The northern area of the Republic of Cyprus, under military occupation by Turkey since 1974, has been experiencing an unprecedented construction “property sale” boom. The vast majority of the properties affected by this boom are owned by Greek Cypriots who were forcibly expelled from their homes due to the Turkish invasion. These displaced people are to this day prevented by the Turkish Armed Forces from returning and repossessing their homes and properties. A recent development is that the occupied area has become a haven for corrupt and unscrupulous businessmen out to make a quick profit from the illegal “sale” of Greek Cypriot property.
According to the 1964 Land and Registry record, approximately 82% of the privately owned land in the territory now under Turkish occupation was owned by persons belonging to the Greek Cypriot community. While persons belonging to the Turkish Cypriot community owned approximately 16.7%. That position was still obtained in 1974.
In August 2004 Ahmet Uzun, the so-called “finance minister” of Turkey’s puppet regime in the occupied area, stated that the UN Plan provided an incentive to build on Greek Cypriot property, because persons investing in such property could have had priority over the legitimate Greek Cypriot refugee title-holder in its ownership. Such provisions were indeed an incentive, and facilitated the rush to build on usurped properties and to “sell” them mainly to British and other European citizens seeking a home in the sunny Mediterranean.
On 23 August 2004, Turkey’s Deputy prime Minister and Minister responsible for Cypriot affairs, Abdullatif Sener, was reported by Milliyet as having stated that the amount of properties that foreigners had “bought” in the occupied areas of Cyprus had increased tenfold over the last two years!
Nonetheless, anyone who has “bought” or is seeking to “buy” Greek Cypriot owned property in the occupied part of the Republic does so illegally, as first discovered by a British couple in October 2004. Anyone contributing to the ongoing plunder of such properties becomes a potential target for criminal and civil law suits in the courts of the Republic of Cyprus. The resulting arrest warrants and decisions could then by judicially enforced abroad.
The rights to restitution of the properties and home of Greek Cypriot displaced persons have been recognised by the European Court of Human Rights. The Court found Turkey guilty of depriving Greek Cypriot refugees of the use of their properties. The Government of Turkey is obliged to compensate the refugees for the time period of the deprivation of use and to allow them to return home. Ankara has not done this, thus violating the fundamental human rights principles with which an EU Candidate Country must comply in order to start accession negotiations.
…quick points
• Four fifths of the privately owned land in the territory now under military occupation by Turkey is owned by displaced Greek Cypriots. The government of the Republic of Cyprus itself owns one quarter of the total area under occupation.
• The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has upheld the rights of the displaced Greek Cypriot owners to their properties, and on a number of individual applications, the Court ordered Turkey to restore those rights and to pay compensation for the period of deprivation (Loizidou v Turkey, Xenides – Arestis v Turkey). Several thousand applications by Greek Cypriot displaced owners are currently pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
• Pursuant to Security Council Resolutions 541 (1983) and 550 (1984),the illegal secessionist entity in the occupied areas cannot issue valid title deeds. “Certificates” so issued, are not recognized by the Republic of Cyprus nor by any other state, other than Turkey.
• Several governments, including U.K., U.S.A., Russia, France and Germany have issued warnings on the purchase of property in the occupied areas of Cyprus.
• Therefore, buying property in the occupied area of Cyprus could infringe upon the property rights of others involved. A violation of criminal and civil law could entangle the buyer in legal proceedings, financial damage, personal liability and the risk of losing money invested, as well as assets at home. Why then undertake such unnecessary risks?
Hi all,
