CYPRUS PROPERTY: GOC PUTS ANOTHER FINGER IN THE

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 NICOSIA 000234 SIPDIS SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/17/2016 TAGS: PGOV PREL TU CY SUBJECT: CYPRUS PROPERTY: GOC PUTS ANOTHER FINGER IN THE DIKE REF: A. 05 NICOSIA 1737 ¶B. LIBBY-INGMANSON EMAIL (1/5/06) ¶C. 05 NICOSIA 1886 Classified By: Ambassador R. Schlicher, for reasons 1.4 (b) and (d). ¶1. (C) SUMMARY. A GOC decision to withdraw its court appeal and allow Turkish Cypriot Arif Mustafa to reclaim his property in the south has caused a stir because: 1) this is the first high-profile case in which a Turkish Cypriot has been granted restitution as opposed to compensation for lost property; and 2) the case resulted in the displacement of Greek Cypriot refugees from the north who had been living on Mustafa's property. The large and powerful Greek Cypriot refugee community is uneasy about the precedent this case may set for those among them living on confiscated Turkish Cypriot land in the south. Legal experts on both sides appear to agree, however, that this case -- which involved an out-of-court settlement rather than a landmark judicial ruling -- does not necessarily set a precedent for mass return of Turkish Cypriot land owners at the expense of Greek Cypriot refugees. Nonetheless, the Arif Mustafa case is just one of many pending complaints that will continue to challenge the viability of the ROC's Guardianship Law and the government's strategy of delaying and/or buying off Turkish Cypriots who challenge its legality. Despite the current stalemate on other fronts in the Cyprus problem, cases like this -- as well as the "TRNC's" new restitution law dealing with Greek Cypriot claims in the north -- show that there is movement on the contentious subject of property. Greek Cypriots, for whom stolen property has traditionally been a winning political card, may begin to pay a greater price on the issue. END SUMMARY. ARIF MUSTAFA GETS HIS KEYS BACK -------------- ¶2. (SBU) On February 13, the GOC withdrew its appeal of a preliminary court decision, which had granted the restitution of property belonging to Turkish Cypriot Arif Mustafa. Mustafa, who moved to the south four years ago, had requested the return of the property (which he had owned before the 1974 war) in the southern village of Episkopi, near Limassol. The GOC's Guardianship Authority, which governs "abandoned" Turkish Cypriot property in the south (ref a),initially refused to return the property on the grounds that it could not evict the Greek Cypriot refugees from the north living in two houses there. ¶3. (SBU) In September 2005, however, a single judge on the Supreme Court ruled that the property should be returned to Mustafa. The GOC filed a formal appeal to the full bench, but this week withdrew its appeal after reaching an understanding with the refugee families in which the government agreed to provide them alternate lodging. Papers all across the island showed front-page pictures of Arif Mustafa leaning out the window of his newly-returned home on February 14, proudly waving his house keys to a gaggle of press and curious onlookers. RIPPLES OF WORRY AMONG GREEK CYPRIOT REFUGEES -------------- ¶4. (SBU) The return of Arif Mustafa's property has caused significant worry in the south, especially among the powerful Greek Cypriot refugee lobby. Although there have been previous cases in which Turkish Cypriots have asked for restitution, most have been solved quietly through a combination of delaying tactics on the part of the GOC and out-of-court settlements involving pay-offs for the plaintiff. Having reportedly turned down repeated government offers of money and compensatory property elsewhere, Arif Mustafa became the first Turkish Cypriot to win a highly-publicized restitution claim. Furthermore, his case was the first which involved the actual displacement of Greek Cypriot refugees. The possibility that this case could open the door to large-scale expulsions of other families has spooked the refugee community in the south, and raised the specter of costly bills for compensation and relocation landing on the government's desk. ¶5. (SBU) While not all refugees (who number between one third and one half of the total Greek Cypriot population depending on how you count) live on pre-1974 Turkish Cypriot property, the number of people and amount of property that could theoretically be subject to Mustafa-style law suits is nonetheless considerable. The Greek Cypriot press estimates, perhaps conservatively, that approximately 5,500 Turkish Cypriots own property on which the GOC has built roughly 8,000 refugee houses. In addition, the Greek Cypriot press estimates that around 3,500 Turkish Cypriot shops and NICOSIA 00000234 002 OF 002 restaurants in the south are being used by Greek Cypriots. About 30 Turkish Cypriots have applied to ROC courts for the return of their property, which accounts for anywhere between 10 percent (according to Greek Cypriot sources) to 20 percent (according to Turkish Cypriots) of the total area of the south -- and is generally used for refugee housing, parking lots, roads, power plants, and other public purposes. POLITICAL SPLASH, BUT NO LEGAL PRECEDENT -------------- ¶6. (C) Despite the publicity the Arif Mustafa case has generated, legal experts on both sides of the Green Line seem to agree it does not constitute a precedent for the mass return of Turkish Cypriot property, or the further expulsion of Greek Cypriot refugees. Most observers are quick to note that the return of the Mustafa property resulted from an out-of-court agreement between the GOC and the resident refugee families. Former ROC Attorney General Alecos Markides suggested to us that the GOC's appeal, which was later withdrawn, was simply an effort to win enough time to take care of the refugee families in the property before the full court could issue a binding ruling that might serve as a precedent. In its essence, this was a "continuation" of a long-standing GOC practice, even though this case was novel in that it involved a government buy-off of the refugee family, not the Turkish Cypriot plaintiff. ¶7. (C) Furthermore, according to Turkish Cypriot property law expert Emine Erk, the Arif Mustafa case is unlikely to change the calculus of potential Turkish Cypriot plaintiffs, most of whom have already made a decision about whether or not file claims for their own "diverse variety of reasons." Those Turkish Cypriots applying to get their property back (or, as in the ref b case in which a plaintiff has appealed to the ECHR for compensation for his land, where the ROC built a power plant) are unlikely to be either deterred or encouraged by the Mustafa case, which has a very narrow legal impact despite the dramatic press coverage it has received. ¶8. (C) Finally, current ROC practice requires Turkish Cypriots claiming their property back to have been resident in the government-controlled south for a "reasonable period of time" (usually interpreted to mean a continuous period of at least six months). Noting that the ability to exercise the rights of property ownership does not traditionally depend on physical presence, some Turkish Cypriot lawyers have discussed challenging the legality of this policy -- either in the ROC Supreme Court or the ECHR in Strasbourg. For the moment, however, current practice stands, significantly restricting the number of possible complainants to the small handful of Turkish Cypriots resident in the south (around 2000, not all of whom have land claims). We have heard anecdotal stories of Turkish Cypriots renting apartments in the south in an effort to establish residency, while still commuting to their jobs in the north. It is impossible to know, however, if this is anything more than a handful of families. COMMENT -------------- ¶9. (C) Even if Arif Mustafa has not set a precedent in the strict legal sense, his case is one of a growing number of Turkish Cypriot property claims against the GOC. By settling this case, the GOC has effectively stuck another finger in the dike -- but has not resolved the fundamental question of how to square its uncompensated confiscation of Turkish Cypriot property with European human rights standards. The Guardianship Law, which delays until a final Cyprus settlement property restitution/compensation for those Turkish Cypriots not resident in the south, is vulnerable to an ECHR challenge -- especially in light of previous rulings in Strasbourg that Greek Cypriots are entitled to immediate relief relating to their confiscated property in the north. Meanwhile, if judged by the ECHR to be an effective remedy for confiscated Greek Cypriot property, the new Turkish Cypriot property restitution law (ref c) could undermine Greek Cypriot ability to use the issue of stolen property as a political trump card. Although Greek Cypriots have lost far more property to the Turks than vice-versa, the current situation leaves the GOC open to charges of a double standard, and may involve increasingly costly payouts as more cases go to court. Ultimately, as one of our contacts noted, the mounting number of suits and countersuits serves to undermine the prospects of true reconciliation between the two communities, even as individuals like Arif Mustafa or Titina Loizidou find justice. Litigation is no substitute for an agreed Cyprus settlement. END COMMENT. SCHLICHER