15% Tax for owners of property on ex GC land

[frontalman]

Erol wrote " The level of the tax is in the same ball park or less than the amount by which my property will increase in value as a result of it moving from a status of being on 'disputed title' land to 'not disputed'. 15% of its current sales value would meet this condition imo"

Apparently 15% is for the bog standard, get your undisputed title at slow speed, if and when it happens. If you want the fast track immediate undisputed title, known as the MM route, then it is 45%! Still, you only get what you pay for

Sorry Erol, I couldn't resist.

[kibsolar1999]

After Cyprus vs Turkey and especially Loizidou v. Turkey , plus the failed solution in 2004, the situation was critical, as every GC could have sued Turkey. Some did.
As it is stated on the IPC website:
“The Immovable Property Commission was set up ... in accordance with the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Xenides-Arestis v. Turkey”.
And, as an info for GCs who may want to sue Turkey or , say, want to sue individuals which hold a TRNC title deed, built a home on GC land or whatsoever..:
“The European Court of Human Rights, with decision on 1 March 2010 as to the admissibility of Demopoulos and Others v. Turkey found that... (the IPC)... provides an effective remedy and rejected the complaints of applicants for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies”.
So, basically...apply or... wait (for something). The case mentioned in above link, will be, imo, not successful.

The IPC is a (TR funded) property rights dealer for GCs. GCs can “sell” their IP rights (in the TRNC) to the IPC.
The IPC payed a 270m GBP to 915 applicants, average say 300.000 GBP. This does not sound like “pre 74 prices” and the decisions of several courts never said that “payments” are calculated as for pre 74 prices…
There are approx another 200.000 GCs who have claims. Comes to, say, 200 to 600 billion? Turkey can not fund that much (and may want to get back the already payed 270m) and as the “price for compensation” goes up every month, the “15% (based on value today) tax” most probably must and will come soon…
but, it should get a different name… eg, “prepayment for possible later to come compensation claims”. Advantage would be that it is not a “tax” = an “uncommitted payment”.
If TCs (or non TCs) believe that they one day can get or turn their ‘disputed title’ into a ‘not disputed’ and therefore receive an “internationally tradeable good”
- without a payment or
- for just 15% “tax” payments over 10 years…
then they are…. most probably mistaken.

5, 10, 15%.. 30.. 50..who “sets” this number?
Pls do not forget…. (everybody and ) GCs have an “individual rights” and cases have to be seen and compensated individually.
Do you really believe that “someone” is going to fund the “other 85%” ? so, 170 to 500 billion?

Eg, if everybody would actually pay the mentioned 15% over 10 years,
(eg, compensation to be payed or todays) value is 100.000 ( a realistic number for an average plot) = 15.000 “tax” /10 years / 12 month = 125 monthly payment),
then the IPC could pay 1,5% of all GC = 3000 applicants a year… and it would take 70 years to pay all GCs, but 60 years the IPC would be without funding…. So, unrealistic.
the IPC most probably is the biggest “estate rights holder” in the TRNC already and most probably will become a “non commercial IP dealer” = one day you get “your IP” offered and you can buy your IP from the IPC, before owned by a GC. Of course, the IPC does not have the “right” to offer or sell-change “your title” from “disputed” to “not disputed” unless a GC did apply and received a compensation. So, the one may have to pay (one day) earlier as others.
Any payments done, eg 15% “taxes” monthly payments for , say, 5 years = 7,5%, will be credited and you have to pay 92,5% “only”. In the above example = 92.500. this case is much more realistic.
In most of the cases the “condition given by Erol” : … “the same ball park or less than the amount by which my property will increase in value as a result of it moving from a status of being on 'disputed title' land to 'not disputed' “ will be given, even with a 90k payment, eg, look at prices in the RoC or other EU med countries.
( a TRNC hotelier company already said that they bought GC property (also a company) .... for a couple of millions... this does sound very much like a deal through the IPC...)
If you decline the offer from the IPC, the IP may neither can be sold (even under TRNC law.. laws may change…) nor inheritated… unless the case is “settled” .
you may have a some time X, and then you have to leave.
The IP will be auctioned (and you may get some compensation as well.. eg, for your house built on “not any more” GC land.. hopefully you can show a building permission… ) .. or, eg, when a Turkish developer who left the island years ago and is “not available any more” , the IPC could order a parcellation and sell “to the new owners”… which would be good for many.
Of course, these are many speculations, both in scenario and numbers..... but be prepared: they need money….soon.

[wanderer]

A few years ago there was talk of the exchange title becoming leasehold so a rent was paid to the leaseholder the government giving clear title and an income to fund the payment of the Greek tax
The IPC is viewed as the method of settlement so cases are kicked out of court if the GC tries to move internationally after the South Nicosia court judgement .
What is missing is the Souths solution with the property guardian they pay or do nothing until a cyprob settlement meanwhile the properties are rented for peanuts and sub let

[erol]

There are approx another 200.000 GCs who have claims. Comes to, say, 200 to 600 billion? Turkey can not fund that much....

It does not have to find all of that. It has to find the difference between that amount minus the value of pre 74 TC title land in the south that those TC who choose to signed over to the TRNC post 74. It is the net amount left that needs to be found not the total amount. The IPC can (and has) used such property in the south that pre 74 was owned by TC and post 74 that TC signed over the right to the TRNC, as part of settlements with GC making claims against the IPC.

[erol]

5, 10, 15%.. 30.. 50..who “sets” this number?

For me the number should be based on a fair estimate of the difference in value of a given property if it is on disputed title vs undisputed title. This will of course be an estimate of value but governments and institutions assign values to property all the time all over the world for all sorts of reasons, so this is nothing new.

I bought a house that was built on 'disputed title' land. My personal estimate of how much that same house would have cost if the land it was built on was undisputed is in the region of 20-30%.

[Twaddle]

How can you find out if your land is disputed title. When I purchased my house, I asked my Lawyer what title the property had and she told me that she didn't know as it was just Turkish Title. The full Kochan that I have does not contain the words "Esdeger" or" TMD" .

[turtle]

Twaddle if you go to the land office with your Kochan they will tell you what status your land is.
I believe some years ago that the government made all Esdeger/TMD land the same status but I couldn't say for certain perhaps someone could confirm this,.. again if your land has got a Kochan issued is should be guaranteed by the government or so I'm told but needs confirmation again.

[IPMAN]

I believe some years ago that the government made all Esdeger/TMD land the same status

Not sure this is correct - as far as I am aware the banks will lend on Esdeger title but not TMD

[turtle]

I believe some years ago that the government made all Esdeger/TMD land the same status

Not sure this is correct - as far as I am aware the banks will lend on Esdeger title but not TMD

I think they will lend on TMD but interest is much higher ?

[erol]

How can you find out if your land is disputed title. When I purchased my house, I asked my Lawyer what title the property had and she told me that she didn't know as it was just Turkish Title. The full Kochan that I have does not contain the words "Esdeger" or" TMD" .

If the land was owned by someone pre 1974 who lost their ability to use and enjoy said land as a results of the events of mid 1974 then it is 'disputed' - though a more nuanced term might be 'realistically potentially disputable'.

As to how you might be able to determine if this is the case or not for a specific parcel of land, then there are various ways of varying degrees of 'definiteness'. You could ask around amongst those with living memory of pre 74 for example. Or you could go to the RoC land registry and see who they have listed as the owner of that parcel of land - if they list a GC sounding name as the owner then its probably 'disputable' where as if they list a TC sounding name it's probably not (realistically) 'disputable'.

[Keithcaley]

...you could go to the RoC land registry and see who they have listed as the owner of that parcel of land...

...but don't tell 'em your name, Pike

[turtle]

Haha Pike... whatever happened to him ?

[DenizIsmail]

With regards to the recent article in the Cyprus Today, please note that this is only a suggestion which has been put forward by the IPC – there has not been any draft legislation proposed to implement such a change at this stage.

Back in 2004 when the Annan Plan was put to referenda on both sides, the proposal at that time under the Annan Plan was that the current users would be responsible for paying any compensation owed to the former 1974 owners. In the case of exchange land, the plan was that the value of the land left behind in the South would be set off against the value of the land in question and compensation would be payable by the current user on any difference. The rationale for this was that it is the current user who would benefit from the price increases which it is expected that properties in the North would see as a result of any solution and so, therefore, it should be the current user who should pay any compensation payable. Various means of obtaining finance to pay this were to be provided to current users. After the Annan Plan was rejected, the TRNC authorities took the step of setting up the IPC and the TRNC authorities have been paying compensation to any Greek Cypriots awarded compensation by the IPC. Recently, the rate of processing of applications at the IPC has slowed and there has been speculation that this might be due to lack of funds and the possibility of a contribution by current users of former Greek Cypriot properties in order to boots funds and speed up the processing of these claims to effectively ‘legitimise’ these title deeds in the eyes of international law has been suggested. For now, there is no need to panic. As outlined above, there are no draft proposals to make this legislation at this stage

[kibsolar1999]

Just to make it clear:
the IPC for now does NOT estimate a value for an IP which is “disputed” or “undisputed”. (“disputed” is not a good word.. as, from an “internationally point of view”, nothing is “disputed”.. the situation is “very clear”.)
The IPC does NOT handle “the property case” as a whole, eg, as a “Cyprus solution”.
The IPC has NO mandate from the RoC to act, actually the IPC is opposed from the RoC.
The IPC (only can) handle claims of (mainly) GCs (against the will of the RoC gov) according to the “European Court of Human Rights in the case of Xenides-Arestis v. Turkey”
Meaning: every single case has to be sorted individually AFTER a GC contacted the IPC.

It does NOT matter what you payed for your “disputed” IP (eg, when you have build or bought a house on “disputed” land.. then only the land is subject to , say, a compensation, not the house).
If no application from the GC is done or no solution found, your property can not change its status from “disputed” to “undisputed”, as the IPC has NO right to do so, even if you pay a “tax” or “pre-payment” or whatever to the IPC or another TRNC organisation whenever. At the moment you may not even know whether the “status” of your IP has changed, as the IPC at the moment does not claim any money (the compensation payed) from you and all cases are kept “anonymus” to protect GC applicants.
So... there always have been differences in prices (in the TRNC) for pre 74, esdeger and point IPs. Eg, pre 74 land was more then double-triple as esdeger and four or more times higher as point land. İt has been the estate agents who later said: makes no difference,, also because there was no "undisputed IP" available any more to meet the demands).
And.. the TRNC stopped the practice of showing in title deeds the “status”. That was a political decision, most probably lobbied by the estate agents association.... and they went "straight" into the "orams case"...

But.. the GCs claims are based on “pre 74” .... for prices today. So, you (at the end) have to pay a compensation based on that, no matter what you payed for your “disputed” IP. Eg, it may become quiete expensive when you, eg, bought a “disputed” pre 74 build Kyrenia town house.
You say: “.... It (the IPC) has to find the difference between that amount (the mentioned several billions in my post..) minus the value of pre 74 TC title land in the south that those TC who choose to signed over to the TRNC post 74. It is the net amount left that needs to be found...”
and
“The IPC can (and has) used such property in the south that pre 74 was owned by TC and post 74 that TC signed over the right to the TRNC, as part of settlements with GC making claims against the IPC”.
Ok. Firstly, yes, the IPC has to find money.. and they will find it in your pocket, because it will be YOUR IP which finally changes its status from “disputed” to “undisputed”.
Secondly: IPs, eg, in Paphos, owned by TC individuals (which is “owned” now by the TRNC-IPC in exchange for “esdeger” land in the TRNC.. which is still owned by a GC... pls note that also the “esdeger practice” never was recognised by the RoC...) was “exchanged” to GCs for their claims in the TRNC.
Clever, but it will “not last” for long...
approx 90% of all IP, eg, in the Girne area, was (and, internationally seen, is) owned by GCs.
So, the “couple of plots”, pre 74 owned by TCs (and now handled from the IPC) in the Paphos area (with quiete low prices, even today... ) do not make a big difference.
İ do not know how much you payed for your post 74 build house on “disputed land”, or maybe land AND house are “disputed”, and what the “land- house value relation” is.
Eg, small “disputed” plot, big “undisputed” (post 74 build) house. Or big land, small house.
The normal case is that “undisputed land and an average pre 74 built house” is at least 100% more expensive.
These are the ones which often are not for sale at all or sell difficult.. (tooo expensive).

[erol]

Most of what you have written kibsolar I agree with. I comment on those bits I do not.

Ok. Firstly, yes, the IPC has to find money.. and they will find it in your pocket, because it will be YOUR IP which finally changes its status from “disputed” to “undisputed”.

To date the IPC has settled GC claims and has found the money (and or property) to do so and has not charged current users of the land / property. For current users of such that has already been settled by the IPC the status of that land, whether they know or can know about it or not, has changed. It has changed from a status that a pre 74 GC owner could make a claim against it, either to you as the current user or TRNC or Turkey to a status where they can no longer do so, because they have already settled with the IPC.

Now I accept the this change in status does not mean that because the pre 74 owner can no longer make claims against the property / land concerned that does not mean that the TRNC / Turkey couid not make a claim against the current user 'after the fact' of them settling with the pre 74 owner. They may well do so and certainly if they do start doing so going forward I would hope that they do back date such charges for those current users who's land / property has already been settled. That would be fairer imo than not doing so.

was “exchanged” to GCs for their claims in the TRNC. Clever, but it will “not last” for long...

I have personally never been of the view that TRNC 'exchange' deeds represented an exchange between the TRNC and GC owner. They represent an exchange only between a TC who chose to sign over rights to land they had in the south pre 74 and the TRNC itself (or the body that predates the TRNC if you want to be picky). There was an exchange, the exchange was real, something was given and something was received (points) in return but the exchange is nothing to do with the pre 74 GC owner nor does it affect their ability or right to make claims for what they lost as a result of the events of 74. Never has.

So, the “couple of plots”, pre 74 owned by TCs (and now handled from the IPC) in the Paphos area (with quiete low prices, even today... ) do not make a big difference.

I do not agree that the total value of land in the south that post 74 TC chose to exchange with the TRNC is 'negligible' when compared with the total cost of settling claims at the IPC. Not at 74 prices or at today's prices. I do personally believe that it is less than the total cost of settling claims at the IPC but not that it is negligible. It is certainly more than zero.

İ do not know how much you payed for your post 74 build house on “disputed land”, or maybe land AND house are “disputed”, and what the “land- house value relation” is.
Eg, small “disputed” plot, big “undisputed” (post 74 build) house. Or big land, small house.
The normal case is that “undisputed land and an average pre 74 built house” is at least 100% more expensive.
These are the ones which often are not for sale at all or sell difficult.. (tooo expensive).

I paid (4 to 5 years ago) around £130,000. The land is in Lapta, the plot is just over 1 donum in size (deed lists it as 1 donum and 1 evlek I think). At the time I bought it the land also had a smallish three bedroom bungalow on it (and still does). I know this was built post 74, I know who built it and when and have ample documentary proof of that. I also 'know' that pre 74 this land was owned by a GC (and legally still is if you like) and that as a result of the events of 74 they lost their ability to use and enjoy this land, including the ability to sell it. I also am certain that pre 74 the land did not have any buildings on it, that it was part of a large olive grove covering this area. The house has no pool.

You are saying that if what I had bought had of been on say TC title pre 74 then its value when I bought it would have been at least £260,000 (2 x) and possibly £390,000 (3x). I do not believe this. When we were looking to buy we looked at a whole range of properties, lots and lots, some of which were pre 74 TC title and some of which were not. None of them were priced at £390,000. What is more I am also sure that back then and probably still today, a similar property and land in the south on deeds that have never been in question by anyone ever, would not cost £390,000, so the idea that the price here in the north would be in that region is not credible to me. Just to pluck one example at random from the internet

https://purpleinternational.eu/en/prope ... eneou/1983

This is for sale, today, at 200,000 euros - approx £175,000

My personal guess at what my property would have cost if it had been on TC title land rather than land owned by a GC, which is just guess but based on what I saw when looking at properties at that time would be around that figure - £170,000 maybe. Around 30% more than the 130k I paid. Not 2 times and certainly not 3 times.

[kibsolar1999]

Erol,
the 200k house you have choosen is located at the end of the runway of LCA airport on a half a dönüm plot... Another offer is one for 260k, not as bad but nearby located. Terrible.
The next “featured property” from the estate agent in Ayia Thekla is build on a tiny 300m² plot and is 250k.
I know many Cypriots of the “second” generation, born say in the late 80ties, 90ties, who look around for plots with “clean” title deeds (as the Cypriot daddy suggests) with, pls, road access. “Türk kocan” plots are 2 – 3 times higher priced as esdeger or point land: eg, Lapta “disputed” approx 65k per dönüm, Zeytinlik Türk kocan 150k. or even half a dönüm for 125k.
Ok, Zeytinlik is not Lapta.. but in lapta you basically can not find türk kocan, so just as an example...
You bought for 130k, for a “disputed plot” and…. an “undisputed” (as post 74 built) house.
But, imo, finally it will be not important what you payed.. you could have a pool or two and Italian marble and kitchen.. and then you would have payed much more...
Only important is the sum the GC can claim for that “what was left behind” and this was an olive grove of 1 dönüm , 1 evlek in lapta, which has a value of today…. say, 100k, just to keep track with what I said.. average 100k (Euro or GBP.. doesn’t matter right now…) which incl the olive trees which may not exist any more…..
this sum “somebody” has to pay. And when the “IPC-procedere” is “open” (not anonymus to protect GCs any more) then the claims can be addressed (most probably from the IPC) to the “now TRNC IP owners” to collect these monies..
Surely after the payment of 100k your house has a value of 230k or nearby. and therefore eg, homes offered now for 190k on disputed land seem to be “a bit expensive”. The cheaper ones often have no title deed at all, and – or difficult “property rights” and – or no building permission at all. Eg, you only have “ acontract” for a 15th of a plot with no parcellation and no permissions.. “same house” as yours.. approx 60-70k. often offered for 100+k, a rip off, but they try….
Any “solution” reg IP will be hard for both sides, the GCs and the TCs (or others)… the GC has to accept that they can not get “their IP” back, especially when “something” was build on, the other ones have to accept that they, one day, must pay.

[erol]

“Türk kocan” plots are 2 – 3 times higher priced as esdeger or point land: eg, Lapta “disputed” approx 65k per dönüm, Zeytinlik Türk kocan 150k. or even half a dönüm for 125k.
Ok, Zeytinlik is not Lapta.. but in lapta you basically can not find türk kocan, so just as an example...

What about this then, Pre 74 Turkish title, karsiyaka, 400m from see, 3 bedroom, with pool - £160k

http://propertycyprussales.com/karsiyak ... s-i70.html

Not directly equivalent to what I bought, almost certainly a smaller land plot, and it is 'off plan' so not built yet and potential issues with getting TRNC deeds but even so imo not massively different either in my view. Advertised cost today about 25% more than I paid 4-5 years ago for my property ?

Only important is the sum the GC can claim for that “what was left behind” and this was an olive grove of 1 dönüm , 1 evlek in lapta, which has a value of today…. say, 100k, just to keep track with what I said.. average 100k (Euro or GBP.. doesn’t matter right now…) which incl the olive trees which may not exist any more…..
this sum “somebody” has to pay.

Ok lets say my donum of land, just as bare land, is worth today £100k. You seem to be assuming that this is the rate at which the IPC is settling claims ? I do not think they are settling claims at such a rate. Let me give some 'evidence' as to why I think this. The following is link to the latest monthly report published by the IPC itself

http://www.tamk.gov.ct.tr/dokuman/istat ... t18ing.pdf

at the bottom of this pdf document are two tables. One shows the total area in square meters that has been settled by year. The last one shows total amount awarded in pounds sterling in compensation per year. So to try and get an idea of what the average amount of compensation is per unit of land compensated I am taking the compensation paid in sterling that year and dividing it by the amount of donums compensated that year (assuming 1 donum = 1388 square meters). I am ignoring years that have settlements based on 'exchange and compensation' and years that have amounts for 'in accordance with law no.13/2008' because I do not know what that means. This is what I get

2018 total land compenstated - 489,902 sqare meteres = 353 donums (489,902 / 1388)
2018 total amount paid in compensation = £3,811,810

so

average compensation paid per donum in 2018 = £10,800 (3,811,810/353)

and

average compensation paid per donum in 2017 = £15,944
average compensation paid per donum in 2014 = £25,322
average compensation paid per donum in 2013 = £20,808
average compensation paid per donum in 2011 = £18,812

average compensation per donum over the 5 years above = £18,337

Of course these are averages amounts but they give us a 'ball park' as to a what rate per donum the IPC has already compensated people at. Of course some land is worth much more than other land but I doubt that my donum in Lapta is 5 times more valuable than the average of all the land compensated for in the years taken above ? It is possible but not probable I would say. At three times, the compensation the IPC would pay on my donum would be £55,000 rather than the £100,000 figure from above.

What is more this compensation comprises of two different parts as I understand it. One part is payment for the claimants historic loss of use of this land and one part is for the land itself (going forward). I would argue that as a current users of this land and as someone who will benefit from the settlement on this land, it is fair to say I am liable for the second part of this compensation. However I would argue that I am not (morally) liable to meet the claimants compensation for 'historic use' of this land. I am not the one that denied the claimant such use, that was done by the TRNC / Turkey and thus they are the ones liable for compensation for this ?

Finally in the case of my donum, there is some land somewhere in the south that a TC owner signed the rights of over to the TRNC, which he then exchanged (with the TRNC) for my donum and this does have some value.

[Hector]

Was the IPC mandate extended for a further 2 years by the TRNC parliament last December as mentioned in the article?

[kibsolar1999]

Erol,
Thanks for the link. Well, yes, everybody only can hope that a ball park figure of say, 18k per dönüm = low 13 GBP for a sqmeter, will become reality.
On the other hand.. i do not believe that. The price for “undisputed” land (north and south) is simply to high. Eg, deduct from the 160k for the karsiyaka home 10k for electricity and paper work, 15k for the pool and not more then 60k for the (still rubbish= very low standarts build) house. 75k. Deduct a further 20k as a profit. 55k... say 40k if you like.. For what? A third dönüm? Makes 120k für a dönüm.
1. The total number of applications is 6.414 , but only 1.090 have been finalized. Eg, say 2012 1.601 application and 2013 (say, it takes a year for a settlement) 189 “finalized applications”. Seems that many have not been happy with the offer from the IPC, but that could have other reasons as well, eg lack of documentation.
2. The peak of applications seem to be over. So, these “without hope for a solution ” or these which are in financial difficulties (or whatever) made an application.. the other 194.000 not.
3. To the 1.090 applicants 270m GBP for 32,4m sqm = 24.300 dönüm was payed. Thats an average of 248.000 GBP per application for in average 22 dönüm (or nearly 30.000 sqmeters, thats an area 170 x 170 meters, or, eg, 50 x 600 meters) so, applications for quite big plots..
That sounds like “tarla somewhere”, not building land in Girne(a guess of course), where those big plots do not exist any more since probably 1850. Another guess as well.. and... of course they do exist.
Btw, 24.300 dönüm is an area of 5,7 x 5,7 km. Or, eg, 2 x 16,2 km. The coastine from Girne to Alsancak.
No. İ believe that those who owned a piece of land “somewhere in the fields” made their “useless IP” to money (to share it, between 2008 – 2014 crisis hit, brothers and sisters, as grand-daddy is dead anyway..), in areas where “disputed” land still is available for 3k or a bit more a dönüm.
You say.. “Finally in the case of my donum, there is some land somewhere in the south that a TC owner signed the rights of over to the TRNC, which he then exchanged (with the TRNC) for my donum and this does have some value.”
IF you have “real esdeger” then this is “theoretically” correct. You may have an advantage, eg, you may pay less as for “point land compensation”. Meanwhile then, i guess, the IPC may have some difficulties to find out why somebody who owned half a dönüm in Paphos got much more as esdeger in the TRNC plus many many points for later use.. so, your “private calculation” might be “in the minus”.
The “property issue incl the “esdeger and point allocation system” always was a big issue in all solution talks.
Btw, it was your choice to buy “disputed land”, and this decision was made after the 2004 referendum, after 2006 founding of IPC, and (even) after the 2009 Orams case... and you can do your own calculations of “how much guilt” you have reg “claimants historic loss of use”.

[erol]

Erol,
Thanks for the link. Well, yes, everybody only can hope that a ball park figure of say, 18k per dönüm = low 13 GBP for a sqmeter, will become reality.

Well it seems to me that this is the ball park rate at which the IPC has settled claims to date ? It is also a figure that 'matches' the figure that has been in the press of '15%' - 15% of the 130k I paid is around 19.5K. Also as far as I can understand the law that the IPC operates under as also published on the IPC website here http://www.tamk.gov.ct.tr/dokuman/67-2005yasaING.pdf it does in places refer to "compensation shall be determined on the basis of the market value of the immovable property on 20 July 1974"

Now I am not saying that I think this is fair or just, that is for the ECHR to decide ultimately, but it does seem to be the level at which the IPC has been settling claims so far. Yes it is possible that the only claims that have been settled to date are only for or predominantly for 'very low value' land in the North. Then again it may be that they have been for a range of land in the north from low value to high value. We can not know really.

IF you have “real esdeger” then this is “theoretically” correct. You may have an advantage, eg, you may pay less as for “point land compensation”. Meanwhile then, i guess, the IPC may have some difficulties to find out why somebody who owned half a dönüm in Paphos got much more as esdeger in the TRNC plus many many points for later use.. so, your “private calculation” might be “in the minus”.

There is and can be no direct 'one to one' matching between any given piece of land in south signed over by TC post 74 and any specific piece of 'esdeger' land in the North. However there IS value to the land in the South so signed over by TC and this could (and should imo) be usable as a means of partially funding claims made at the IPC.

Btw, it was your choice to buy “disputed land”, and this decision was made after the 2004 referendum, after 2006 founding of IPC, and (even) after the 2009 Orams case... and you can do your own calculations of “how much guilt” you have reg “claimants historic loss of use”.

Yes I bought the property in the full knowledge of it's status at the time I bought it and I had and have no 'guilt' at all for doing so. I did not create the Cyprus problem, I did not deprive anyone of the use of their land or their property. I did not decide to allow 'freehold' sale of land in the North that was lost to GC post 74 and me choosing not to buy disputed land will not change these things at all. I am just living my life, as a Cypriot citizen, in Cyprus as best I can given the mess that is the 'Cyprus problem'. I did not choose to buy this property because it was 'disputed' and thus cheap. I bought this property because it was the property for sale that best matched what I wanted at the time I wanted to buy.