cypriot refugees and international laws and principles.

They called on her to reconsider supporting the usurpers of other people’s property.

Poltical parties and organisations issued statements condemning Cherie Blair’s action.

Brian Coleman, London Assembly Member for Barnet and Camden has criticised Cherie Blair’s decision to defend the Orams. In an announcement he said:
“I am appalled that Cherie Blair has chosen to defend Mr and Mrs Orams. People who buy illegally acquired properties are making the situation in Cyprus far worse for those dispossessed by the Turkish invasion. I hope this case will serve as a warning to others that buying illegally acquired properties will not be tolerated.”

Cyprus Weekly, December 2005

Domestic Remedies

Some Turkish columnists are delighted at the recent ECHR ruling in the case of Ms. Aresti even though Turkey was found guilty of human rights violations. Perhaps these columnists welcomed this decision because they are champions of human rights? Far from it, they welcomed the court’s ruling because they believe it to be a recognition of the legal system in the occupied north. Mr. Birand from the Turkish daily news in his column today stated “Even if it (court’s ruling) doesn’t mean any official recognition of the KKTC (occupied North), it certainly recognizes it as an entity.” Last April, ECHR ruled in this same case that effective domestic remedies were not possible because restitution was not being offered. Now the court is saying that a domestic remedy may be possible only if there is a genuine effective redress. To Mr. Birand, a genuine effective redress means...“This means the Greek Cypriot petitions will be postponed for at least 10 years. Turkey and the KKTC will gain some time, and the threat of paying so much compensation will be removed for a while.” What a humanitarian. Fortunately, that is not what the court's decision means, lets see what the court really says...“Turkey should introduce a remedy, within three months, which secures, in respect of the Convention violations identified in the judgment, genuinely effective redress for the applicant…”The court goes on to say "Such a remedy should be available within three months and redress should occur three months after that." So you see, its not 10 years as Mr. Birand stated. The court is seeking a proper remedy in a couple of months. Before the ECHR ruling, Mr. Talat expected the ruling to recommend that Turkey open internal judiciary means for refugees, that is why he rushed to create a new property compensation bill. Addressing concerns from Turkish nationalists, Mr. Talat said this..."The target of the new property law (adopted by the occupied North) does not aim to solve property problem in Cyprus." Correct, the target of this law is world public opinion. It is nothing more than a show meant to cover up the unprincipled reality that is the aftermath of the Turkish Invasion. The Turks are seeking more time to cement the division of Cyprus as 31 years is not long enough and they will hammer away at the idea that it’s the Greek Cypriots fault for maintaining this division. After all, it is the Greek Cypriots who rejected last year's Annan plan. Mr. Birand in his column today did not mention the “NO” vote once, he mentioned it twice. Well, Turkey succeeded in gaining time...a short period of time. The true test will be if Turkey allows Ms. Aresti access to her property. If not, will the ECHR accept the chump change offered by the Turks as compensation for lost property?

Cyprus Debates ECHR Decision

Cypriot papers today set aside space to debate the recent ECHR Judgment against Turkey and the possible ramifications from the court’s decision. The views were for the most part, positive. Here is what the Cyprus Weekly had to say about the matter.

Turkey guilty

By Alex Efthyvoulos

Turkey was found guilty yet again yesterday by the European Court of Human Rights of violating the rights of Greek Cypriot refugees by denying them the right to return and to regain use of their homes in the occupied north of Cyprus.

The judgement dealt with the application of Famagusta refugee Myra Xenides-Aresti who fled her home at the time of the Turkish invasion in 1974 and has not been allowed to return, or to regain her property ever since.

The Court based its judgement on previous similar cases by Greek Cypriot refugees, like the one by Titina Loizidou.

But in what is regarded as a major development the Court, while reaffirming that Turkey “continued to exercise overall military control over northern Cyprus, added that “the fact that the Greek Cypriots rejected the Annan Plan did not have the legal consequence of bringing to an end the continuing violation of the displaced persons' rights,'' as claimed by Turkey.

The Court reserved sentencing Turkey for these violations giving it six months “to introduce a remedy, which secures genuinely effective redress for the Convention violations identified in the instant judgement.''

Link

But in yet another major development the Court went on to link Turkey's compliance in the Xenides-Aresti case with all the 1,400 other similar applications by Greek Cypriot refugees pending before it.

The Court said it could not ignore the fact that there were already approximately 1,400 property cases pending before it, brought primarily by Greek-Cypriots against Turkey.

The Court considered that Turkey had to introduce a remedy which secured, in respect of the Convention violations identified in the judgment, genuinely effective redress for the applicant as well as in relation to all similar applications pending before the Court, in accordance with the principles for the protection of the rights laid down in Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. “Such a remedy should be available within three months and redress should occur three months after that.''

The Court also rejected Turkey's claim that property rights could be settled through the intercommunal talks. It declared that “the inter-communal talks cannot be invoked in order to legitimate a violation of the Convention.''

Compensation law

The Court also rejected Turkey's claim that the breakaway Turkish Cypriot state should be given the opportunity and the time to consider their compensation law for Greek Cypriot refugees, as well as the claim that a decision by the Rights Court for the payment of compensation to Greek Cypriot refugees “would seriously hamper and prejudice negotiations for an overall political settlement, including the complex property issue which it is hoped will be solved by diplomatic means.''

The Court ruled that Turkey, as the occupying power of north Cyprus, violated two articles of the European Convention of Human Right, Article 8, dealing with the right to respect for the applicant's home, and Article 1, dealing with the protection of property.

In connection with Article 8 the Court noted that since 1974 Xenides-Aresti “has been unable to gain access to, to use and enjoy her home.'' It consequently reaffirmed its earlier judgement in the case of Cyprus v Turkey, “that the complete denial of the right of Greek-Cypriot displaced persons to respect for their homes has no basis in law within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention.''

Dealing with the violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the Convention, which guarantees every person's right to the peaceful enjoyment of their property, by the Court rejected Turkey's claims that property rights should be settled as part of a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem.

“The Court found no reason to depart from the conclusions which it had reached in previous cases, in particular the case Loizidou v. Turkey: As a consequence of the fact that the applicant has been refused access to the land since 1974, she has effectively lost all control over, as well as all possibilities to use and enjoy her property.

The continuous denial of access must therefore be regarded as an interference with her rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 [....] It has not [...] been explained how the need to rehouse displaced Turkish Cypriot refugees in the years following the Turkish intervention in the island in 1974 could justify the complete negation of the applicant’s property rights in the form of a total and continuous denial of access and a purported expropriation without compensation. Nor can the fact that property rights were the subject of inter-communal talks involving both communities in Cyprus provide a justification for this situation under the Convention.''

Accordingly, the Court concluded that there had been and continues to be a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 by virtue of the fact that the applicant is denied access to, control, use and enjoyment of her property and any compensation for the interference with her property rights.

The Court's judgement was reached with the dissenting opinion of one of the seven judges, Turkish judge R. Turmen.

Cyprus Weekly, December 2005

ECHR Finds Turkey Guilty

A judgment has been made by ECHR concerning the case of Mrs. Myra Xenides-Arestis vs. Turkey. The ECHR has confirmed that the title deed of Mrs. Myra Xenides-Arestis is legitimate and her ownership of property has not been affected by Turkish occupation. Below is a press release issued by the Registrar so that you can read what the Court demands and what violations Turkey is guilty of as it relates to this case.

For Information regarding this judgment please visit here.