Rumların mülkiyet tuzağı: KKTC’nin çözüm planı ne?

Alexy Flemmings02/06/25 09:56
REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS has NO JURISDICTION over NORTHERN CYPRUS: [1] Northern Cyprus IS a LEGAL (de jure) country: THE LEGITIMACY of the TURKISH REPUBLIC of NORTHERN CYPRUS (TRNC) is RECOGNIZED WORLDWIDE: (INTERNATIONAL COURT RULINGS and NATIONAL COURT DECISIONS of VARIOUS COUNTRIES) 🟦 The International Court of Justice (ICJ) Ruling on Kosovo (2010; No prohibition of declarations of independence in international law): "THERE IS NOTHING IN INTERNATIONAL LAW THAT PROHIBITS DECLARATIONS OF INDEPENDENCE, and the RECOGNITION OF A STATE IS A POLITICAL MATTER." The United States of America (USA), in the ICJ’s 2010 Kosovo ruling, rejected the Greek Cypriot stance and issued a statement favorable to the Turkish Cypriots: Harold Hongju Koh (The USA's representative in the UN-ICJ 2010 Kosovo case on behalf of the USA): "The argument advanced by Cyprus against the legality of Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence is incorrect. Cyprus attempted to compare the 1244 process to the 'heartbreaking but misleading situation' of a parent sending their young child into state care, never to see them again. I argued, however, that a more accurate analogy would be the futile attempt by the state to FORCIBLY RETURN AN ADULT CHILD TO AN ABUSIVE HOME WHEN THE CHILD NO LONGER WISHES TO RETURN, especially after the parent and child have LONG LIVED APART, and REPEATED ATTEMPTS AT RECONCILIATION HAVE REPEATEDLY FAILED. In such a case, as here, a DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE WOULD BE THE ONLY VALID OPTION and would undoubtedly be lawful." https://www.icj-cij.org/public/files/case-related/141/141-20091208-ORA-01-00-BI.pdf (Page38; Paragraph40) Accordingly, the US Federal Court (on 9 October 2014) declared the TRNC as a "DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC with a president, a prime minister, a legislative body, AND A JUDICIARY." In the UN-ICJ 2010 Kosovo ruling, ICJ Judge Trindade: "The emphasis has shifted from the STATUS OF THE TERRITORIES to the NEEDS AND DESIRES OF THE PEOPLE." https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/141/141-20100722-ADV-01-08-EN.pdf (Page550; Paragraph66) 🟦 The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR; 2 July 2013; Legality of the acts of the TRNC's authorities): "Although the regime in the northern area lacks international recognition, THE DE FACTO RECOGNITION OF THE REGIME’S ACTIONS IN THE NORTH MAY BE NECESSARY FOR PRACTICAL PURPOSES. Therefore, the adoption of civil, administrative, or criminal legal measures by the authorities of the 'TRNC', and their application or enforcement within the territory of the regime in the north, may be seen as having a LEGAL BASIS IN DOMESTIC LAW for the purposes of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)." http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-122907 🟦 The United States Federal Court (9 October 2014): "...Although the US does not recognize the TRNC as a state, it can be said that the TRNC purportedly operates as a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC with a president, prime minister, legislature AND JUDICIARY...The TRNC is NOT vulnerable to a lawsuit in Washington." https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2009cv01967/139002/53 🟦 The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR; 2 September 2015; The legality, independence, and impartiality of the TRNC's courts): "The judicial system in the 'TRNC', including both civil and criminal courts, reflects the judicial and customary law tradition of Cyprus in its operation and procedures, and therefore, the courts of the 'TRNC' should be regarded as 'established by law' in reference to their 'constitutional and legal foundation. The ECHR had previously ruled that the judicial system established in the 'TRNC' should be considered 'established by law' based on the 'constitutional and legal foundation' that sustains it. Moreover, the ECHR does NOT accept that the courts in the 'TRNC', as a whole, lack independence and/or impartiality. When an action by the authorities of the 'TRNC' complies with the EXISTING LAWS OF NORTHERN CYPRUS, such actions, in principle, have a legal basis in domestic law for the purposes of the European Convention on Human Rights. http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-155000 PS: Here, the ECtHR, by referring to the "laws in force in the northern region of Cyprus", means the laws enacted and enforced by the TRNC in northern Cyprus (see the ECtHR’s 02July2013 ruling). In summary, according to the ECtHR, the courts of the TRNC are INDEPENDENT AND IMPARTIAL. 🟦 United Kingdom High Court (3 February 2017): "There was NO DUTY in UK law upon the Government TO REFRAIN FROM RECOGNISING NORTHERN CYPRUS. The United Nations itself works with Northern Cyprus law enforcement agencies and facilitates co-operation between the two parts of the island...The cooperation between the UK police and legal institutions in Northern Cyprus is LAWFUL." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/03/criminals-fleeing-british-justice-can-no-longer-use-cyprus-safe http://ambamarblearch-media.com/sites/default/files/dpp_files/TT.pdf, Page6. 🟦 The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR; 25 June 2024; The difference of TRNC than Transnistria, Abkhazia, and Crimea) [Ukraine v. Russia Case (Crimea); Applications 20958/14 and 38334/18] explained the reasons for the legality of the actions of TRNC laws in the north of Cyprus under the ECtHR framework (Why the situation of the TRNC differs from that of Crimea, Transnistria, and Abkhazia): 930. Whereas the Court held that "TRNC Domestic Law" was based on the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition and was therefore accepted as "law" for the purposes of the Convention, in cases concerning Transdniestria (the "MRT"), the Court found "no basis for assuming that [in the 'MRT'] there is a system reflecting a judicial tradition compatible with the Convention similar to the one in the remainder of the Republic of Moldova". The Court has reached similar conclusions regarding the "law" of Abkhazia and the "lawfulness" of Abkhaz courts. 932....Moreover, while the "MRT" and Abkhaz-related cases concerned the "law" of unrecognised entities that did not reflect "a judicial tradition ... similar to the one in the remainder of the Republic of Moldova" or "to the rest of Georgia" respectively, in Cyprus v. Turkey (merits) the Court held that "The civil courts operating in the 'TRNC' were in substance based on the Anglo-Saxon tradition and were not essentially different from the courts operating before the events of 1974 and from those which existed in the southern part of Cyprus". This particular aspect makes the latter case similar, yet different from the present case. The Cyprus v. Turkey case concerned the continued application of pre-existing Cypriot law valid in the territory of the "TRNC" before Turkey had obtained actual control of that territory, whereas the present case concerns the application in Crimea of the law of the Russian Federation (or the "law" of the local authorities, as its derivative) replacing the previously applicable and valid Ukrainian law. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-235139 [2] ALL LAWS OF TURKISH REPUBLIC OF NORTHERN CYPRUS ARE ACCEPTED IN EUROPE (EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS; ECtHR). MORE IMPORTANTLY: The ONLY COUNTRY THAT HAS JURISDICTION in northern Cyprus is TURKISH REPUBLIC OF NORTHERN CYPRUS: 2.1 In north of Cyprus island, the laws of Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus are valid (TRNC DOES HAVE jurisdiction in north of Cyprus island): ECtHR’s (European Court of Human Rights) Decision (02.07.2013; Nicos PAVLIDES; Application no:9130/09. Spyridon GEORGAKIS; Application no:9143/09): "...notwithstanding the lack of international recognition of the regime in the northern area, a de facto recognition of its acts may be rendered necessary for practical purposes. Thus, THE ADOPTION BY THE AUTHORITIES OF THE "TRNC" OF CIVIL, ADMINISTRATIVE OR CRIMINAL LAW MEASURES, AND THEIR APPLICATION OR ENFORCEMENT WITHIN THAT TERRITORY, may be regarded as HAVING A LEGAL basis in DOMESTIC LAW for the purposes of the Convention". http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-122907 https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22sort%22:[%22kpdate%20Descending%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-122907%22]} Note: In the related ECtHR’s decisions above, the case applications of the Greek Cypriots was IMMEDIATELY REJECTED; i.e., their applications were found INADMISSABLE. That is to say, the Greek Cypriots were expelled by ECtHR just at the beginning; therefore, the cases of the Greek Cypriots were not handled (no sessions were held) by ECtHR at all. 2.2 In north of Cyprus island, the ONLY country that has jurisdiction (i.e., whose laws are valid) is TURKISH REPUBLIC OF NORTHERN CYPRUS: European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), Article 35/1 Admissibility criteria: "The Court may ONLY deal with the matter after ALL DOMESTIC REMEDIES have been exhausted, according to the generally recognised rules of international law." http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Admissibility_guide_ENG.pdf In order to apply to ECtHR for an issue related in Poland, ALL DOMESTIC REMEDIES of Poland MUST be exhausted. Similarly: In order to apply to ECtHR for an issue related in north of Cyprus island, ALL DOMESTIC REMEDIES of Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus MUST be exhausted. If the legal domestic system of Republic of Cyprus had any validity in north of Cyprus, then before taking the case to the ECtHR, ALL DOMESTIC REMEDIES of Rep.of Cyprus MUST have been exhausted AS WELL besides those of Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Since, according to ECtHR, legal system of Republic of Cyprus has NO validity (RoC has NO JURISDICTION) in the northern Cyprus island, ECtHR accepts cases from northern Cyprus part of the Cyprus island AS SOON AS ALL DOMESTIC REMEDIES of Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus are exhausted. 2.3 ALL the people of Rep. of Cyprus (even the President of RoC) MUST apply to the LEGAL SYSTEM of Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) about an issue related with north Cyprus in order to take their cases to the ECtHR: ECtHR's decision [04.01.2011, (Archibishop) Chrysostomos II, Application no:66611/09]: "the procedure before the Immovable Property Commission ("IPC"), and further appeal to the "TRNC" High Administrative Court, provided for in Law 67/2005, were to be regarded as "domestic remedies" of the respondent State and that NO GROUND OF EXEMPTION has been established in that regard". "NO GROUND OF EXEMPTION" and (in the last part) "Court unanimously Declares the APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE" means "EXHAUST ALL DOMESTIC REMEDIES OF TRNC (Northern Cyprus) first, before coming to ECtHR". http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-103100 http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/Pages/search.aspx#{"fulltext":["Chrysostomos"],"documentcollectionid2":["CASELAW"],"itemid":["001-103100"]} 2.4 The Courts of Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus are INDEPENDENT and IMPARTIAL: ECtHR’s decision (02.09.2015; Kyriacou TSIAKKOURMAS AND OTHERS; Application no:13320/02): "..the COURT SYSTEM in the "TRNC", including both civil and criminal courts, reflected the judicial and common-law tradition of Cyprus in its functioning and procedures, and that the "TRNC" COURTS were thus to be considered as "ESTABLISHED BY LAW" with reference to the "constitutional and legal basis" on which they operated...the Court has already found that the COURT SYSTEM set up in the "TRNC" was to be considered to have been "established by law" with reference to the "constitutional and legal basis" on which it operated, and it has NOT ACCEPTED THE ALLEGATION that the "TRNC" COURTS as a whole LACKED INDEPENDENCE and/or IMPARTIALITY...when an act of the "TRNC" authorities was in compliance with LAWS IN FORCE WITHIN THE TERRITORY OF NORTHERN CYPRUS, those acts should in principle be regarded as having a legal basis in domestic law for the purposes of the Convention.." http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-155000 https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22sort%22:[%22kpdate%20Descending%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-155000%22]} Note: Here, what ECtHR means by "laws in force within the territory of northern Cyprus" is the laws that TRNC published and put into implementation (See: ECtHR’s 02.07.2013 decision above). [3] In "Simon Mistriel AYKUT v. RoC" case, the essence of the case is: THE (property) RIGHTS of Greek Cypriots (living in S.Cyprus) in NORTH OF THE CYPRUS ISLAND. Different HATS of the DEFENDERS of the rights of the RELEVANT Greek Cypriots (living in s.Cyprus) in NORTH OF THE CYPRUS ISLAND in "Simon Mistriel AYKUT v. RoC" case does NOT change: i) the JURISDICTION AREA of THE PROPERTIES in the case: North of Cyprus island, and ii) the JURISDICTION AUTHORITY of THE PROPERTIES in the case: Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus! ECtHR (04.01.2011, Archibishop Chrysostomos II, Application no:66611/09): WITHOUT ANY EXCEPTION, ALL GREEK CYPRIOTS MUST APPLY TO THE AUTHORITY OF TRNC for a property in north of Cyprus island. In "Simon Mistriel AYKUT v. RoC" case, if Elena KLEOPA had been "the ADVOCATE of the RELEVANT Greek Cypriots who has the relevant properties in north of Cyprus island" instead of "the PROSECUTOR of RoC" then Elena KLEOPA would have been IMMEDIATELY REJECTED: ECtHR (04.01.2011, App.No:66611/09): WITHOUT ANY EXCEPTION, ALL GREEK CYPRIOTS MUST APPLY TO THE AUTHORITY OF TRNC for a property in north of Cyprus island. THE PRACTICAL REAL position of Elena KLEOPA is THE DEFENDER of the relevant Greek Cypriots WHETHER THE HAT SHE WEARS IS "the ADVOCATE of the RELEVANT people" or "the PROSECUTOR of RoC"! "The JURISDICTION AREA of THE PROPERTIES" and "the JURISDICTION AUTHORITY of THE PROPERTIES" do NOT change based on the HAT DEFENDER WEARS! "ECtHR (04.01.2011, AppNo:66611/09): WITHOUT ANY EXCEPTION, ALL GREEK CYPRIOTS MUST APPLY TO THE AUTHORITY OF TRNC for a property in north of Cyprus island" does NOT change when THE DEFENDER of the relevant Greek Cypriots changes his/her hat from ADVOCATE to PROSECUTOR! "WITHOUT ANY EXCEPTION, ALL GREEK CYPRIOTS" means not only the-PRIVATE-INDIVIDUAL-Greek-Cypriots but also the-Greek-Cypriot-PUBLIC-ORGANIZATION(The RoC state)! Action of people does NOT change their intrinsic rights when they act as PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS or PUBLIC ORGANIZATION (STATE). "ALL GREEK CYPRIOTS" in "ECtHR (04.01.2011, AppNo:66611/09): WITHOUT ANY EXCEPTION, ALL GREEK CYPRIOTS MUST APPLY TO THE AUTHORITY OF TRNC for a property in north of Cyprus island" DOES INCLUDE the Greek Cypriot Elena KLEOPA (RoC's PROSECUTOR)! The MANDATORINESS/COMPULSORINESS of applying TRNC's authorities (TRNC's Courts; TRNC's IPC etc.) exist for both the PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL Greek Cypriots and the COLLECTIVE ORGANIZATION of the PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL Greek Cypriots (The RoC state)! [4] Türkiye's INTERVENTION on Cyprus in 1974 leading to the CURRENT DIVISION/PARTITION of the Cyprus island is LEGAL: In 1974, Türkiye launched a military intervention in Cyprus following a coup d'état orchestrated by the Greek junta, aimed at uniting the island with Greece (Enosis). i) Treaty of Guarantee of 1960 Türkiye acted on Cyprus via Article IV(2) Treaty of Guarantee ("In the event of a breach of the provisions of the present treaty, Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom undertake to consult together with respect to the representations or measures necessary to ensure observance of those provisions. IN SO FAR AS COMMON OR CONCERTED ACTION MAY NOT PROVE POSSIBLE, EACH of the three GUARANTEEING POWERs reserves THE RIGHT TO TAKE ACTION with the sole aim of re-establishing the state of affairs created by the present Treaty."), hence in compatible with Art. 2(4) UN Charter. ii) The first hand decisions of The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) (29.07.1974) PACE(29.07.1974, Resolution 573): "The Turkish military INTERVENTION was the exercise of a RIGHT EMANATING FROM AN INTERNATIONAL TREATY and the fulfilment of a LEGAL and MORAL obligation." iii) Greece’s court decisions (21.03.1979) Athens Court of Appeals (21.03.1979; Case No: 2658/79): “The Turkish military INTERVENTION in Cyprus, which was carried out in accordance with the Zurich and London Accords, was LEGAL. Turkey, as one of the Guarantor Powers, had the right to fulfill her obligations. The real culprits ... are the Greek officers who engineered and staged a coup and prepared the conditions for this INTERVENTION." Note: Just after 5 years later than 1974, in 1979, Greece’s Highest Court decided Turkish military intervention is legal without making any difference between 1st and 2nd military operation. iv) Makarios (Then-President of Cyprus) speech during the period covering both the coup and the intervention Makarios (the UN Security Council Speech, 19 July 1974): "CYPRUS WAS INVADED BY GREECE". Sound record of the speech: http://www.cypnet.co.uk/ncyprus/history/republic/makarios1.wav v) Applications of NO sanctions Till now, there is NO sanction applied on Türkiye due to 1974 Cyprus war. If a country invades another one, UN imposes sanctions on that country. Iraq invaded Kuwait, and UN imposed sanctions on Iraq. Türkiye did not invade Cyprus, hence UN did not impose any sanction on Türkiye. vi) The NON-appearance of phrase "invasion" in UN Security Council resolutions There is no UN Security Council resolution that calls the Türkiye’s 1974 action as "invasion". [5] The VOLUNTARY Population Exchange Agreement between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots UNDER THE AUSPIECES OF THE UNITED NATIONS (02.08.1975): ALL Turkish Cypriots living in southern Cyprus chose to settle in northern Cyprus in 1975. ALMOST ALL of the Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus chose to settle in southern Cyprus in 1975. (Maronites in Northern Cyprus: Kormakitis, Karpaseia, Asomatos, Agia Marina villages. Greeks in Northern Cyprus: Rizokarpaso, Agios Andronikos, Agia Triada villages). ALL activities (SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, POLITICAL, SPORTIVE, CULTURAL, JUDICIAL etc.) in southern Cyprus are governed ONLY by Greek Cypriots since 1974. ALL activities (SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, POLITICAL, SPORTIVE, CULTURAL, JUDICIAL etc.) in northern Cyprus are governed ONLY by Turkish Cypriots since 1974. On 15.11.1983, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus declared its INDEPENDENCE from the Republic of Cyprus. ALL Greek Cypriots (Tasos Asproftas, Marianna Petrakidou etc.) were REJECTED to return back to nCyp and settle in Northern Cyprus by ECtHR: ECtHR (Tasos Asproftas, Application no. 16079/90, 04.10.2010; Marianna Petrakidou, Application no. 16081/90, 04.10.2010): The PROPERTIES from which Greek Cypriots have migrated in Northern Cyprus are NO LONGER THEIR HOMES, as they have been LIVING ELSEWHERE FOR ALMOST THEIR ENTIRE LIFE and they do NOT have CONCRETE AND PERSISTING LINKS to the properties they claim. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-98684 https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-98688 [6] Self-Determination of Turkish Cypriots The right to self-determination is a cornerstone of international law, as established in the UN Charter and various human rights instruments [UN-ICJ 2010 Kosovo ruling, ICJ Judge: "The emphasis has shifted from the STATUS OF THE TERRITORIES to the NEEDS AND DESIRES OF THE PEOPLE." https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/141/141-20100722-ADV-01-08-EN.pdf (Page550; Paragraph66)]. Turkish Cypriots constitute a distinct people with the right to self-determination, which they exercised in establishing the TRNC. Turkish Cypriots have formed their own institutions, government, and military, exercising EFFECTIVE control over northern Cyprus. The Republic of Cyprus has NO jurisdiction on north of Cyprus island due to The SELF-DETERMINATION and INDEPENDENCE of Turkish Cypriots. [7] Effective Control and Governance International law recognizes the concept of EFFECTIVE CONTROL when determining the jurisdiction and legitimacy of state governance. Since 1974, the Republic of Cyprus has NOT exercised any effective control over northern Cyprus. The TRNC governs the territory, enforces laws, and provides services; hence, the Republic of Cyprus has NO jurisdiction over north of Cyprus island. The principle of effectiveness in international law is a key aspect of sovereignty. If a state does NOT effectively govern a territory, its claim to that territory are questioned, especially when another entity (such as the TRNC) is governing and providing administration FOR NEARLY HALF A CENTURY. [8] RECOGNITION and LEGALITY are two DIFFERENT things: Lack of international recognition of the TRNC does NOT legitimize the Republic of Cyprus’s jurisdiction over northern Cyprus. ICJ 2010 Kosovo decision: "RECOGNITION is a POLITICAL act." The UN Security Council’s Resolution 541 (1983) and Resolution 550 (1984) denounced the unilateral declaration of independence by the TRNC; but, ICJ 2010 Kosovo decision: "THERE IS NOTHING IN INTERNATIONAL LAW THAT PROHIBITS DECLARATIONS OF INDEPENDENCE". Hence, the resolutions 541 (1983) and Resolution 550 (1984) are POLITICAL instruments rather than binding legal judgments. The resolutions 541 (1983) and Resolution 550 (1984) have NOT changed the reality that the Republic of Cyprus does NOT exercise control over northern Cyprus. [9] Diplomatic Efforts and Lack of Resolution to Cyprus Issue: Numerous diplomatic efforts have been made to resolve the Cyprus issue, including the Annan Plan (2004), which proposed reunification under a federal system. While Greek Cypriots overwhelmingly rejected 2004-Annan-Plan, Turkish Cypriots accepted it. This had showed the willingness of Turkish Cypriots on SHARED governance while the insistence of Greek Cypriots on NON-SHARING governance although 1960-Cyprus Republic was formed by BOTH Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots TOGETHER. The failure of reunification efforts (SINCE 1963) proves that the Republic of Cyprus’s claim to jurisdiction over the ENTIRE island INCLUDING northern Cyprus is UNFEASIBLE. [10] PASSAGE OF TIME and EFFECTIVE CONTROL The current status quo in northern Cyprus has existed for nearly five decades. Given the passage of time and the fact that Turkish Cypriots have exercised EFFECTIVE governance during this period, the Republic of Cyprus’s INABILITY to reclaim jurisdiction shows that ROC's claim has NO GROUND under the principle of EFFECTIVE control. The UN Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP) operates along the buffer zone between the Republic of Cyprus and Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, EFFECTIVELY recognizing the division and the INABILITY OF EITHER SIDE to exercise jurisdiction BEYOND their respective areas of control. The territory of Northern Cyprus functions under the EFFECTIVE governance of the TRNC.

Alexy Flemmings02/06/25 09:06
AİHM VE ABD FEDERAL&TEMYİZ MAHKEMESİ'NİN KIBRIS ADASINDAKİ RUMLARLA İLGİLİ MÜLKİYET KARARLARI (MÜLKİYET SORUNU KKTC LEHİNE ÇÖZÜLDÜ): ========================================= ((02.08.1975'te Viyana'da Birleşmiş Milletler gözetiminde Kıbrıslı Türkler ve Kıbrıslı Rumlar arasında GÖNÜLLÜ NÜFUS DEĞİŞİM ANLAŞMASI imzalanmış ve bu Anlaşma uygulanmıştır.)) ((24.04.2004: Birleşmiş Milletler gözetiminde yapılan referandumda, Kıbrıs'ın birleşmesi Rumlarca REDDEDİLMİŞTİR)) (1) AİHM (01.03.2010): KKTC Taşınmaz Mal Komisyonu (TMK) YASALDIR. (Takis Demopoulos ve diğer 7 Rum: [Application nos. 46113/99, 3843/02, 13751/02, 13466/03, 10200/04, 14163/04, 19993/04, 21819/04]). (2) AİHM (27.05.2010): Rumların, KUZEYE GERİ DÖNÜŞ HAKKI YOKTUR: “Rum Kıbrıslıların Kuzey Kıbrıs’tan göç ettikleri yerler, HAYATLARININ HEMEN HEMEN HEPSİNİ BAŞKA YERLERDE YAŞADIKLARINDAN VE İDDİA ETTİKLERİ MÜLKLE SOMUT VE KALICI BAĞLARI (CONCRETE AND PERSISTING LINKS) OLMADIĞINDAN ARTIK EVLERİ (HOME) DEĞİLDİR. Ayrıca, bu yüzden, Rumların kuzeye geri dönüş hakkı yoktur” (Tasos Asproftas: [04.10.2010; Application no. 16079/90] ve Marianna Petrakidou [Application no. 16081/90]). (Rum Kıbrıslılar, AİHM’in Rumların Kuzey Kıbrıs'a geri dönüş olmaması kararına itiraz edip temyize götürdüler; 18.10.2010’da AİHM RUM KIBRISLILARI TEMYİZDE DE REDDETTİ VE GERİ DÖNÜŞ OLMAMASI KARARI KESİNLEŞTİ). AİHM Büyük Dairesi, Asproftas ve Petrakidou’nun temyiz isteğini reddederek Rumların popişlerine tekmeyi bastı: http://www.mediafire.com/view/?izlctlan0vm7le9 (3) AİHM (27.07.2010): KKTC Taşınmaz Mal Komisyonu’nun TAZMİNATLARI HESAPLAMA METODU YASALDIR. (Antonakis Solomonides [Application no. 16161/90]).(Rum Kıbrıslılar AİHM’nin 1974-değerine göre tazminat kararına itiraz edip temyize götürdüler; 13.12.2010’da AİHM Rum Kıbrıslıları temyizde de reddetti ve 1974-DEĞERİNE GÖRE (ÜÇ KURUŞA, YOK PAHASINA, 1974 DEĞERİ + BASİT FAİZ) TAZMİNAT KARARI KESİNLEŞTİ; 2024 değerine göre (1974 değeri + DEĞERLENİŞ + basit faiz) tazminat alma hakları kalmadı). RUM ARSALARI/MÜLKLERİNİN YOK PAHASINA KKTC’CE KAMULAŞTIRILMASI YASALLAŞTI! AİHM Büyük Dairesi, Solomonides’in temyiz isteğini reddetti. Solomonides’in reddedilişinin belgesi: http://www.mediafire.com/view/?rvhv4rgb52p5x3v AİHM’in KKTC TMK’nın Rumların mülklerini YOK PAHASINA kamulaştırmasını onaylayıcı kararları: Rumun Talebi …… KKTC TMK’nın Önerdiği ….. AİHM Kararı 1. Solomonides [Application no. 16161/90]: 22,9 Milyon € …. 1,3 Milyon €; 2,1 Milyon € (kullanım kaybı; mal bedeli) …. 1,4 Milyon € SOLOMONİDES itiraz edip temyize (ECHR Grand Chamber, AİHM Büyük Daire) götürdü. 13.12.2010da AİHM, TEMYİZDE, Solomonides’i reddetti, Solomonides, temyizde kaybetti. Rumun Talebi ….. KKTC TMK’nın Önerdiği …. AİHM Kararı 2. Loizou [Application no. 16682/90]: (kullanım kaybı)12 Milyon € ….. 1,2 Milyon € (ONDA BİRİ) …… 1,3 Milyon € LOİZOU itiraz edip temyize (ECHR Grand Chamber, AİHM Büyük Daire) götürdü. 28.04.2011de AİHM Büyük Dairesi, Loizou ve Lordos’un temyiz isteğini reddetti, Loizou, temyizde de kaybetti. Loizou’nun reddedilişlerinin belgesi: http://www.mediafire.com/view/?457b2t5o8xzwcbb (4) AİHM (04.01.2011): (Başpiskopos Hrisostomos’a): “Defol! İSTİSNASIZ TÜM RUMLAR KKTC TMK’NA BAŞVURMAK ZORUNDADIR” (Chrysostomos II [Application no. 66611/09]) ( http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/Pages/search.aspx#{"fulltext":["Chrysostomos"],"documentcollectionid2":["CASELAW"],"itemid":["001-103100"]} ): “the procedure before the Immovable Property Commission (“IPC”), and further appeal to the “TRNC” High Administrative Court, provided for in Law 67/2005, were to be regarded as “domestic remedies” of the respondent State and that NO GROUND OF EXEMPTION has been established in that regard”. Son kısımda, “Court unanimously Declares the APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE = DEFOL GİT! KKTC TMK’YA BAŞVUR” (5) AİHM (10.07.2012): KKTC ile Kıbrıslı Rum Michael TYMVIOS arasındaki TAKAS anlaşması (22.04.2008) yasaldır! Kıbrıs (Rum) Cumhuriyeti, KKTC ile Kıbrıslı Rum Mike Tymvios’un arasındaki GÜNEY KIBRIS’tan BİR ARAZİNİN/MÜLKÜN değişimini de içeren takas anlaşmasını ONAYLAMAK ZORUNDA KALDI. ([Application no. 16163/90]) Larnaka’daki Türk arazisi/mülkü ile Ercan’daki Rum arazisi/mülkünün takası. KKTC TMK’nın sözü, Güney Kıbrıs’taki toprak üzerinde de etkili oldu! (6) AİHM (02.04.2013): (Applciation no: 14434/09) (Eleni Meleagrou’ya): "SADECE İADE TALEP EDEMEZSİN. Güneydeki Türk Kıbrıslının malıyla TAKAS veya KKTC tarafından parası verilerek (yok pahasına) KAMULAŞTIRILMASI da senin için etkin çaredir." https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-119026%22]} https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/pdf/?library=ECHR&id=001-125464&filename=MELEAGROU%20AND%20OTHERS%20v.%20TURKEY%20-%20%5BTurkish%20Translation%5D%20by%20the%20Turkish%20Ministry%20of%20Justice.pdf (7) G.Kıbrıs("Kıbrıs Cumhuriyeti"): RUMLAR, KKTC'de iddia ettikleri Taşınmazları için TÜRKİYE ALEYHİNE G.KIBRIS'TA "KULLANIM KAYBI NEDENİYLE TAZMİNAT" DAVASI AÇAMAZ: Güney Kıbrıs'ta Temyiz Mahkemesi, 11.2024'te kullanım kaybı nedeniyle TÜRKİYE aleyhine verilen tazminat kararını iptal etti. G.Kıbrıs Temyiz Mahkemesi, Kıbrıslı Rumların (Ioannis Sherkesavvas, Katina Savva Kounama), Girne'de kendi taşınmazları olduğunu iddia ettikleri taşınmazlar için, kullanım kaybı gerekçesiyle ilk derece mahkemesinin Türkiye aleyhine verdiği tazminat kararını iptal etti. Rum Temyiz Mahkemesi, kararını, TÜRKİYE'NİN YEREL MAHKEMELERDE YARGILANAMAYACAĞINA dair uluslararası hukukta geçerli olan "EGEMEN DOKUNULMAZLIĞI" ilkesine (devletlerin diğer ülkelerin yargı süreçlerinde rızaları olmadan dava edilmeme ve kovuşturulmama hakkı) dayandırdı. G.Kıbrıs Temyiz Mahkemesi: "Türkiye, Kıbrıs Mahkemesi önüne çıkarılamaz". Bu kararla, KKTC'deki taşınmazlar için, TÜRKİYE ALEYHİNE, "kullanım kaybı nedeniyle tazminat" davaları, artık, Kıbrıs Rum mahkemelerince ele alınamamaktadır. ( 8 ) Rumlar, "KKTC TMK"ya benzer şekilde "Kıbrıs TMK" kurulumuna hazırlık yapıyorlar: Rumlar, daha önce, AİHM'deki davada, AİHM'in kararından önce Kıbrıslı Türk Sofi'ye TAZMİNAT VEREREK AİHM'in "KKTC TMK"ya benzer şekilde Rumlara G.Kıbrıs'taki Türk taşınmazları için G.Kıbrıs'ta "Kıbrıs TMK" kurulması kararının önüne geçmişlerdi. Bu kez, Yusuf ZIA(1928), Uktu Hayat GALETTI(1982), Asim TURGUT(1949), Ismail TURGUT(1957), Rum Yönetimi aleyhine, AİHM'de, G.Kıbrıs'taki Türk taşınmazları için 2020'de dava açtılar (Application no. 55238/20). Rum İstinaf Mahkemesi, 11.2024'te, Rumların, "Kıbrıs Cumhuriyetince oluşturulan Kıbrıs Türk Malları Vasiliği uhdesinde bulunan "Güney Kıbrıs'taki Zigi’deki (Terazi) ve Tohni’deki (Taşkent) Kıbrıs Türk taşınmazlarını satın alma girişimini reddetti. Kıbrıs Rum Yönetimi, AİHM'in kendilerine "Kıbrıs TMK" kurmayı dayatabileceğini ve Kıbrıslı Türklere dünya kadar tazminat ödemek zorunda kalabileceklerini öngörüyor. (9) AMERİKA BİRLEŞİK DEVLETLERİ FEDERAL MAHKEMESİ (09.10.2014; Toumazou-KKTC davası): "...Her ne kadar ABD KKTC'yi bir devlet olarak tanımasa da, KKTC'nin bir başkan, bir başbakan, yasama ve yargısı ile birlikte DEMOKRATİK BİR CUMHURİYET OLARAK İŞLEDİĞİ SÖYLENEBİLİR...KKTC, Washington'daki bir hukuk davasında ELE ALINAMAZ". https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2009cv01967/139002/53 Toumazou, ABD TEMYİZ Mahmemesi'ne gitti. ABD TEMYİZ MAHKEMESİ de Toumazou'yu REDDETTİ(15.01.2016): https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/judgments/docs/2016/01/14-7170-1593754.pdf ABD Federal Mahkemesi'nin KKTC için "DEMOKRATİK CUMHURİYET" ifadesini kullandıktan sonra ve ABD Temyiz Mahkemesi kararı onadıktan sonra, ABD Dışişleri Bakanlığı (United States Secretary of State) KKTC için "Kıbrıslı Türkler Tarafından Yönetilen Bölge" (the Area Administered by Turkish Cypriots) ifadesini kullanmaya başladı: https://www.state.gov/reports/2022-report-on-international-religious-freedom/cyprus/area-administered-by-turkish-cypriots/ ÖZETLE: Uluslararası Mahkemelerde, 1) "Rumların KUZEYE DÖNÜŞ HAKKI OLMADIĞI", 2) "Rumların, (vaktiyle kuzeyde bıraktıkları) mallarının KKTC'ce "YOK PAHASINA (1974 değeriyle) KAMULAŞTIRILMASI", 3) KKTC'nin "İADE" etmeden YOK PAHASINA (1974değeriyle) KAMULAŞTIRMA veya (Güney'deki malla) TAKAS da yapabileceği, 4) KKTC'nin, Kıbrıslı Rumların Kuzeydeki mallarını, Kıbrıslı Türklerin Güney'deki mallarıyla TAKAS HAKKI, artık değişmez bir NORM olduğundan, MÜLKİYET SORUNU, KKTC LEHİNE ÇÖZÜLDÜ. KKTC tanınmış ülke olsaydı, Türkler, tıpkı, Hollandalıların, Polonyalıların, Çeklerin, Slovakların, Romenlerin, Rusların 2.dünya savaşı sonrasında Almanların mallarını ZIRNIK VERMEDEN kamulaştırması gibi kamulaştıracaktı: Uluslararası Hukuk, Hans'a ayrı, Hristo'ya ayrı uygulanmaz; Uluslararası Hukuk'ta, "SALDIRIP MALA EL KOYMAK" ile "SALDIRANIN MALINA EL KOYMAK", TAMAMEN AYRI iki şey. İleride, KKTC'nin tanınmışlığının önünde sıkıntı yaratamaması için, Rumların malları ZIRNIK vererek kamulaştırıldı. KKTC'nin diğer ülkelerce tanınması yayılmaya başladığında, Kıbrıs Türk'ü de, Hollandalıların, Polonyalıların, Çeklerin, Slovakların, Romenlerin, Rusların 2.dünya savaşı sonrasında Almanların mallarını ZIRNIK VERMEDEN kamulaştırması gibi 1974 savaşı sonrasında Rumların mallarını ZIRNIK VERMEDEN kamulaştıracak. ========= 1.ÇÖZÜM (GLOBAL TAKASA ZORLAYIŞ): AİHM (10.07.2012; [Application no. 16163/90]), "KKTC ile Kıbrıslı Rum Michael TYMVIOS arasındaki TAKAS anlaşması (22.04.2008) YASALDIR" dedi. Kıbrıs (Rum) Cumhuriyeti, KKTC (TMK) ile Kıbrıslı Rum Michael TYMVIOS’un arasındaki GÜNEY KIBRIS’tan BİR ARAZİNİN/MÜLKÜN değişimini de içeren takas anlaşmasını ONAYLAMAK ZORUNDA KALDI. Larnaka’daki (Güney Kıbrıs) Türk arazisi/mülkü ile Ercan’daki (Kuzey Kıbrıs) Rum arazisi/mülkünün TAKASı. KKTC TMK’nın sözü, Güney Kıbrıs’taki toprak üzerinde de etkili oldu! KKTC TMK, Rumları, SÜREKLİ TAKAS anlaşmalarına yönlendirdiğinde ve KKTC TMK TAKAS kararları verdiğinde, AİHM (02.04.2013; Applciation no: 14434/09; Eleni Meleagrou) davasında KKTC TMK'nın “Güneydeki Türk Kıbrıslının malıyla TAKAS"ı da Rum için "etkin çare" olarak nitelendirdiği için, Rum'un bu TAKAS kararını KABUL ETMEME HAKKI OLMADIĞINDAN, KKTC (TMK) bu yolla, hem 5 kuruş ödemeden Rum'u savuşturabilir hem de Güney Kıbrıs'taki, Rumların, "Türk Malları Vasiliği" kurumunu FİİLEN yokeder; Böylelikle de GLOBAL TAKASı Rum'a (Rum hükümetinin itirazına rağmen!) uygulatır! 2.ÇÖZÜM (YOK PAHASINA, ONDA BİR FİYATINA, KAMULAŞTIRIŞA DEVAM): Maraş'taki eski binaları yıkıp yerine yeni bol daireli (2+1, 1+1,...) binalar yapıp, oluşan dairelerin satımından elde edilen gelirle, (ONDA BİR verilerek) Maraş DIŞINDAKİ Rum'ların mallarını YOK PAHASINA kamulaştırmaya devam (Maraş, ZATEN, KKTC EVKAF'a ait).