The great divide

  • Print
  • Comments (5)

Readers' comments (5)

  • I am puzzled as to allegation that there are legal difficulties in respect of issues relating to the Republic of Cyprus and the Turkish occupied area of northern Cyprus. Neither the European Court of Human Rights nor the European Court of Justice have experienced any real difficulties over the issue and the legal precedents in their judgments set out with great clarity the legal position. In short Turkey illegally occupies the northern part of Cyprus and the Turkish Cypriot administration in the occupied area is nothing more than Turkey’s agent. Turkey is accountable for the actions of that local administration.
    The case of the Orams is a striking example. The law in Cyprus is very similar to the law in England, largely because of the previous British colonial history of the island. Accordingly someone who has unlawfully appropriated another’s property cannot give good title to that property. Mr. Apostolides was the true owner. When the Turks invaded they unlawfully appropriated that property and handed the same to a Turkish Cypriot and by a series of transactions, none of which could pass good title, the land ended in the hands of the Orams. The Orams new of suspected that the land was appropriated from Greek Cypriots and took advantage of the discount in price in purchasing that land associated with the fact that the original title deeds could not be given. In the English Court the Judge had no trouble in confirming Mr. Apostolides title to the land. Only technical issues arose in that case which have since been clarified by the European Court of Justice in Mr. Apostolide’s favour.
    Difficulties only arise when one tries to look at the legal issues from the eyes of the transgressor and by ignoring basic principals of law and or actual law. The transgressor must ignore the law as it could not otherwise justify its actions, nevertheless there is simply no need for anyone else to do so.
    If Turkey, the transgressor, is not given comfort in its presentation of its case, there is more likely to be a realisation of the dream of a united free Cyprus then if it is.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Was, or is the title of the disputed land TRNC exchange land. If it is TRNC exchange title what is the argument based upon?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Has Mr Alexandrou the same view for Israel, occupying foreign soil....or for the people who were displaced more recently in Bosnia and Serbia.

    How does the GC plan to repatraite TCs who were thrown from their land, on which now stands Larnaca and Pathos airports?

    as I remember it...Turkey went to the aid of it's people with the full knowledge of both the UK and America, whom had the Seventh Fleet in the area at the time, Turkey held back from taking control of the whole island.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Some people appear to readily use the EU offensive.

    European Court of Human Rights, European Court of Justice.

    This would also suggest further Persecution of people by Prosecution.

    And how would the Defence respond to that.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • In reply to the comments of Anonymous I say as follows:
    1. I have no knowledge on land law in Isreal, Bosnia or Serbia. In those circumstances I cannot comment with any accuracy. I suspect that in respect of Isreal stolen property remains stolen property. In respect of Bosnia and Serbia there have been agreements between the parties which may deal with such matters.
    2. In respect of the Turkish Cypriots, they were not forced to leave by the Cypriot Government. They were required to move to the Turkish occupied area by Turkey. Their relocation was not forced but voluntary. The land issue is also very different because most transferred their title deeds to the Turkish authorities in return for land (usually stolen) in the occupied area. In those circumstances they have effectively surrendered their interest in what was their land in the free area and are simply not entitled to profit twice by seeking to reclaim what they have already sold. It is because Turkey holds these title deeds that it feels it can negotiate and demand property exchanges.
    3. Turkey did not invade the north of Cyprus to protect the Turkish Cypriots. No Turkish Cypriot was in danger at the time of the invasion. It was the actual invasion that changed a conflict between the Greece and the Greek Cypriots into one between Greek Cypriots and Turks. Under the Treaty of Guarantee 1959 Turkey had the right to intervene to end any conflict and restore the sovereignty, terriotorial intergrity and constitution of Cyprus. They did not do this. They carried out a bloody invasion, occupied an area of Cyprus they wanted for their own, ethinically cleansed that area of its Greek Cypriot inhabitants and ordered all Turkish Cypriots south of the Attila Line to relocate to the north and surrender their title deeds.
    Nothing I have said is secret or requires any significant research. The Treaty of Guarantee is readily available for inspection on the internet and comprises of two pages with five small paragraphs.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory

Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (5)