North Cyprus Property | Kulaksiz 5 v Akfinans Bank – 10/10/2012 Report

North Cyprus Property | Kulaksiz 5 v Akfinans Bank – 10/10/2012 Report

I was about to write an account of the very short hearing this morning, the end result of which is that a date of Monday the 19th November 2012 has been set for the start of the main case. The length of the delay is to accommodate both sides who are making significant changes to their cases.

I had not realise the court was in session and quietly said our Advocate’s name in the court. The fault was entirely mine and I have assured our Advocate it will not happen again.

“TRNC court system appears to work in a mysterious way if you are a non Turkish speaker. It’s European Human Right practice that a Court provides an interpreter so that you can see how your justice is being served.

Not so in the TRNC you have to rely on Turkish speakers summarising things for you. Even in Court a whisper of explanation is frowned upon with the threat of contempt. So a non-Turkish speaker has to endure in silence what is being said and then pick up translated fragments later. So it is difficult to form an opinion on whether justice is really being served until you reach the very end and read an accredited translation.

In view of this, this update is only my latest impressions and, due to translation, may or may not be an accurate reflection of the process.

Following the K5 Group Appeal case of September 29th, summarised below, a lot seems to have been going on below the radar, although we are still awaiting judgement and can only guess at what is in the Bank’s advisors’ minds now that the facts are getting out.

The Bank have asked for the main case scheduled for today, October 10th, to be postponed whilst they have time to rethink their defence.

That is a real departure, for years the Bank in question has been trying to rush through judgements but now the home buyers are represented in Court and real facts are coming out, despite many gagging orders on the journalists, newspapers and TV about reporting. The Bank now seems to want time to think through its position.

You may wonder why?

On the facts just emerging, it now appears the Bank is greedier than was at first thought.

The Bank loaned 83,000 TL of money which I understand arrived in the landowner’s account, all a bit vague though, after he had allowed the sale and completion of up to 14 houses valued at about 4,000,000 TL. The bank is now trying to gab the lot, 14 houses worth 48 times the loan value or put another way interest of 4,800% in 4 years. But we may have lost something in translation here. Perhaps the Bank can enlighten us because they are claiming not to have applied unreasonable interest. What do you think?

From the allegations presented at the 29th September Appeal the bank appears to have misled the District Land Office and the Lower Courts into thinking that they were claiming just a bare field. The Land Registry or the court were not informed of the houses, completed and sold with some people living in them. This is in direct contravention of TRNC Mortgage Law 11/78.

So the allegation is that the Bank acted illegally. The Bank claims there was no intention to mislead and that it was a clerical error. So if it was a clerical error how do the Bank intend to make amends for the harm caused?

If these allegations are upheld then the Bank will have to withdraw its claim to house titles and pay costs and compensation to the injured parties.

As they have broken the law, if the Bank does not withdraw its claims, either the TRNC High Court or the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) will ensure ultimate justice for home owners.

I understand that behind the scenes the Bank’s lobbying is in overdrive. So we all await the outcome with great interest.”

I discovered the above on the other stbinc page and feel is too good not to share with you. It is obviously written by the same person who did the excellent translation of the proceeding at the High Court on 19th September, it certainly was not written by John Good whose name it appears under or his other personna, Nigel Watson. He is just not capable of this quality of writing. Since the writer has allowed this to be published on a public forum, I feel sure that sharing it with all interested parties is their intent and I am glad to oblige them to this achieve this.

Important Note: “Due to an important member of Kulaskzi 5 litigants being unavailable on the 19th November, the date for the hearing of the main case has been changed to Wednesday 28th November 2012.”
North Cyprus Property | Kulaksiz 5 v Akfinans Bank – 10/10/2012 Report


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Comments are closed.