THE REAL PROPERTY QUESTION IN CYPRUS

THE REAL PROPERTY QUESTION IN CYPRUS
AN INSIGHTFUL INTERVIEW WITH TURKISH CYPRIOT ADVOCATE BARIS MAMALI
By Niko Stelgia
Kathimerini Newspaper 14-8-2010

IMPORTANT STATEMENT: -THE TRANSLANTION IS BASED ON GOOGLE TRANSLATE. PLEASE BE PATIENT WITH POSSIBLE INACCURACIES. THANK YOU-

The legal office of Baris Mamali is located in Nicosia, the street where they are also the T / C Bar Association and many other lawyers office. The last Tuesday there I have a discussion with great cordiality and willingness with mr. Mamali He is a Turkish Cypriot scholar who stands out. His views and positions are scientifically substantiated and not based on narrow margins ethnocentric approaches. It is a lawyer who indulge in various aspects of Cypriot life. In his biography distinguishes his tenure as president of T / C Bar, and a the foundation that supports the superiority of law and promote the modernization of Turkish Cypriot structures.
• What is your view on the current impasse in the property issue? With the assistance of what factors reached the point where we are today?
The Turkish intervention in Cyprus in 1974 is a historic turning point in the property issue. Then it had been created a new regime in the south and the north of Cyprus. After 1974, the Turkish side did not follow a correct political line on the property issue. The fact that the Turkish side did not take account the international law created the current impasse in the property issue. Besides, that's why the decisions of international courts condemn Turkey. Turkey has ignored the human rights treaties. I emphasize the fact that in September 1974 the Prosecutor and the President of the so called Supreme Court, the judicial structure of the north, have recommended to the Turkish Cypriot leadership not to change and should not affect the status of Greek Cypriot properties in the north. But the Turkish Cypriot leadership neglected this advice and proceeded to the usurpation of Greek Cypriot property. Regardless the European law, the Turkish Cypriot side's decision in 1977, began the distribution of Greek Cypriot property to settlers and Turkish Cypriots. This arbitrariness was held on the claim that the north of Cyprus is a separate state. Unlike the north, in the south the government has used the Turkish property in a lawful manner. To the north, the Constitution of 1985 enshrined the decision of 1977. And in 1995-1996 began granting of title deeds of Greek Cypriot properties. The government began to grant stems. Faced with this situation, the Greek Cypriot side, on the pretext of human rights violations, brought the issue to the European Court of Human Rights. The court vindicated the Greek Cypriot side and the Loizidou decision changed the property question. Despite the new developments, the Turkish side continued to follow the wrong line. Eg The Turkish side was slow to deal with the Loizidou case. But this case is now at the center of the property issue and the Turkish side has not reached the level of specific cases. And while the reaction of the Turkish side was slow, followed other cases which condemned the Turkish side. These decisions stressed the fact that legally the north part of Cyprus is under the Turkish occupation and a vice governship of Turkey.
• At the same time what was the response of the government of Cyprus regarding the Turkish Cypriot properties?
The government leased property or confiscated. There is a problem with seizures. The government must pay compensation. And if it does not, the Turkish Cypriots should appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. But the Turkish Cypriot side does not urges the Turkish Cypriots in that direction.
• In 2006 the Government of the Justice and Development Party has founded the compensation committee and exchange. In your opinion, what were and still are reasons to change Turkey's attitude?
In answer to your question from the outset I must emphasize the fact that Turkey did not recognize the decision on the Loizidou case until 2003. The Turkish governments were unwilling to accept the consequences of wrong policies. But that changed with the rise of the Justice and Development Party to power in 2003. In that time the initiative of the Turkish government was correct. Turkey did not have the luxury of ignoring a court decision which recognizes itself. Acknowledging the decision on the Loizidou case, Turkey was faced with a huge amount of compensation. Turkey was unable to meet the payment of such compensation. This paves the way for ratification of the European court. At this point, Turkey has decided to delay the resolution, and in 2006 went to the establishment of the compensation committee. The main objective of Ankara was to find a valid argument. Ankara wanted to send the message: "I admit that I made a mistake and I want to compensate establishing this committee, which will be the first step towards the normalization of property issues by the ECHR¨. This message, found a response from the ECHR. At the same time, Turkey has admitted the occupation of Greek Cypriot properties and indirectly the fact that there is no TRNC. Furthermore, forced to take responsibility for the damages. Opening a parenthesis, it is not clear whether the burden of compensation will go to Turkey or the Turkish Cypriot side. But the truth is that last time Turkey took an initiative to strengthen its position in the European area.
• Above we see that the decisions of the ECHR does not signify the recognition of "TRNC". Instead they talk about the vice governship of north of Cyprus. Is that correct?
I totally agree. Besides the ECHR is very attentive and stresses that it does not recognize the TRNC. The committee is a temporary measure to Turkey. And this scheme is to change the course so far in the asset, in accordance with the priorities of Turkey.
• It is understood that Ankara is trying to manage the property issue and the effects with various maneuvers? Such behavior does not signal commitment to resolve the issue ...
Of course I agree ... And I ask? The committee what has changed? What decisions of the ECHR changed? None, whatsoever. Nothing has changed in the property issue. Instead, Turkey recognized the Greek Cypriot property titles to the north, the violation of such securities, the non-existence of the TRNC, its own control in the north as well as its own wrongdoing.
• What is your opinion as regards the approach of the Greek Cypriot side to the "committee"?
The Greek Cypriots do not want to confront the structures of the north. But in doing so comes at a high risk. In case that Greek Cypriot side continues to ignore the decision of the ECHR and the Committee, in future the Greek Cypriot side will not be able to appeal to the ECHR. Because now the ECHR considers that it is a compulsory requirement. The ECHR now asks: "referral to the Committee prior to ask for my decision on your case?" If not, the ECHR no longer accept requests for ongoing litigation cases . But unfortunately the Greek Cypriot side thinks in political terms. It attaches importance to the legal process. This is a wrong attitude. Besides why retaining doubts about the committee? Already stressed that nothing has changed with regard to the irregularities of Turkey in Cyprus and the decisions of the ECHR. The side with the larger errors in the asset is Turkish. And this is an undeniable reality.
• The new Turkish Cypriot leadership attaches great importance to the exchange of property. Do you think this is a viable asset in question? The Turkish Cypriot side has the opportunity to meet the legal and economic terms?
This question is very timely and touches an important aspect of the whole issue. Emphasize the fact that the Turkish Cypriot side can not meet the level of compensation and can not guarantee the proper functioning of the compensation. The composition of the committee is wrong. The five members are bureaucrats and two of them are foreign lawyers who are not staying in Cyprus. On the other hand, according to the recent decision of the ECHR, Turkey should announce that bear the economic cost of damages. Turkey had to reassure the Turkish Cypriot side. But that has not happened. Today the burden of running the committee fell into administration in the north. In case of bigger number of appeals to committee, the administration is unable to guarantee the legitimate and proper functioning of the committee. In this case the Greek Cypriots have the right to appeal to European court to condemn the Turkish side. Then Turkey other than the compensation will be faced with penalties to be associated with the legal procedural violations. The ECHR may decide on a fair trial of cases.
• According to your approach as the Greek Cypriot side so the Turkish Cypriot side gives priority to the political line and ignores the legal part of the whole case ...
Of course there is a disregard for the legal aspect. But we must not forget that the legal approach of the whole case can not be made based on political intentions.
• What is your opinion as regards the negotiations between the two leaders on the property issue?
The Turkish Cypriot leadership is focused on compensation. But the Greek Cypriot side seeks the return of property. I my opinion in terms of damages and the financial burden, the T / C side is in wrong way.
• It is understood that a solution to the Cyprus problem must be followed by the reorganization of all Turkish Cypriot structures? Is that correct?
In the present circumstances, in case of a immediate solution, the Turkish Cypriot side will be faced with crises in many fields. It ıs very likely the collapsion of all the existing structures. The Turkish Cypriot side should review the policies and advance reforms.