Kibkom North Cyprus Forum

Got this today via Ian Smith Estates.....

Some good news! We have just received the following from Naomi Mehemt, a reputable lawyer in Girne;

"We understand from the Ministry of the Interior that the policy regarding the purchase of pre-1974 Turkish title by foreign nationals has changed and we have been advised to re-submit all applications for our clients who have had their permissions to purchase rejected on pre-1974 Turkish title properties so that these can be re-considered in light of the new policy. We are currently in the process of doing that and we have also heard from other advocates that they have recently had some applications granted on pre-1974 Turkish title sites (such as Aphrodite Beach Front Village which is pre-1974 Turkish title in Gaziveren and which were previously all rejected). Therefore, as far as I now understand it, it is possible for foreign nationals to buy pre-1974 Turkish title.

Naomi"

Naomi Mehmet LL.B. (Hons)
Advocate

I personally re applied for PTP last August and got permission the following month on Pre 74 last year . No thanks to the Advocate who I was directed to in 2008! Do it yourself! Regards, Mrs Snakes.

Change of policy????? they never admitted there was a policy refusing PTP on Pre 74 to foreign nationals as far as I was aware!

Ipman, I suspect it was a case of "everyone sort of knew it, but no-one ever saw it in writing" I could never find an Estate Agent who would come up front and admit purchasers probably wouldn't get their P2P on Pre-'74 because they might of lose a sale. Never let the truth stand in the way of a good sale. Mrs Snakes is the first I had heard about in a long time, so she is very lucky.

The use of Permission to Purchase legislation to arbitrarily and non transparently adjust POLICY on who can and can not buy certain types of property is a perversion and abuse of the PtP legislation that would not have a chance of standing up to a legal challenge in the ECHR in my opinion.

What is needed is for an OWNER of pre 74 to lodge a case saying that the way PtP legislation is used to arbitrarily and non transparently limit their enjoyment of their property, which includes their right to sell it, is a breach of Article one of Protocal 1 of the ECHR charters.

The arbitrary nature of how PtP is enforced and the non transparent nature of its implementation are in my view clear and obvious breaches of a sellers rights under article 1 of protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

http://echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/975642 ... 102007.pdf

Article one does allow the State to interfere with and limit a person enjoyment (which includes the ability to sell) of their property. However there are very specific conditions under which the state can do so and the current way P2P is implemented in the TRNC does not meet these at all.

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 protects individuals or legal persons from arbitrary interference by the State with their possessions.

The very nature of the way PtP is implemented here is 'arbitrary'. At one time pre 74 title is passed at another it is refused. A more arbitrary system would be hard to imagine.

What is more its not sufficient for a local law that limits the right to property to exist and be deemed valid within that state. As the guideline document above clearly lays out.

Interference with the right to property must firstly satisfy the requirement of legality.

It is not sufficient for the act, on the basis of which a State limited the enjoyment of possessions, to be a formal legal source within the meaning of the domestic law, but it must furthermore contain certain qualitative characteristics and afford appropriate procedural safeguards so as to ensure protection against arbitrary action.

(cont)

(cont)

Accordingly, the law must be accessible (published) and its provisions formulated with sufficient precision to enable the persons concerned to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail and to regulate their conduct. This does not require complete precision, which would exclude the necessary interpretation in the application of laws. However, it requires a certain level of foreseeability, which depends on the content of the instrument in question, the field it is designed to cover and the number and status of those to whom it is addressed.

If the above condition is not met it does not matter if the states desire to limit enjoyment of property pursues a legitimate aim of the state or if it is proportionate. If it (the local law restricting enjoyment to property) is arbitrary and not accessible and formulated with sufficient precision then restricting someone's right to property (in this case their right to sell it) is a contravention of the ECHR right to property and clearly so in my view. Nor does it matter if the objective of the law limiting the right to property is pursuing a legitimate aim and is deemed to be proportionate. If the previous condition is not met theses others are not even considered. Again from the guidelines linked above

Should the Court establish that interference with a property right was not in accordance with the law, it does not need to consider the legitimacy of the State’s objective or the issue of proportionality. In this case, there will automatically be a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and it will be unnecessary for the Court even to consider whether such unlawful interference pursued a legitimate aim or whether it had been proportionate.

It has been my belief for quite some time now that if an owner of pre 74 TC title property were to challenge the way PtP as currently implemented infringes their right to property under ECHR charters it would sooner but probably later lead to a radical change in how PtP is operated here in the TRNC.

If there is a change of heart regarding selling pre 74 property I make 2 suggestions as to why-

1. An effort to rekindle interest in property buying and building in North Cyprus

2. There is some very high pressure selling targeting specific areas of the planet so the companies doing the selling have tackled the government in some way.

C2D makes it clear, as i said, there was nothing really hard and fast in writing, but the Council of Ministers in their Wednesday meetings just arbitarily dismissed 90% or more of the applications. IMHO, many of the Estate Agents were at fault, they must have known this but still carried on selling land and properties to unsuspecting buyers.

sophie wrote:... there was nothing really hard and fast in writing, .....

Which is exactly why it is a clear breach of an owners right to property under ECHR charters. The state restricting a persons ability to sell their own property can be compatible with ECHR charters but such restrictions MUST be "accessible (published) and its provisions formulated with sufficient precision to enable the persons concerned to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail and to regulate their conduct."

Resort to the ECHR led to the opening of the border. It led to the creation of the IPC. The great thing about the ECHR is that it requires states that are in breach to make necessary changes to stop such breaches in the future - it really is an effective mechanism for change. It is not just about satisfaction for the individual bringing the action but for generic solutions. I personally have no doubt that such an action by an owner re PtP would result in fundamental and permanent revision of PtP in the TRNC. It would take years it is true but it would I believe eventually bring results.