Tweet
US ARMENIAN PROPERTY CASES AGAINST TURKEY
by ORHAN KEMAL CENGİZ
Today's Zaman
Sept 15 2011
Turkey
There are a couple of pending property cases against Turkey introduced
by American citizens of Armenian descent in California courts in
the US.
One of these cases concerns a large amount of land in Adana which
partly covers the İncirlik American air base (Alex Bakalian, et al v.
Central Bank the Rep of Turkey, et al). I have been trying to follow
the Bakalian case, in which a California district court decided
that the defendants had been lawfully served and has required the
defendants to respond to the Armenian complaints last month. So,
we have now a very concrete case against Turkey. American laws
(Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act) allow plaintiffs to sue sovereign
nations in US courts. In the latest edition of the Agos weekly, I
saw an interview with Bakalian's lawyer, Mr. Vartkes Yeghiayan, and
I contacted Agos to get the lawyer's original commentary in English.
Agos correspondent Ms. Beril Eski kindly agreed and sent me the
original of the interview. It is a little long, so here is a cut
version. Let's read Mr. Yeghiayan's comments about the İncirlik case.
"Beginning in 1915, the government of the Ottoman Turkish Empire began
ordering the collection of real and personal property and deportation
of Turkish Armenians. A series of discriminatory regulations,
directives, and decrees issued by the Ottoman Turkish Empire between
1915 and 1923, collectively known as the Emvali Metruke, sought to
provide legal cover for the unlawful expropriation of the property
and assets of Turkish Armenians, including that of our plaintiffs. ...
"In response to the outrage expressed by the international community
over the large-scale deportations, murders and expropriation of
property from Turkish Armenians by the Ottoman Turkish government,
government telegrams posted in 1916 demonstrate that proceeds from
the sale of properties left behind by deportees were deposited with
Defendant T.C. Ziraat Bankası ...upon information and belief held in
trust and for safekeeping on behalf of the rightful Armenian owners
in accordance with other Emvali Metruke. ...
"In 1923, Turkey became the successor state to the Ottoman Turkish
Empire. ...
"In 1928, new laws came into effect, transferring all 'abandoned' real
and personal property to the Turkish Treasury. Since its establishment
in 1856, the Imperial Ottoman Bank acted as the state Treasurer and was
responsible for collecting state revenues. Defendant Merkez Bankası
of the Republic of Turkey was established in its present format in
1931 as the successor to the Imperial Ottoman Bank. ...
"Since the establishment of the Republic of Turkey in 1923, the
plaintiffs' real property and assets in Adana that were not sold have
been continuously, wrongfully owned and controlled by the Turkish
government and used for commercial activities by Turkey and the
Turkish Merkez Bankası in conjunction with numerous private commercial
enterprises operating both in the United States and elsewhere. Income
earned from those properties, including rental income being paid by
the United States government to lease the plaintiffs' property, flows
continuously into the Merkez Bankası. Thus, Defendants Turkey and
the Merkez Bankası are profiting from and being unjustly enriched by
their possession of and/or use of proceeds from such stolen property
belonging to the plaintiffs. ...
"Our relations with the Turkish Foreign Affairs and that of the 'time
limitation' also known as the 'Statute of Limitation' are interlinked
in a sense that the Republic of Turkey does fall under the Foreign
Sovereign Immunities Act, however, due to illicit expropriation and use
of property for the purpose of making gain -- 'Commercial Enterprise,'
the Armenian Genocide -- 'Violation of International Humanitarian Law'
and lastly the 'Violation of the Lausanne Treaty' of which Turkey is
a signatory. ...
"When we win the case and should the Republic of Turkey or the banks
default on the judgment brought forth against them, we will move to
seize properties belonging to the aforementioned in equal value to
our claims."
When I got the interview I hoped to find answers to some legal
questions that crossed my mind, the most important off which was,
of course, about the statute of limitations. The dispute about time
limitations must be the vital part of this case and, I guess, it
will be hard to explain to the court why the statute of limitations
cannot be applicable in this case, which was brought almost 100 years
after the actual seizure of said property. I can gather some core
arguments from Mr. Yeghiayan's explanations on time limitations,
but they do not answer the many questions that may possibly be put
to any plaintiff who brings this kind of case under any legal system
in Europe, for example. Even if we accept that the plaintiffs had
the opportunity to start such a case for the first time when the
Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act came into force in the US, why did
they wait 35 years to do so? There are many legal questions that
can be asked in connection with the statute of limitations. Anyway,
I will continue to follow this case and share my comments with you.
by ORHAN KEMAL CENGİZ
Today's Zaman
Sept 15 2011
Turkey
There are a couple of pending property cases against Turkey introduced
by American citizens of Armenian descent in California courts in
the US.
One of these cases concerns a large amount of land in Adana which
partly covers the İncirlik American air base (Alex Bakalian, et al v.
Central Bank the Rep of Turkey, et al). I have been trying to follow
the Bakalian case, in which a California district court decided
that the defendants had been lawfully served and has required the
defendants to respond to the Armenian complaints last month. So,
we have now a very concrete case against Turkey. American laws
(Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act) allow plaintiffs to sue sovereign
nations in US courts. In the latest edition of the Agos weekly, I
saw an interview with Bakalian's lawyer, Mr. Vartkes Yeghiayan, and
I contacted Agos to get the lawyer's original commentary in English.
Agos correspondent Ms. Beril Eski kindly agreed and sent me the
original of the interview. It is a little long, so here is a cut
version. Let's read Mr. Yeghiayan's comments about the İncirlik case.
"Beginning in 1915, the government of the Ottoman Turkish Empire began
ordering the collection of real and personal property and deportation
of Turkish Armenians. A series of discriminatory regulations,
directives, and decrees issued by the Ottoman Turkish Empire between
1915 and 1923, collectively known as the Emvali Metruke, sought to
provide legal cover for the unlawful expropriation of the property
and assets of Turkish Armenians, including that of our plaintiffs. ...
"In response to the outrage expressed by the international community
over the large-scale deportations, murders and expropriation of
property from Turkish Armenians by the Ottoman Turkish government,
government telegrams posted in 1916 demonstrate that proceeds from
the sale of properties left behind by deportees were deposited with
Defendant T.C. Ziraat Bankası ...upon information and belief held in
trust and for safekeeping on behalf of the rightful Armenian owners
in accordance with other Emvali Metruke. ...
"In 1923, Turkey became the successor state to the Ottoman Turkish
Empire. ...
"In 1928, new laws came into effect, transferring all 'abandoned' real
and personal property to the Turkish Treasury. Since its establishment
in 1856, the Imperial Ottoman Bank acted as the state Treasurer and was
responsible for collecting state revenues. Defendant Merkez Bankası
of the Republic of Turkey was established in its present format in
1931 as the successor to the Imperial Ottoman Bank. ...
"Since the establishment of the Republic of Turkey in 1923, the
plaintiffs' real property and assets in Adana that were not sold have
been continuously, wrongfully owned and controlled by the Turkish
government and used for commercial activities by Turkey and the
Turkish Merkez Bankası in conjunction with numerous private commercial
enterprises operating both in the United States and elsewhere. Income
earned from those properties, including rental income being paid by
the United States government to lease the plaintiffs' property, flows
continuously into the Merkez Bankası. Thus, Defendants Turkey and
the Merkez Bankası are profiting from and being unjustly enriched by
their possession of and/or use of proceeds from such stolen property
belonging to the plaintiffs. ...
"Our relations with the Turkish Foreign Affairs and that of the 'time
limitation' also known as the 'Statute of Limitation' are interlinked
in a sense that the Republic of Turkey does fall under the Foreign
Sovereign Immunities Act, however, due to illicit expropriation and use
of property for the purpose of making gain -- 'Commercial Enterprise,'
the Armenian Genocide -- 'Violation of International Humanitarian Law'
and lastly the 'Violation of the Lausanne Treaty' of which Turkey is
a signatory. ...
"When we win the case and should the Republic of Turkey or the banks
default on the judgment brought forth against them, we will move to
seize properties belonging to the aforementioned in equal value to
our claims."
When I got the interview I hoped to find answers to some legal
questions that crossed my mind, the most important off which was,
of course, about the statute of limitations. The dispute about time
limitations must be the vital part of this case and, I guess, it
will be hard to explain to the court why the statute of limitations
cannot be applicable in this case, which was brought almost 100 years
after the actual seizure of said property. I can gather some core
arguments from Mr. Yeghiayan's explanations on time limitations,
but they do not answer the many questions that may possibly be put
to any plaintiff who brings this kind of case under any legal system
in Europe, for example. Even if we accept that the plaintiffs had
the opportunity to start such a case for the first time when the
Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act came into force in the US, why did
they wait 35 years to do so? There are many legal questions that
can be asked in connection with the statute of limitations. Anyway,
I will continue to follow this case and share my comments with you.