VZCZCXRO0588
PP RUEHFL RUEHKW RUEHLA RUEHROV RUEHSR
DE RUEHNC #0234/01 0480705
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
P 170705Z FEB 06
FM AMEMBASSY NICOSIA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 5568
INFO RUEHZL/EUROPEAN POLITICAL COLLECTIVE
RUEHIT/AMCONSUL ISTANBUL 0961

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 NICOSIA 000234 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/17/2016 
TAGS: PGOV PREL TU CY
SUBJECT: CYPRUS PROPERTY: GOC PUTS ANOTHER FINGER IN THE 
DIKE 
 
REF: A. 05 NICOSIA 1737 
 
     ¶B. LIBBY-INGMANSON EMAIL (1/5/06) 
     ¶C. 05 NICOSIA 1886 
 
Classified By: Ambassador R. Schlicher, for reasons 1.4 (b) and (d). 
 
¶1. (C) SUMMARY.  A GOC decision to withdraw its court appeal 
and allow Turkish Cypriot Arif Mustafa to reclaim his 
property in the south has caused a stir because: 1) this is 
the first high-profile case in which a Turkish Cypriot has 
been granted restitution as opposed to compensation for lost 
property; and 2) the case resulted in the displacement of 
Greek Cypriot refugees from the north who had been living on 
Mustafa's property.  The large and powerful Greek Cypriot 
refugee community is uneasy about the precedent this case may 
set for those among them living on confiscated Turkish 
Cypriot land in the south.  Legal experts on both sides 
appear to agree, however, that this case -- which involved an 
out-of-court settlement rather than a landmark judicial 
ruling -- does not necessarily set a precedent for mass 
return of Turkish Cypriot land owners at the expense of Greek 
Cypriot refugees.  Nonetheless, the Arif Mustafa case is just 
one of many pending complaints that will continue to 
challenge the viability of the ROC's Guardianship Law and the 
government's strategy of delaying and/or buying off Turkish 
Cypriots who challenge its legality.  Despite the current 
stalemate on other fronts in the Cyprus problem, cases like 
this -- as well as the "TRNC's" new restitution law dealing 
with Greek Cypriot claims in the north -- show that there is 
movement on the contentious subject of property.  Greek 
Cypriots, for whom stolen property has traditionally been a 
winning political card, may begin to pay a greater price on 
the issue.  END SUMMARY. 
 
ARIF MUSTAFA GETS HIS KEYS BACK 
------------------------------- 
 
¶2. (SBU) On February 13, the GOC withdrew its appeal of a 
preliminary court decision, which had granted the restitution 
of property belonging to Turkish Cypriot Arif Mustafa. 
Mustafa, who moved to the south four years ago, had requested 
the return of the property (which he had owned before the 
1974 war) in the southern village of Episkopi, near Limassol. 
 The GOC's Guardianship Authority, which governs "abandoned" 
Turkish Cypriot property in the south (ref a), initially 
refused to return the property on the grounds that it could 
not evict the Greek Cypriot refugees from the north living in 
two houses there. 
 
¶3. (SBU) In September 2005, however, a single judge on the 
Supreme Court ruled that the property should be returned to 
Mustafa.  The GOC filed a formal appeal to the full bench, 
but this week withdrew its appeal after reaching an 
understanding with the refugee families in which the 
government agreed to provide them alternate lodging.  Papers 
all across the island showed front-page pictures of Arif 
Mustafa leaning out the window of his newly-returned home on 
February 14, proudly waving his house keys to a gaggle of 
press and curious onlookers. 
 
RIPPLES OF WORRY AMONG GREEK CYPRIOT REFUGEES 
--------------------------------------------- 
 
¶4. (SBU) The return of Arif Mustafa's property has caused 
significant worry in the south, especially among the powerful 
Greek Cypriot refugee lobby.  Although there have been 
previous cases in which Turkish Cypriots have asked for 
restitution, most have been solved quietly through a 
combination of delaying tactics on the part of the GOC and 
out-of-court settlements involving pay-offs for the 
plaintiff.  Having reportedly turned down repeated government 
offers of money and compensatory property elsewhere, Arif 
Mustafa became the first Turkish Cypriot to win a 
highly-publicized restitution claim.  Furthermore, his case 
was the first which involved the actual displacement of Greek 
Cypriot refugees.  The possibility that this case could open 
the door to large-scale expulsions of other families has 
spooked the refugee community in the south, and raised the 
specter of costly bills for compensation and relocation 
landing on the government's desk. 
 
¶5. (SBU) While not all refugees (who number between one third 
and one half of the total Greek Cypriot population depending 
on how you count) live on pre-1974 Turkish Cypriot property, 
the number of people and amount of property that could 
theoretically be subject to Mustafa-style law suits is 
nonetheless considerable.  The Greek Cypriot press estimates, 
perhaps conservatively, that approximately 5,500 Turkish 
Cypriots own property on which the GOC has built roughly 
8,000 refugee houses.  In addition, the Greek Cypriot press 
estimates that around 3,500 Turkish Cypriot shops and 
 
NICOSIA 00000234  002 OF 002 
 
 
restaurants in the south are being used by Greek Cypriots. 
About 30 Turkish Cypriots have applied to ROC courts for the 
return of their property, which accounts for anywhere between 
10 percent (according to Greek Cypriot sources) to 20 percent 
(according to Turkish Cypriots) of the total area of the 
south -- and is generally used for refugee housing, parking 
lots, roads, power plants, and other public purposes. 
 
POLITICAL SPLASH, BUT NO LEGAL PRECEDENT 
---------------------------------------- 
 
¶6. (C) Despite the publicity the Arif Mustafa case has 
generated, legal experts on both sides of the Green Line seem 
to agree it does not constitute a precedent for the mass 
return of Turkish Cypriot property, or the further expulsion 
of Greek Cypriot refugees.  Most observers are quick to note 
that the return of the Mustafa property resulted from an 
out-of-court agreement between the GOC and the resident 
refugee families.  Former ROC Attorney General Alecos 
Markides suggested to us that the GOC's appeal, which was 
later withdrawn, was simply an effort to win enough time to 
take care of the refugee families in the property before the 
full court could issue a binding ruling that might serve as a 
precedent.  In its essence, this was a "continuation" of a 
long-standing GOC practice, even though this case was novel 
in that it involved a government buy-off of the refugee 
family, not the Turkish Cypriot plaintiff. 
 
¶7. (C) Furthermore, according to Turkish Cypriot property law 
expert Emine Erk, the Arif Mustafa case is unlikely to change 
the calculus of potential Turkish Cypriot plaintiffs, most of 
whom have already made a decision about whether or not file 
claims for their own "diverse variety of reasons."  Those 
Turkish Cypriots applying to get their property back (or, as 
in the ref b case in which a plaintiff has appealed to the 
ECHR for compensation for his land, where the ROC built a 
power plant) are unlikely to be either deterred or encouraged 
by the Mustafa case, which has a very narrow legal impact 
despite the dramatic press coverage it has received. 
 
¶8. (C) Finally, current ROC practice requires Turkish 
Cypriots claiming their property back to have been resident 
in the government-controlled south for a "reasonable period 
of time" (usually interpreted to mean a continuous period of 
at least six months).  Noting that the ability to exercise 
the rights of property ownership does not traditionally 
depend on physical presence, some Turkish Cypriot lawyers 
have discussed challenging the legality of this policy -- 
either in the ROC Supreme Court or the ECHR in Strasbourg. 
For the moment, however, current practice stands, 
significantly restricting the number of possible complainants 
to the small handful of Turkish Cypriots resident in the 
south (around 2000, not all of whom have land claims).  We 
have heard anecdotal stories of Turkish Cypriots renting 
apartments in the south in an effort to establish residency, 
while still commuting to their jobs in the north.  It is 
impossible to know, however, if this is anything more than a 
handful of families. 
 
COMMENT 
------- 
 
¶9. (C) Even if Arif Mustafa has not set a precedent in the 
strict legal sense, his case is one of a growing number of 
Turkish Cypriot property claims against the GOC.  By settling 
this case, the GOC has effectively stuck another finger in 
the dike -- but has not resolved the fundamental question of 
how to square its uncompensated confiscation of Turkish 
Cypriot property with European human rights standards.  The 
Guardianship Law, which delays until a final Cyprus 
settlement property restitution/compensation for those 
Turkish Cypriots not resident in the south, is vulnerable to 
an ECHR challenge -- especially in light of previous rulings 
in Strasbourg that Greek Cypriots are entitled to immediate 
relief relating to their confiscated property in the north. 
Meanwhile, if judged by the ECHR to be an effective remedy 
for confiscated Greek Cypriot property, the new Turkish 
Cypriot property restitution law (ref c) could undermine 
Greek Cypriot ability to use the issue of stolen property as 
a political trump card.  Although Greek Cypriots have lost 
far more property to the Turks than vice-versa, the current 
situation leaves the GOC open to charges of a double 
standard, and may involve increasingly costly payouts as more 
cases go to court.  Ultimately, as one of our contacts noted, 
the mounting number of suits and countersuits serves to 
undermine the prospects of true reconciliation between the 
two communities, even as individuals like Arif Mustafa or 
Titina Loizidou find justice.  Litigation is no substitute 
for an agreed Cyprus settlement.  END COMMENT. 
SCHLICHER