Open letter addressed to the attorney-general of the Republic

Dear Mr Giorgos Savvides,

I am monitoring the issue of the resettlement of the Famagustians in their properties, within the fenced-off part of Famagusta, both as a political commentator and as the owner of a plot of land, which my late father gifted me a few weeks before the city was overtaken by the Turkish army. This land has a huge emotional value for me because it connects me with my roots, but I must admit that after years of hard work, I have managed to secure the means needed to keep myself going and so I am not concerned financially that my property has been rendered inert over the past 50 years.

However, for thousands of compatriots their forceful expulsion from their properties had very serious repercussions on their subsequent lives (apart from those cunning cheats who always manage to be handsomely compensated). In respect of those ill-fated, state-abandoned citizens, no attempt has ever been made to allocate the burdens of the war equitably, even though most of those suffering had absolutely no involvement in the events that led to it.

The principal argument advanced in support of this callous behaviour was that the reallocation of the war burdens would have consolidated the consequences of the invasion. It was further argued that healing the problems caused by the war was merely a matter of a few months (yes, months), when the “international community” (sic) would exercise the necessary pressure at the negotiations which would ensue.

The unfortunate aspect of this story is that the perpetrators of the acts that caused the problem were those who were managing the peace negotiations that followed. The result of the mismanagement of our national problem by numerous irresponsible amateur politicians is well-known.

Under these circumstances, I really have difficulty explaining the recent piece of advice offered by the state to Famagustians “to be careful and to avoid seeking the recognition of their property ownership rights because seeking redress from the Immovable Property Commission of the occupying force constitutes a trap”. The statement was made without providing any explanation whatsoever as to what this “trap” consists of and how it can be avoided.

The reality is simple and inescapable. A segment of Cypriots carried a disproportional economic burden of the war, which was irresponsibly and recklessly caused by the state or at a minimum which the state failed to avert. Over a period of 50 years, this incompetent state has failed to heal the war wounds. In fact, in the process of providing the aforementioned advice to Famagustians, the callous state has confirmed – in no uncertain terms – that the prospect of resolving the problem by political means is remote. Under these circumstances, the state’s insistence on bypassing the available legal tools, which could enable Famagustians to regain the possession of their properties, is indeed strange.

The justification which was not stated but left suspended in the air was that Turkish justice cannot be relied upon, will not judge these cases fairly and objectively and would be biased in favour of the Turkish Cypriot religious foundation’s (Evkaf) claims.

Let’s look at the real facts, on the basis of which one can reach a rational conclusion:

  1. According to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), the Immovable Property Commission (IPC) is a reliable legal venue set up by Turkey (as the occupying force), which must first be utilised by the Famagustians, prior to acquiring the right to appeal to the international court. We may not like the stand taken by the ECHR but it is a reality, which we cannot ignore.
  2. That Evkaf is claiming the ownership of a significant portion of the properties located in the fenced-off part of Famagusta is also a fact. I am not in a position to conclude from a legal point of view whether or not these Evkaf claims are totally unfounded. The truth is that some arguments appear to exist, the legitimacy of which only a court of law can judge.
  3. Evkaf appears to have been successful in convincing the IPC that it has a prima facie legitimate interest to be admitted as a party to the proceedings, i.e., Evkaf has been allowed to state its arguments in support of its claims. This in no way implies that the IPC has in advance accepted those claims, but it is certainly not a positive development from the Famagustians’ point of view.
  4. On the other hand, it may not be such a catastrophic development, in the following sense. To the extent that there are valid arguments in support of rejecting Evkaf’s claims, it is certainly desirable to have these arguments heard and documented by the IPC. If the IPC accepts these arguments and decides to reject Evkaf’s claims, that will be the end of the story. If not, then we will know on what basis the IPC has arrived at its decision and we will be in a better position to organise our appeal (against IPC’s decision) before the international court.
  5. Although I do not have the legal competence to take a stand on the issue, it appears to me that the two main arguments we have for defending ourselves against Evkaf’s claims are the following:
  • The very large time gap which lapsed between the ownership rights claimed by Evkaf, which they say were improperly transferred to Greek Cypriots by the British colonial government prior to independence in 1960, and when Evkaf first raised the issue in the mid-2000s. Even if the religious foundation initially had some sort of a right, it has probably been extinguished by the passage of time and by Evkaf’s failure to pursue its claims earlier.
  • The compensation that was apparently paid by the British government for the full and final settlement of such claims at the time of the declaration of the independence of Cyprus. I consider it certain that those arrangements were made on the basis of competent legal advice secured at the time by the colonial government. If not, the implied negligence shown in handling this problem may provide a basis for seeking compensation from the UK government.

  1. Obviously, the subject constitutes a particularly complex legal issue, which calls for serious and careful study and handling.
  2. The big question that remains open is whether the Cyprus state, which unquestionably has a huge responsibility for this messy situation, has studied the matter from a legal point of view and whether it has examined the possibility of eliciting the intervention of the British government in the legal process, initially before the IPC and then before the international court.
  3. I admit that a dark thought has crossed my mind. Specifically, the possibility that you may have done this homework and have concluded that the Famagustians have no prospects of winning the case before the international court. If so, you have a duty to clearly say so because withholding such information from the population, and in particular from those who have carried the burdens of the 1974 war, would constitute a criminal act.
  4. Of course, in such a case, I would have expected to see the thrust of the efforts of the government to be placed on securing a political resolution of the Cyprus problem. From 2017 onwards, all the indications suggest that we are doing exactly the opposite.

I, therefore, beg you Mr Attorney-General to immediately address this extremely important national issue and to take a responsible stand on what needs to be done, thus assuming your share of the responsibility. The state cannot beat around the bush with meaningless statements such as “be careful, there are traps into which you must not fall”.

I understand that the Cyprus government has stated its intention to intervene in the proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights as an interested party. Indeed, it had asked for an extension of the original deadline for filing its views and the revised deadline set was February 15, 2022. I was pleased to hear that a few days ago a further extension of the deadline was requested, and the court has already agreed to a new deadline being set, March 29, 2022. I beg you to keep the public informed on the progress of this very important issue, on a prompt and regular basis.

Christos Panayiotides is a regular columnist for the Sunday Mail and Alithia