President Derviş Eroğlu, chatting with locals in Famagusta said that he knew why he had been elected as president.
During his visit Eroğlu said “Newspapers will probably write Eroğlu is doing field work but I am here to answer your questions and update you about the recent developments in the negotiations”, ‘Kibris Postasi’ reports.
Eroğlu also spoke about the chapter on citizenship and promised that every TRNC citizen will be automatically become a citizen of the new “structure”.
“Anastasiades and his team does not accept our sine qua non regarding the citizenship discussion and the active guarantee of Turkish Republic. But we are adamant, every TRNC citizen should become a citizen of new joint state. As for Turkey’s guarantorship, it is also a sine qua non for us which was made official with a parliamentary decision.” added Eroğlu.
Touching upon the issue of property Eroğlu said that Greek Cypriot side’s condition for discussing property is unacceptable and they [the Greek Cypriots] may run away from the table if their condition is accepted. According to Eroğlu, the Greek Cypriot side will only discuss the proposals on property if 100,000 Greek Cypriots are given back their property in the North with the option of residing there.
Eroğlu added that if that happens, the Greek Cypriots will leave the negotiations the day they get the land back for 100,000 Greek Cypriots.
Eroğlu comparing the current and former Greek Cypriot presidents said that Anastasiades is more of a “hardliner” than Christofias. According to Eroğlu the reason for this analysis is that Anastasiades’ past agreement with DIKO in which Anastasiades promises to never bring back the Annan Plan again. “Anastasiades did what Christofias didn’t do and made promises to the Greek Cypriot National Council. Based on these promises he will not accept any agreement unless that agreement is approved by 75% of the National Council. Unless the dominant mentality of the National Council changes that promise may lead to troubles in the future”, added Eroğlu.
Referring to Greek Cypriot demands and the Demopoulos case*, Eroğlu said that the Greek Cypriots want the Karpas, southern Mesaoria, Limnidis [Yeşilırmak], Morphou [Güzelyurt] and in addition to that, “they want to place 100,000 Greek Cypriots back on these lands”. Stating the Turkish Cypriot leadership’s position on this, Eroğlu talked about the Demopoulos case. “In [the] Demopoulos case the verdict said that the emotional attachment of the people who are living in that house for the last 40 years is greater than the ones who resided there many years ago. We take this verdict as a reference.”
Eroğlu also criticised Greek Cypriot negotiator Andreas Mavroyiannis’ statement about the EU in which Mavroyiannis said that there won’t be a second accession to EU and that the Turkish Cypriots access to the EU will be a smooth process under the auspices of the Greek Cypriot authorities.
*Demopoulos & others v. Turkey
The verdict given by the European Court of Human Rights (Grand Chamber), March 1, 2010.
The applicants in Demopoulos v. Turkey, all Cypriot nationals of Greek Cypriot origin, claimed to own immovable property in the northern part of Cyprus. They complained mainly under Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights 2 (Convention) that they had been deprived of their property in northern Cyprus, which is under the control of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC). None of the applicants had made an application to the Immovable Property Commission (IPC) for restitution or compensation in respect of their property. The IPC, established pursuant to Law 67/2005 enacted by the TRNC Parliament, can examine and reach decisions on applications brought by all natural and legal persons claiming rights to immovable or movable property in northern Cyprus. 3 The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights held that (1) the IPC procedure may be regarded as part of the domestic remedies of Turkey, and (2) the IPC provides accessible and effective redress to Greek Cypriots for violations of their property rights. The Court accordingly rejected the present applications for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.