IT’S A free country: that was the government’s message yesterday to Greek Cypriot refugees taking recourse to the ‘property commission’ in the north.
The tone was set by President Papadopoulos, who said the state would not stop anyone from doing business with the commission, set up last March after the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ordered Turkey to give Myra Xenides-Arestis, a refugee from the fenced-off area of Varosha, “genuine and effective redress” for loss of use and access to her property.
Papadopoulos summed up the government’s position, saying:
“We are not about to prevent people from going to the commission, because then we might be accused of impeding the course of justice. And that would be a gift to the Turkish side.
“Instead, our policy is to prove, with arguments to the ECHR, that the commission in the north is illegal.”
But AKEL leader Demetris Christofias was less forgiving, delivering a warning to all those drawn by the promise of handsome payouts for their lost properties.
“To apply to the property commission is an unacceptable and condemnable act. We must be clear on this,” he said.
“How is it possible, for any Greek Cypriot, under any circumstances, to lend an air of legality to the authorities in the north?”
For his part, DISY chief Nicos Anastassiades advised against recriminations.
While lamenting the fact that refugees were turning to the north for compensation, he said this was not the fault of ordinary folk.
“What will happen tomorrow, if the ECHR rules that everyone should apply to the commission? Will we brand everyone a traitor for doing so? Should we tell refugees that they alone must bear the consequences of the occupation?
“Is it with name-calling that we conduct politics?” he wondered, taking a dig at Christofias.
“It’s very easy to call people names, especially when they have been left with a choice that was so far considered inconceivable.”
But Anastassiades did add that Greek Cypriots should avoid dealing with the commission, at least until the European court decided whether the body was fit to handle property claims.
Meanwhile Achilleas Demetriades, lawyer for Arestis, yesterday said that none of the proposals submitted by Turkey to his client involved her return to her home.
The Turkish government offered Arestis a sum for loss of use of her property, and said she could return to her property only after a comprehensive solution to the Cyprus problem.
Calling the offer “unacceptable,” Demetriades said Turkey had failed to comply with the ECHR’s instructions.
He said his client wanted full restitution – no more, no less.
“Unless and until this happens, there can be no discussion with the Turkish side,” he added.
But Demetriades conceded that the fact others were taking recourse in the north did complicate matters for his case.
Media reports this week said that at least two Greek Cypriots have been allowed to return to their homes in the occupied areas, and that a handful of others were being offered monetary compensation.
Demetriades said Turkey had offered his client £246,000 for loss of use of her property, and put this figure into perspective: if the some 5,000 similar cases were to be compensated, in total Turkey would foot a bill amounting to £1.25 billion – just for refugees hailing from the Famagusta area.
Legal experts say that it could now take the ECHR four to six months to make a final decision on Turkey’s compliance.
Apart from Arestis, the fate of 1,400 more applications is hanging in the balance.
??
??
??
??
