Independent In-depth Paragraph by Paragraph Analysis of the Implications of the Annan Plan

Foundation Agreement

Article 10 Property

1. Claims by property owners dispossessed by events prior to entry into force of this Agreement shall be resolved in a comprehensive manner in accordance with international law, respect for the individual rights of dispossessed owners and current users, and the principle of bi-zonality.

Comments

Study of this plan shows the so-called principle of bi-zonality as advocated by Mr Annan is synonymous with Apartheid. UN Resolutions call for both bi-communality and bi-zonality but nowhere in this plan is bi-communality mentioned.

Contrary to respecting the rights of property owners the provisions of the Annan plan seeks to negate these rights by demanding mass expropriations of refugees homes in order to further the process of creating an Apartheid state. An independent study* commissioned by the Government of the Republic of Cyprus has concluded that even with the offer of compensation mass expropriations of refugees property would be legally untenable and unenforceable with regards to international law.

Study of the full provisions of the Annan plan shows that Annex VII Part II Article 5 paras. 1 to 2* and Annex VII Section C Part V Attachment 2 Section A Article 3g will strip all the refugees of their rights to existing judicial appeals for the restoration of their property and compensation for the loss of use of that property all the way up to and including the European Court of Human Rights and will strip the refugees of their right to any future appeals. The Annan plan will not even provide any form of compensation for the loss of use of a dispossessed owners property during the period of the illegal Turkish occupation and thus runs contrary to the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (Loizidou vs. Turkey and Cyprus vs. Turkey).

Virtually every article of Annex VII of the Annan plan is deliberately biased against the legal property owners and in favour of the illegal occupiers. Almost all of the refugees property rights are either completely stripped from them or comprehensively derogated so as to prevent the refugees from ever returning.

Article 10. 1 must be amended as follows.

Amendment Required

“1. Nothing in this Agreement shall seek to negate or derogate the rights of property owners in any way shape or form or be construed as justifying the mass expropriation of property. Claims by property owners dispossessed by events prior to entry into force of this Agreement shall be resolved in a comprehensive manner in accordance with international law, specifically the European Convention of Human Rights, on the basis of legality and ownership with respect for the individual rights of dispossessed owners and current users.”

Clarification Required

< Previous Page I Index | Next Page >

*Annex VII Part II

Article 5 Suspension of dealings, proceedings or alterations with

respect to affected property

1. Any transaction, dealing, or any proceeding in any court or legal or

administrative body in Cyprus, or any physical alterations (apart from

minor or emergency maintenance), with respect to any affected property

shall be suspended or prohibited upon entry into force of the Foundation

Agreement, until the Property Board:

a. Authorises such dealing, proceeding or physical alteration to

continue or occur;

b. Refers the dealing or proceeding to another competent court or

authority; or

c. Makes a final determination in relation to the property.

2. The United Cyprus Republic and the constituent states shall, pursuant to

Article 37 of the 1950 European Convention for the Protection of Human

Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, request the European Court of

Human Rights to strike out any proceedings currently before it

concerning affected property.

revised 06/03/04