BRITISH cuckoos in the north may require the help of the odd sleeping pill before they go to bed at night, since the announcement of the Orams judgment on Tuesday. Not friendly at the best of times, the Brits in the north seemed particularly edgy and hostile when they were approached by a Mail journalist for comments, after the judgment.
They got their comeuppance in the end, the properties they bought on the cheap, because they were stolen, now, being practically worth a fraction of their bargain price as there are no buyers. This could not have happened to nicer people, as they say. And now they have to look over their shoulder wherever they go, in case there is a devious Greek Cypriot waiting to hand them a court summons.
As our friend Constantis Candounas, the lawyer who made it all happen, smugly boasted at his Thursday news conference, “The party is over”. And the proud party-pooper was Candounas who looked as pleased and emotional as a singer who had just won the Eurovision song contest.
His was a super-achievement and deserved all the praise he received, as he singlehandedly – like a mythical hero – shafted Turkish developers, cheapskate Brits, the pseudo-state’s economy and, most probably, Talat’ re-election prospects. In Kyproulla of today all the heroism takes place not on the battlefield but in the court of law and heroes are not soldiers but lawyers.
THE PARTY is over for some, but for our money-grubbing lawyers the party is just beginning. Candounas was quick to point out the business opportunities created by the landmark Orams judgment, in his impassioned call to arms.
“The way is now open for all Greek Cypriots whose properties have been usurped by other EU nationals, to take legal action and enforce Cyprus judgments against such trespassers in the United Kingdom and other EU countries.”
With legal fees being claimed by Candounas in excess of £1 million, our lawyers will be quick to jump on the bandwagon. If past behaviour is anything to go by, we will now clog up the legal systems of the EU member states with requests for the execution of Cyprus court orders against trespassers of Greek Cypriot properties in the north.
It suffices to say that after the referendum, we submitted close to 2,000 claims against Turkey at the European Court of Human Rights.
Now, the opportunities are limitless as we can also sue tourists who have stayed in Greek-owned hotels in the north for trespassing. Candounas has already taken on such a case, and will be going after 60 tourists who had stayed at the Dome Hotel in Kyrenia.
He has their names and addresses and will hand them court summons via the justice ministry in their country of residence.
Each tourist would have to pay a few hundred euro penalty, considering the Orams had to pay about €500 per month on the Apostolides plot. The tourists would have stayed for a week or two at the Dome, so how much would they have to pay for trespassing? Would we be sending execution orders to foreign courts for fines of €200?
I see no reason why we should not if it is in the national interest and the legal fees are high enough.
OPPORTUNITIES are endless. As Candounas said on Thursday, we could also charge people who eat at restaurants that were built on Greek Cypriot land, for trespassing. This opens up the litigation market further, because Greek Cypriots could also be charged with trespassing. Lawyers could have spies watching restaurants built on Greek land and photographing the trespassers.
So if you are planning on eating in Kyrenia in the future do not just ask the waiter for a menu; ask also for the restaurant’s title deed. If it were issued post-74, get out because you could be charged with trespassing.
AFTER running a live commentary on the Hadjicostis murder investigation for a whole week, the cops decided to get serious on Monday, announcing that they would stop briefing the media about every detail of their work. They also called on hacks to exercise restraint in their reports, because there was a danger of negatively affecting the investigation.
This newly-found professionalism did not last very long. On Thursday evening they tipped off the media about imminent arrests, and scores of photographers, cameramen and reporters were waiting outside Paphos Gate police station for the cops to bring in the suspects. The names of the suspects were not given, but if the cops had hoped to keep them secret, until the next day’s remand hearing they failed.
When the police cars arrived with the suspects, the police station gate was closed, and they had to wait for about five minutes before it was opened, giving photographers and cameramen plenty of time to take pictures of the sibling suspects.
But you had to admire the unwavering commitment shown by the police spokesman Michalis Katsounotos, to new code of professionalism. On a Friday morning radio show, he repeatedly refused to name the suspects, even though their names and pictures were in all the morning papers.
ON THE NIGHT of the murder, the police had received a telephone call from a media magnate who had seen a mysterious man moving suspiciously in the wealthy neighbourhood in which he resides. Presumably, he feared that there was a vendetta against the media big-shots and the stranger was a hit-man. The police arrived and found the stranger, who turned out not to be an enemy of Hellenism trying to destabilise the country, but an Electricity Authority technician, sent to the area to check out a grid problem.
LAST WEEK we made a mistake, in writing that comrade president was taking the party leaders for a ride, with regard to what he was discussing at the intensive talks. It appears that he is taking everyone else for a ride as well, and Alexander Downer’s patience is beginning to wear thin.
In the previous week’s talks, our mole informed us that big Al lost his rag and started shouting, when the comrade refused point-blank to make a statement saying that progress was being made at the talks. It was not the first time Tof had refused to say anything positive about the talks in public, using the same tired excuse – he wanted to keep the party leaders off his back.
They would start attacking him if they found out that progress had been made and that he had been discussing the unacceptable, confederal Turkish proposals, which he allegedly had rejected. ‘What sort of leader is afraid to speak because he will be criticised,’ an irate big Al reportedly asked.
AFTER HIS visit to Athens, it appears that the comrade has decided to take the Greek prime minister for a ride as well. He has agreed to the setting up of a team of legal experts at the Greek Foreign Ministry to offer him advice about the talks. What use the advice would be when there are no talks – this week’s round is the last one until April.
He has also invited PM George Papandreou to join a National Council meeting next weekend to create the impression that there was close co-operation with the Greek government. If he wanted real co-operation and a common strategy with the Greek government he would have had private meeting, with Papandreou and not invited him to the National Council circus to confer with Dr Faustus and Perdikis.
EUROKO leader Demetris Syllouris came up with an even better idea. He suggested that the brave new Cyprob strategy is decided at a panhellenic meeting attended by representative of all the parties of Greece and Cyprus. Now this would be a super-circus, at which the participants would not even agree where each one would sit, let alone forge a national strategy.
I DO NOT usually respond to letters complaining about things written in the Coffeeshop, but there are times when Coffeeshop protocol obliges me to do so.
When, for instance, the letter-writer is a renowned academic who has held Professorships in Public Law at two leading UK universities, was elected to serve three terms in the UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights, was awarded the OBE and for 30 years was paid by the taxpayer to advise Cyprus presidents on public law, it would be impolite to ignore her.
I refer to double Professor Claire Palley, to whom I would like to apologise profusely for spelling her name wrongly in last week’s shop (the ‘i’ was omitted from her first name), although she did not complain about it. A rather stroppy letter by Professor Palley appears in today’s paper (page 20), complaining about the item in last week’s shop, about the size and the cost to the taxpayer of the Cyprus team attending the Kosovo hearing at the International Court of Justice.
She accuses us of making factual errors which I would like to go through.
First, the verbatim record published by the ICJ lists 11 individuals representing Cyprus, not eight as she says in her letter. The three Cyprus lawyers, who did not charge a fee for attending, were still listed as members of the team by the ICJ.
Second, Palley was also listed as a member of our team and as she wrote in her letter, she was “ill in Cyprus, although in contact with Cyprus’ team to suggest improvements.” It was wrong to say she was a member of our delegation, as she did not go to The Hague, but on her own admission she was still working as part of the team from Cyprus. Was she not paid for her services, or was she paid reduced rates because she stayed in Cyprus?
Third, the Cyprus team was a staggering size, when you consider we had a bigger team than big international players like the Russia (six), France (five), UK (10) and China (five). The US team beat us by having 12 members in its team, but it is the superpower, something we cannot claim on behalf of Cyprus.
Fourth, Cyprus’ leading foreign expert did have a dig at the UN Security Council as we reported last week, and therefore I did not wrongly criticise him. Was the head of the US delegation Harold Hongju Koh, imagining things when he said the following: “Yesterday counsel for Cyprus colourfully but inaptly suggested that the United Nations Security Council was involved in the ‘amputation’ of Kosovo and ‘dismemberment’ of Serbia.”
AS REGARDS, the bill for the Kosovo case and her recruitment policy, you do not need professorships at two leading UK universities to see that our critic is fudging the issue. Her academic acquaintances (I never wrote they were ‘personal’ friends as she misleadingly claims) who represented Cyprus offered their services at “reduced professional rates I suggested”, she wrote.
She should tell us how much these “reduced professional rates” actually were so we can judge for ourselves, whether we got a bargain or not. What rates per day do leading academic lawyers charge and how much did our two charge the Republic? And was the use of four UK lawyers necessary, or was Palley being a bit wasteful with the taxpayer’s money in hiring four, even at reduced rates?
If she gives us the amounts the Republic was charged by the UK lawyers and the cost is low, I will give her the apology she demands, under the headline ‘Paltry pay for Palley’s pals.” And if she does not, then perhaps the Attorney-general, who signed the expenditure authorisation, could inform us what the total bill of our delegation was.
FINALLY, I am sorry that our governments paid double professor Palley “about one eighth of the fees of an English junior” but it would help if she informed us how much an English junior gets paid. Even better, would be for someone to tell us how much she cost the taxpayer in the 30 years she has been advising Cyprus presidents.
If she was ripped off, we will apologise on behalf of our successive governments, under the headline ‘Professor Palley paid peanuts by penny-pinching presidents,’ and then apply for an alliteration prize.
As for her book about the Ethnarch, being a human rights lawyer surely she recognises our right to express an opinion about it, in these post-modernist times.
