Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
06NICOSIA234
2006-02-17 07:05:00
CONFIDENTIAL
Embassy Nicosia
Cable title:  

CYPRUS PROPERTY: GOC PUTS ANOTHER FINGER IN THE

Tags:  PGOV PREL TU CY 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXRO0588
PP RUEHFL RUEHKW RUEHLA RUEHROV RUEHSR
DE RUEHNC #0234/01 0480705
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
P 170705Z FEB 06
FM AMEMBASSY NICOSIA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 5568
INFO RUEHZL/EUROPEAN POLITICAL COLLECTIVE
RUEHIT/AMCONSUL ISTANBUL 0961
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).

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