To go or not to go to the Property Commission in the north

Politis says that as a result of the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), it is inevitable that there will be a rise in the number of Greek Cypriots applying to the Immovable Property Commission (IPC) in the north for compensation especially in view of the deadline set for submitting such applications (December 2011).

It says that the government is debating whether it might be better for an application to be made in an organised methodical and planned way rather than by separate independent applications.

The Cyprus Mail quotes human rights lawyer Achilleas Demetriades as saying that Turkey is bluffing about giving compensation to Greek Cypriot property owners and that “refugees from Varosha should call their bluff by applying en masse to the property commission”. 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".

The paper says that as the dust begins to settle on the legal tornado caused by the ECHR 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?

“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.

However, applicants will ask for restitution first and compensation for loss of use later. “They want to go home. What is in 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.” he said.

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. "Whoever doesn't do so", he added, "is in effect gifting his property to Turkey".

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.

Makarios Droushiotis writing in Politis says that any developments in the Cyprus problem have been pushed forward to after the elections in the north, with talks on property probably taking place in May and a referendum by the end of the year. He says that the idea of an international conference chaired by Spain as EU President to be held before the elections has fallen by the wayside after Greek Cypriot reservations that any speedy talks would fail as they did in 2004.

Christofias' preference for the talks to proceed "slowly and steadily", has even been adopted by UN Special Envoy in Cyprus Alexander Downer, who said in an interview with Bayrak radio that a speedy solution could be catastrophic for Cyprus. He added that it would be far better to have a slow negotiated procedure that would result in a lasting solution rather than a speedy but fragile one.What concerns the UN above all is not just that the leaders reach an agreement and sign it, but that it be a solution that can be implemented and for this to happen it would need to have society behind it.

He says that the UN's change of attitude has been brought about by a number of internal developments which indicate that things are heading towards public opinion being primed to accept a solution. These include the publication of a leaflet on Federation; the gradual change of the rhetoric of both the government and Akel towards acknowledging that progress has been achieved; Christofias' reaching out to Disy; and Diko's remaining in government.

Any urgency that the UN has felt so far was mainly due to Eroglu's lead in the opinion polls in the north, but now the race seems open with Talat as possibly the favourite. He adds that although Turkey says it doesn't get involved in the elections in the north, everyone knows that it favours Talat so that the talks can continue. The fact that Tahsin Ertugruloglu has declared his candidacy after repeated visits to the Turkish capital and contacts with Erdogan and Gul, clearly shows that Turkey does not favour Eroglu.

He also recalls that during his recent meeting with Greek Cypriot journalists in Ankara, Erdogan had made it clear that the Cyprus problem remaining unsolved was a problem for the region as a whole and did not want to let this opportunity to go by. It was made clear that neither Christofias nor Talat were seen to be at fault for a lack of progress so far. When pressed to say why Turkey believed there was no progress, they were told: "Both the problem and its solution are on the island. Both leaders want a solution. Both the Greek and Turkish Prime Ministers want a solution, and the guarantor countires also want a solution. But the two leaders know what the problem is and who is blocking the solution".

The writer says that when Turkey says that the problem is in Cyprus, that the two leaders know it, and that they both want a solution, clearly he was referring to internal problems. The elections in the north will clarify things there. A Talat victory would be a vote of confidence for a solution. At the same time Christofias is finally seeking the support of Disy as a basic factor towards a solution.