The following article appeared in the Greek Cypriot Sunday Mail. It follows the story of an elderly Turkish Cypriot couple who have been refused the right to their property, even though they have been living in the south since 2001. (
Click Here For That Story…).
Turkish Cypriot property mess: a timebomb for the government?
PROPERTY – the thorny issue of land and homes abandoned on one side or the other – is perhaps the most significant parameter of the Cyprus problem.
Recent developments have only highlighted the matter, especially regarding Turkish Cypriot properties left behind by their rightful owners when they were forced to move to the north following 1974.
Various governments since then 1974 reiterated that these properties still belonged to the Turkish Cypriots and that they could always claim them back should they decide to return.
For that purpose, the Guardian of Turkish Cypriot Properties was set up to look after the properties until the political situation allowed their owners to return.
Turkish Cypriot properties were temporarily given to refugees, though many are currently occupied by non-refugees and other ineligible people. Some were also used to site refugee estates and other public projects.
But the sudden lifting of restrictions on movement and the flood of inquiries by Turkish Cypriots regarding their property has exposed what many view as 30 years of mismanagement, as well as the inadequacy of legislation concerning the issue.
Shambles
The government seems to have no idea how to deal with the shambles, while legal experts warn of the political repercussions for Cyprus if the current policy is not reviewed.
The sale of Turkish Cypriot properties is prohibited by the law, though Turkish Cypriots, now free to move across the divide, have found out that at least for the time being, they could not even transfer their land to their heirs.
Former Attorney-general Alecos Markides warned that the law must change immediately, not to allow uncontrolled transfers or transfers to Greek Cypriots, but to allow Turkish Cypriots to endow the land to their close relatives.
In this way, Markides said, the properties still remain under the management of the Guardian and there would not be any problems in the future should the current owners die.
Human rights lawyer Achilleas Demetriades, maintained that the original reasons behind the enactment of the legislation on Turkish Cypriot properties had fundamentally changed and that provisions should be made to accommodate the new state of affairs.
“If the Turkish Cypriot owner of the land has died during the past 30 years, why should his lawful heirs be precluded from inheriting the property? And for that matter, if the parents are alive, why can’t they transfer their land to their children or relatives by way of gift,” Demetriades said.
The government said a Turkish Cypriot first had to move to the (Greek Cypriot)government-controlled areas and settle for a reasonable period of time before anything could be done with their property.
But Demetriades said it was unusual to impose a residence requirement to exercise a property right, especially in cases where the requirement is not even specifically described. And what, Demetriades wondered, if a Turkish Cypriot were to come over, stay for six months, take over his property, sell it the next day and leave?
“And even more bizarre, how do we expect a Turkish Cypriot to come to the area under the control of the Republic and stay, when his home is occupied by a Greek Cypriot?“ he added.
Demetriades suggested the law was obsolete and no one would be willing under the circumstances to fulfil the government’s residence condition. He charged that there was no justification in claiming that matters relating to Turkish Cypriot properties would only be solved when the Cyprus problem was solved because that was exactly what Turkish Cypriot leader Rauf Denktas was doing.
Hypocrisy
The same position was backed by the former legal adviser of the Guardian of Turkish Cypriot Properties, Harris Kyriakides, who unleashed a scathing attack on politicians, accusing them of hypocrisy on the issue.
“The legislation is twisted by those people who prefer the exchange of property instead of giving it back to the Turkish Cypriots and getting their own back in the occupied areas,” Kyriakides said.
He added: “The legislation provides for the management of the land but does not interfere with the human right of owning property and cannot prohibit the endowment from father to son etc.”
Kyriakides said the law was clear: “You hold the land until the return of the owner or until the Cabinet declares the end of the irregular situation.”He suggested the law was unconstitutional and in conflict with the European Union acquis communitaire and the convention on human rights.
He suggested that the government should encourage the Turkish Cypriots to return and exercise their rights to inheritance as well as receive money deposited in banks from land appropriations.
“Instead of lamenting that (Greek Cypriot) refugees would be uprooted again, they should evict those holding the land illegally,” Kyriakides said.
He added: “Which Turkish Cypriots would come back? Those without property or the ones with property?”
Kyriakides charged that certain politicians who – either in person or through their families – occupied Turkish Cypriot property, and others with financial interests wanted to keep the properties for themselves in case there was exchange of property as part of solution.
Lawyer Demetriades said the Guardian should draft a report on what the department had done all these years. “How many properties are under the Guardian? What is the total area? What is the estimated value of these properties?”
Serious
Demetriades also wondered what the returns were from leasing the property.
“Are they renting it at market prices of are they giving handouts?” he said. He added: “If they are doing the latter, the matter is even more serious because there is an obvious mismanagement.
“A Turkish Cypriot is entitled to loss of revenues from mismanagement by the Guardian and if in fact there is mismanagement then somebody should be held accountable,” Demetriades said.
It is common knowledge that people occupying Turkish Cypriot properties can pay as little as £12 a month for a substantial plot of land.
Kyriakides, however, claimed that throughout the years there had been a blatant effort to keep records in a state of chaos.One previous effort to computerise the department had been abandoned because it was costing too much money.
The authorities appear to have no control over the situation and many holders of Turkish Cypriot property rent it on at current market prices, making a mint.
But the government’s policy could spell legal trouble for the island, in exactly the same way as Turkey was convicted for depriving the rights of Greek Cypriots to enjoy their land.
“There is an increase in free movement of people and this calls for the re-examination of the legislation because it may very well be that it infringes human rights – the right of peaceful enjoyment of property,” Demetriades said.
There is a very good chance that a Turkish Cypriot could appeal to the European Court after going through the Cyprus courts, he added.
“Of course, I think that Cypriots courts may themselves hold this legislation as being in breach of the human rights of Turkish Cypriots.”
source :
http://www.trncpresidency.org/press/news/out_of_control.htm>