The status of the negotiations regarding property
1 / 12

The Status of the Negotiations regarding Property - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

The Status of the Negotiations regarding Property. Proposals, Positions, Prospects. Overview. No chapter/dossier under negotiation has been closed Sides have agreed on the need to categorize and list types of property (and have made progress on this)

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' The Status of the Negotiations regarding Property' - catori

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
The status of the negotiations regarding property

The Status of the Negotiations regarding Property

Proposals, Positions, Prospects


  • No chapter/dossier under negotiation has been closed

  • Sides have agreed on the need to categorize and list types of property (and have made progress on this)

  • Following the election of Eroglu the sides agreed to focus on property

  • But there is no joint paper on property

Positions on property
Positions on property

  • Maximalist versus Current Positions

  • GC position had been that all properties should be returned to dispossessed owners

  • TC position has been in favor of a ‘global exchange’ (plus compensation to account for the difference)

  • Current negotiation positions are somewhat different

Gc positions in current negotiations
GC Positions in Current Negotiations

  • GC position is that original/dispossessed owner must decide on the fate of the property

  • GC side appears to consider that in many cases GCs would not opt to return (to the north) as residents, implying that some would favor compensation

  • Perhaps as a consequence, GCs no longer insisting on 100% restitution

Tc positions
TC Positions

  • Against the GC starting position that owners decide, TC position favors objective criteria for determining the fate of (different categories) of properties

  • Decisions would be made by an autonomous property commission

  • TC position envisions (limited) reinstatement of properties to original owners

  • TC position implies that ‘exchange’ title deeds (esdeger) will remain in TC hands, whereas other categories could be subject to return

  • It remains a matter of speculation what percentage of affected properties would be returned and is complicated further by different territorial adjustment scenarios


  • Mix of remedies

    • Compensation

    • Exchange of affected properties

    • Restitution

      • In the constituent state where the displaced person does not reside

      • Via territorial adjustment

  • Compensation appeals)

    • But financing mechanisms remain undetermined.

    • Donors conference (not much hope there….but we could speculate as to whether hydrocarbons could be of some use!)

      • GC side envisions public debt issued by property commission while implying that current users also contribute.

        • Compensation payments linked to value of property over time.

      • TC side suggests “Guaranteed Financial Entitlement” (GFE)

        • Payable and guaranteed by TC constituent state

        • Collect funds to pay the GFEs from current users who gain title

        • Hybrid form of property and capital gains tax

        • Tax linked to value

  • Property development corporation (TC proposal) appeals)

    • PDC would develop “adversely affected property”

    • “Urban transformation” (grand improvement plans)

    • TCs says this is to ensure fair basis for exchange

    • ‘trapped value’ should be released

    • ‘Structurally depressed’ properties: values (of TC properties in the south) mostly due to zoning and the guardian laws

    • By contrast, GC properties in north developed (infrastructure)

    • So far, GCs have not rejected outright (since it may make exchange more attractive).

Divergences etc
Divergences, etc. appeals)

  • Authority: who decides the fate of the affected property on what basis?

  • Dispossessed owner or an independent body?

  • Criteria….

  • TC concern is that GC position will undermine bizonality (“a clear majority of property ownership and population”)

  • In any event, we would need to simulate different models of exchange and territorial adjustment to assess probable outcomes

  • GCs reluctant to concede authority to an autonomous body

  • Recent ECHR decisions suggest that interests of current users should be balanced with ownership rights (competing rights)

  • Assumptions: Mediators think territory and property issues can be linked.

  • GCs might accept less property reinstatement (in TC constituent state) in return for more territory.

  • GCs ask for 100,000 (out of 162,000 displaced persons) be allowed to return as a result of territorial adjusment.

  • These figures imply indirect negotiations regarding Karpas peninsula.

  • Thus far, sides have not discussed numbers or maps (supposedly to be left to the final ‘give and take’)

Compromise? can be linked.

  • Reconciling the two positions?

  • Some suggest model of ‘hierarchy’ whereby owners are categorized (which is logic of ECHR actually – determining how to resolve competing interests).

  • Living displaced persons could be high in the hierarchy (thus among those to exercise first right of refusal)

  • Similar categories could be made among current users.

  • Ultimately the agreement would require approval in referenda, so the particular model must satisfy the majority and be deemed equitable.