Ewa Isabella Kunzel davasında “siyasi kovuşturma” iddiası: Dava bugün devam edecek

Alexy Flemming30/01/26 08:04
Ewa Isabella Kunzel, HAKSIZ YERE, tutuklu tutuluyor. Keşke, Güney'de baroya kayıtlı sağlam bir Kıbrıs Türk avukat tutsaydı. Ewa Isabella Kunzel'in olayı, KKTC'deki bir mülkle ilgilidir. KIBRIS CUMHURİYETİ'NİN KKTC'DE HİÇBİR YARGI YETKİSİ YOKTUR: ✅ ULUSLARARASI MAHKEMELERDE VE ÜLKE MAHKEMELERİNDE; "Uluslararası Hukuk'ta, KKTC'nin YASAL ÜLKE olduğu ve KKTC'nin TÜM MEVZUATININ VE TÜM MAHKEMELERİNİN YASAL olduğu" KESİNLEŞTİ KUZEY KIBRIS TÜRK CUMHURİYETİ'nin (KKTC) YASALLIĞI tüm dünyada kanıksandı: ULUSLARARASI MAHKEME KARARLARI VE ÜLKELERİN ULUSAL MAHKEME KARARLARI 🟦 Fransa (10.12.2025; 18.12.2025; 21.01.2026): 10.12.2025te Aix-En-Provence Mahkemesi, "Avrupa hukukunun Kuzey Kıbrıs'ta geçerli olmadığı" ve "Kıbrıs Cumhuriyeti mahkemelerinin Kuzey Kıbrıs'taki yasaları uygulama yetkisine sahip olmadığı" gerekçesiyle Kıbrıs Cumhuriyeti'nin bir Türk Kıbrıs vatandaşı için yaptığı iade talebini reddetti. https://cyprus-mail.com/2025/12/17/france-rejects-extradition-request-for-man-accused-of-developing-property-in-north 18.12.2025te Fransız Kamu Savcılığı, Kıbrıs Cumhuriyeti'nin itirazını reddetti. Kıbrıs Cumhuriyeti, istinaf aşamasında da kaybetti. https://in-cyprus.philenews.com/local/france-rejects-cyprus-bid-overturn-ruling-property-fraud-suspect-usurper/ https://knews.kathimerini.com.cy/en/news/cyprus-vows-action-after-french-court-blocks-extradition-of-property-squatter 21.01.2026da, Fransa Yargıtay'ı (Cour de Cassation), Kıbrıs Cumhuriyeti'nin temyiz başvurusunu reddetti. https://www.kibrispostasi.com/c35-KIBRIS_HABERLERI/n589498-fransiz-yargitayi-behdad-jafarinin-guney-kibrisa-iadesini-kesin-olarak-reddetti https://cyprus-mail.com/2026/01/22/french-court-rejects-cyprus-appeal-against-refusal-to-extradite-man-accused-of-developing-property-in-north 🟦 AİHM [KKTC'NİN TRANSDİNYESTER, ABHAZYA VE KIRIM'DAN FARKLILIĞI; 25.06.2024; Ukrayna vs. Rusya Davası (Kırım); Applications 20958/14 and 38334/18]: Kıbrıs'ın kuzeyinde KKTC'nin kanunlarının uygulanmasının AİHM mevzuatına göre yasallığının AİHM'ce nedenleri (KKTC'nin durumunun, KIRIM, TRANSDİNYERSTER ve ABHAZYA'nın durumundan FARKLI olmasının nedenleri; KKTC'nin durumu, diğer durumlar için PRECEDENT OLUŞTURMAZ) (KKTC'nin TÜM MEVZUATI VE TÜM MAHKEMELERİ AİHM'ce YASALDIR): 930. AİHM Mahkemesi, "KKTC YEREL HUKUKU"NUN ANGLO-SAKSON HUKUK GELENEĞİNE DAYANDIĞINI VE BU NEDENLE AVRUPA İNSAN HAKLARI SÖZLEŞMESİ BAKIMINDAN "HUKUK" OLARAK KABUL EDİLDİĞİNİ belirtirken, TRANSDİNYESTER'e ("MRT") ilişkin davalarda, AİHM, "[MRT'de], Moldova Cumhuriyeti'nin Transdinyester haricinde geriye kalan kısmındakine benzer bir şekilde Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi ile uyumlu bir yargı geleneğini yansıtan bir sistem bulunduğunu varsaymak için herhangi bir temel olmadığı" sonucuna varmıştır. AİHM Mahkemesi, ABHAZYA'nın "hukuku" ve Abhaz mahkemelerinin "hukuka uygunluğu" konusunda da benzer sonuçlara ulaşmıştır. 932. … Dahası, "MRT" ve Abhazya ile ilgili davalar, tanınmamış varlıkların "hukukunu" konu almakta olup, bunların sırasıyla "Moldova Cumhuriyeti’nin geri kalanındakine" veya "Gürcistan’ın geri kalanındakine" benzer bir yargı geleneğini yansıtmadığıyla ilgili davalar iken, Kıbrıs - Türkiye (esas) davasında AİHM Mahkemesi, "KKTC’de faaliyet gösteren SİVİL MAHKEMELERİN esas itibarıyla ANGLO-SAKSON GELENEĞİNE DAYANDIĞINI ve 1974 OLAYLARI ÖNCESİNDE FAALİYET GÖSTEREN MAHKEMELER İLE KIBRIS'IN GÜNEY KESİMİNDE VARLIĞINI SÜRDÜRMÜŞ OLAN MAHKEMELERDEN ESASLI BİR FARKLILIK GÖSTERMEDİĞİNİ" tespit etmiştir. Bu husus, söz konusu davayı şimdiki davaya benzer kılmakta, ancak ELDEKİ MEVCUT DAVADAN FARKLILAŞTIRMAKTADIR. Kıbrıs-Türkiye davası, Türkiye'nin, Kıbrıs'ın kuzeyindeki toprağın fiili kontrolünü ele geçirmesinden önce "KKTC" topraklarında geçerli olan ve ÖNCEDEN VAR OLAN KIBRIS HUKUKUNUN DEVAM ETMİŞ UYGULANMASInı konu alırken, eldeki mevcut dava, Kırım’da daha önce geçerli ve yürürlükte olan Ukrayna hukukunun yerine Rusya Federasyonu hukukunun (veya onun türevi olarak yerel makamların "hukukunun") uygulanmasını konu almaktadır. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-235139 🎯 AİHM'e göre, KKTC'nin TÜM MEVZUATInın ve TÜM MAHKEMELERİNİN uluslararası hukukta YASAL olmasının nedenleri: 1) KKTC HUKUKU'NUN ve KKTC Mahkemelerinin ANGLO-SAKSON HUKUK GELENEĞİNE DAYANNMASI. 2) KKTC’nin SİVİL MAHKEMELERİ'nin, Kıbrıs'ta 1974 OLAYLARI ÖNCESİNDE FAALİYET GÖSTEREN MAHKEMELER İLE GÜNEY KIBRIS'TA HALİHAZIRDA VARLIĞINI SÜRDÜREN MAHKEMELERDEN ESASLI BİR FARKLILIK GÖSTERMEMESİ. 3) KKTC'nin, 1974 öncesinde, Kıbrıs'ın kuzeyinde geçerli olan ve ÖNCEDEN VAR OLAN KIBRIS HUKUKUNU DEVAM ETTİRMESİ. 🟦 Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi (AİHM) [KIBRISLI RUMLARIN KKTC POLİSİNCE TUTUKLANMASININ YASALLIĞI; KKTC MAKAMLARININ TUTUKLULUK ÖNCESİ GÖZALTI VE MAHKÛMİYET SONRASI HAPİS CEZASININ YASALLIĞI; KKTC MAHKEMESİNİN YÜRÜTTÜĞÜ CEZA YARGILAMASININ YASALLIĞI] (23.02.2016; Başvuru no. 11138/10; MOZER v. MOLDOVA CUMHURİYETİ VE RUSYA DAVASI) 140. Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi (AİHM), Türkiye’ye ilişkin çeşitli kararlarında, Kıbrıs v. Türkiye davasında ortaya konan ilkeleri ceza davalarına uygulamıştır (bkz. yukarıda anılan Foka, § 83, KIBRISLI RUM BAŞVURUCUNUN bir "KKTC" POLİS MEMURU TARAFINDAN TUTUKLANMASININ, 5. MADDE BAKIMINDAN HUKUKA UYGUN BULUNDUĞU; yukarıda anılan Protopapa, § 60, "KKTC" MAKAMLARININ UYGULADIĞI HEM TUTUKLULUK ÖNCESİ GÖZALTI, HEM DE MAHKÛMİYET SONRASI HAPİS CEZASININ 5. maddenin amacı bakımından HUKUKA UYGUN KABUL EDİLDİĞİ ve bir "KKTC" MAHKEMESİ ÖNÜNDE YÜRÜTÜLEN CEZA YARGILAMASININ 6. MADDEYLE UYUMLU BULUNDUĞU; ayrıca bkz. Asproftas / Türkiye, no. 16079/90, § 72, 27 Mayıs 2010; Petrakidou / Türkiye, no. 16081/90, § 71, 27 Mayıs 2010; ve Union européenne des droits de l’homme ve Josephides v. Türkiye (kabul edilemezlik kararı), no. 7116/10, § 9, 2 Nisan 2013). https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-161055 REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS has NO JURISDICTION over NORTHERN CYPRUS. The ONLY Country Having JURISDICTION over NORTHERN CYPRUS is TRNC. [2] ALL LAWS OF TURKISH REPUBLIC OF NORTHERN CYPRUS ARE ACCEPTED IN EUROPE (EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS; ECtHR). MORE IMPORTANTLY: The ONLY COUNTRY THAT HAS JURISDICTION in northern Cyprus is TURKISH REPUBLIC OF NORTHERN CYPRUS: 2.1 In north of Cyprus island, the laws of Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus are valid (TRNC DOES HAVE jurisdiction in north of Cyprus island): ECtHR’s (European Court of Human Rights) Decision (02.07.2013; Nicos PAVLIDES; Application no:9130/09. Spyridon GEORGAKIS; Application no:9143/09): “...notwithstanding the lack of international recognition of the regime in the northern area, a de facto recognition of its acts may be rendered necessary for practical purposes. Thus, THE ADOPTION BY THE AUTHORITIES OF THE "TRNC" OF CIVIL, ADMINISTRATIVE OR CRIMINAL LAW MEASURES, AND THEIR APPLICATION OR ENFORCEMENT WITHIN THAT TERRITORY, may be regarded as HAVING A LEGAL basis in DOMESTIC LAW for the purposes of the Convention". http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-122907 https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22sort%22:[%22kpdate%20Descending%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-122907%22]} Note: In the related ECtHR’s decisions above, the case applications of the Greek Cypriots was IMMEDIATELY REJECTED; i.e., their applications were found INADMISSABLE. That is to say, the Greek Cypriots were expelled by ECtHR just at the beginning; therefore, the cases of the Greek Cypriots were not handled (no sessions were held) by ECtHR at all. 2.2 ALL the people of Rep. of Cyprus (even the President of RoC) MUST apply to the LEGAL SYSTEM of Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) about an issue related with north Cyprus in order to take their cases to the ECtHR: ECtHR’s decision [04.01.2011, (Archibishop) Chrysostomos II, Application no:66611/09]: “the procedure before the Immovable Property Commission (“IPC”), and further appeal to the “TRNC” High Administrative Court, provided for in Law 67/2005, were to be regarded as “domestic remedies” of the respondent State and that NO GROUND OF EXEMPTION has been established in that regard”. “NO GROUND OF EXEMPTION” and (in the last part) “Court unanimously Declares the APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE” means “EXHAUST ALL DOMESTIC REMEDIES OF TRNC (Northern Cyprus) first, before coming to ECtHR”. http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-103100 http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/Pages/search.aspx#{"fulltext":["Chrysostomos"],"documentcollectionid2":["CASELAW"],"itemid":["001-103100"]} 2.3 The Courts of Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus are INDEPENDENT and IMPARTIAL: ECtHR’s decision (02.09.2015; Kyriacou TSIAKKOURMAS AND OTHERS; Application no:13320/02): “..the COURT SYSTEM in the “TRNC”, including both civil and criminal courts, reflected the judicial and common-law tradition of Cyprus in its functioning and procedures, and that the “TRNC” COURTS were thus to be considered as “ESTABLISHED BY LAW” with reference to the “constitutional and legal basis” on which they operated...the Court has already found that the COURT SYSTEM set up in the “TRNC” was to be considered to have been “established by law” with reference to the “constitutional and legal basis” on which it operated, and it has NOT ACCEPTED THE ALLEGATION that the “TRNC” COURTS as a whole LACKED INDEPENDENCE and/or IMPARTIALITY...when an act of the “TRNC” authorities was in compliance with LAWS IN FORCE WITHIN THE TERRITORY OF NORTHERN CYPRUS, those acts should in principle be regarded as having a legal basis in domestic law for the purposes of the Convention..” http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-155000 https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22sort%22:[%22kpdate%20Descending%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-155000%22]} Note: Here, what ECtHR means by “laws in force within the territory of northern Cyprus” is the laws that TRNC published and put into implementation (See: ECtHR’s 02.07.2013 decision above). 2.4 The Reasons why JUDICIAL LEGAL SYSTEM of TRNC in Northern Cyprus under the ECtHR framework is LEGAL in ECHR whereas LEGAL SYSTEMS in Transnistria, Abkhazia, and Crimea are ILLEGAL in in ECHR: i) TRNC DOMESTIC LAW WAS BASED ON THE ANGLO-SAXON LEGAL TRADITION ii) THE CONTINUED APPLICATION OF PRE-EXISTING CYPRIOT LAW BY TURKISH CYPRIOT AUTHORITIES AFTER 1974 The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR; 25 June 2024) [Ukraine v. Russia Case (Crimea); Applications 20958/14 and 38334/18] explained the reasons for the legality of the actions of TRNC laws in the north of Cyprus under the ECtHR framework (Why the situation of the TRNC differs from that of Crimea, Transnistria, and Abkhazia): 930. Whereas the Court held that “TRNC DOMESTIC LAW” WAS BASED ON THE ANGLO-SAXON LEGAL TRADITION and was therefore accepted as “law” for the purposes of the Convention, in cases concerning Transdniestria (the “MRT”), the Court found "no basis for assuming that [in the ‘MRT’] there is a system reflecting a judicial tradition compatible with the Convention similar to the one in the remainder of the Republic of Moldova”. The Court has reached similar conclusions regarding the “law” of Abkhazia and the "lawfulness" of Abkhaz courts. 932....Moreover, while the “MRT” and Abkhaz-related cases concerned the “law” of unrecognised entities that did not reflect “a judicial tradition ... similar to the one in the remainder of the Republic of Moldova” or “to the rest of Georgia” respectively, in Cyprus v. Turkey (merits) the Court held that “The civil courts operating in the ‘TRNC’ were in substance based on the Anglo-Saxon tradition and were not essentially different from the courts operating before the events of 1974 and from those which existed in the southern part of Cyprus”. This particular aspect makes the latter case similar, yet DIFFERENT FROM THE PRESENT CASE. The Cyprus v. Turkey case concerned THE CONTINUED APPLICATION OF PRE-EXISTING CYPRIOT LAW valid in the territory of the “TRNC” before Turkey had obtained actual control of that territory, whereas the present case concerns the application in Crimea of the law of the Russian Federation (or the “law” of the local authorities, as its derivative) replacing the previously applicable and valid Ukrainian law. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-235139 2.5 In north of Cyprus island, the ONLY country that has jurisdiction (i.e., whose laws are valid) is TURKISH REPUBLIC OF NORTHERN CYPRUS: European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), (Page29; Article 35/1 Admissibility criteria): “The Court may ONLY deal with the matter after ALL DOMESTIC REMEDIES have been exhausted, according to the generally recognised rules of international law.” http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Admissibility_guide_ENG.pdf In order to apply to ECtHR for an issue related in Poland, ALL DOMESTIC REMEDIES of Poland MUST be exhausted. Similarly: In order to apply to ECtHR for an issue related in north of Cyprus island, ALL DOMESTIC REMEDIES of Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus MUST be exhausted. If the legal domestic system of Republic of Cyprus had any validity in north of Cyprus, then before taking the case to the ECtHR, ALL DOMESTIC REMEDIES of Rep.of Cyprus MUST have been exhausted AS WELL besides those of Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Since, according to ECtHR, legal system of Republic of Cyprus has NO validity (RoC has NO JURISDICTION) in the northern Cyprus island, ECtHR accepts cases from northern Cyprus part of the Cyprus island AS SOON AS ALL DOMESTIC REMEDIES of Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus are exhausted.