Government seeks to calm Greek Cypriots fearing eviction
THE GOVERNMENT yesterday sought to quell fears among Greek Cypriot refugees that they would be left homeless in the wake of a landmark case involving the reinstatement of a Turkish Cypriot to his property in the south.
In September 2004, Arif Mustafa won the right to return to his four-donum property in Episkopi after a Supreme Court ruling.
The court of first instance then deemed that Mustafa met all the requirements for reinstatement, as he had lived in the territory of the Republic for six months and was therefore considered a permanent resident.
The decision, however, was suspended pending the hearing of an appeal by the government and the Greek Cypriot refugee occupants of his home.
But on Monday Mustafa was free to move into his old home after a last-minute move by both the Attorney-general and the Greek Cypriot occupants to withdrew their appeal against the decision. In the meantime alternative lodgings were found for the Greek Cypriot family.
The outcome sent shockwaves rippling through the thousands of Greek Cypriot refugees who have been housed on properties belonging to their Turkish Cypriot compatriots before the events of 1974 that tore the two communities apart.
One of the main concerns centres on the fact that, while Turkish Cypriots are able to find redress in the south, the same cannot be said of Greek Cypriot refugees with estates in the occupied territories.
In the meantime, it has been confirmed that at least 30 more cases similar to Mustafa’s are pending, the majority of which will be tried in Cypriot courts, the rest at the European Court of Human Rights. Most of these relate to Turkish Cypriots who originally lived in Larnaca and have acquired permanent residency status since the opening of the checkpoints in 2003.
“While we understand the worries over the Mustafa case, we do not share the exaggerations voiced and do not think that panic is justified,” government spokesman George Lillikas reassured yesterday.
He said that, out of the 60 odd Turkish Cypriot applications examined by the Interior Ministry, a number have been settled out of court, for example by compensation.
Mustafa’s was an “isolated case,” he added.
“It was an exception to the norm, which revolves around compromise.”
Lillikas said the compensation awarded to Turkish Cypriots was channelled into a special fund, but the relevant laws prevented this money from being disbursed before a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem.
Asked whether it was possible to contest this law, Lillikas merely said anyone with a legal interest had the right to take recourse to the Supreme Court.
“This legislation was passed because of the emergency situation in Cyprus, created by the Turkish invasion and continuing occupation,” he added.
He was referring to a 1991 law that placed Turkish Cypriot houses and land in the south in the care of an agency, dubbed the Guardian of Turkish Cypriot Properties.
Citing its sources, Politis said yesterday there were some 5,500 potential cases identical to Mustafa’s –Turkish Cypriot residences currently occupied by Greek Cypriot refugees.
In addition, there are 8,000 instances where homes for Greek Cypriot refugees have been built on real estate belonging to Turkish Cypriots and 3,500 cases where shops and restaurants are now being used by Greek Cypriots.
These figures, the paper said, did not include land belonging to Turkish Cypriots that has not been used in any way.
Another category involves property appropriated by the government. A high-profile example is the claim by Hussein Helvacioglu, a Turkish Cypriot businessman, that Larnaca airport lies on part of his land. Another man, Erdogan Durmus, says that an electricity sub-station has been built over a land plot he owned in the village of Mari.
According to Politis, around 10 per cent of real estate in the south originally belongs to Turkish Cypriots. That amounts to approximately 413,177 donums of land.
Among mounting apprehension from Greek Cypriot refugees that they might be evicted, Attorney-general Petros Klerides said on Monday that the Mustafa case set no precedent and that any and each future cases would be assessed on its merit.
But prominent lawyer Achilleas Demetriades begged to differ.
“A Supreme Court decision is always binding,” he told the Mail.
“It does not matter whether the ruling was handed down following a first-instance hearing or after an appeal.”
According to Demetriades, in its September 2004 decision the court included a lengthy rationale, laying out the reasons why Mustafa should be allowed back in his house.
“In this sense, yes, a precedent has been set. No doubt about it. The facts of the case are there, so any future case that is identical must also have an identical result.
“The million-dollar question now is this: what will happen with Turkish Cypriots who are not permanent residents in the south and who wish to reclaim their property?”
Another source, speaking on condition of anonymity, suggested that the government may have withdrawn its appeal before the Supreme Court to avoid losing face.
“They knew they would lose, so they made this tactical manoeuvre to prevent a political defeat,” the source said.
??
??
??
??
