The TRNC Government Property Laws are flawed, contradictory and confused

Yesterday I talked about my own Court Memorandums.

It is interesting just how many appear to be issued through the Court system here in the TRNC. It seems that you have to spend a lot of money to actually obtain one and having got it, you then have to spend more money to actually enforce it. Now whether you can indeed enforce your Memorandum depends on whether the person you took action against owns anything for you to enforce it against. So the problem is not about how to get compensation, it’s about whether there is any money to pay it.

My own Memorandum does indeed have the ‘possibility’ of yielding something tangible if I ever find myself in the position of it being enforced, but I dealt with that yesterday so today I want to deal with another example.

Tutuska victims were in court last week, two separate cases but both victims of the same villain and both with a similar outcome. Next month, if Nurrettin Tutuska does not come up with their title deeds the Judges indicated that they would issue a judgement against the builder. More memorandums? If this happens, these victims, who actually live in the apartments at risk, will probably be given Memorandums that wlll be so far down the queue of those already in existence on their property, they may as well cut them up into squares and put them on a nail behind the door in the lavatory. Am I being unfair? NO I am not, but the legal system here definitely is. That this situation exists is an indictment on the whole legal system and the archaic laws that have allowed this to happen. I do not lay the blame for the laws at the door of the Judiciary or indeed those that work within the legal system. It is the law makers that are at fault for not recognising the flawed laws and rescinding them at the earliest possible time.

To return to the Memorandums themselves. I am now hearing conflicting reports on how they actually work. I have been told by my own adviser that they have to be renewed after two years from the date of issue and then yearly thereafter ad infinitum. I have also heard that they have to be renewed two years after issue and then can be renewed annually but only on two occasions, thereafter they become nul and void. I have now had a third opinion, they must be renewed after two years of the date of issue and then renewed one year after and that is it – finito, done, no more renewals.

Now bear in mind, I have all three opinions from legal sources. So here is my question – who the hell is right? Of course, it really should not matter in my case because if the Tapu did their job, the answer should be irrelevant to me personally. It looks as if there will have to be more legal action in my case to enforce my Memorandum and of course, more money spent BY ME.

I am glad I joined the ECHR case because the gamble here that I might just get my court award is so stacked against me I cannot see it happening.

No wonder everyone here is CONFUSED. No wonder it is so easy for us all to fall prey to the wrong doers here.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Comments are closed.