Even though the intention of the comprehensive solution is uttered by the parties, the talks in the Cyprus conflict came to an end. After the Greek Cypriot side said no in the referendum of Annan, there is no improvements regarding the isolation due to the Greek Cypriot’s concerns about the glorification of the North politically, despite the financial aid and direct trade regulations being brought up in the EU agenda. One of the crucial dimensions of the Cyprus conflict is an ownership issue. While the Turkish Cypriots advocate an end to the ownership issue in the comprehensive solution, the Greek Cypriot administration seeks to obtain gains in regard to lands in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). In this respect, the court cases in the ECHR gain ground. In the Loizidu case, the breach of ownership right was concluded, and the matter gained a different dimension in the Xenides-Arestis’ case. The estimation of the Greek Cypriot administration was ruined by the fact that the Arrangement Committee established in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyrus (TRNC) was taken into consideration by ECHR as the domestic judiciary means and that committee might be accepted as application authority for the Greek Cypriots in case the committee fulfills some conditions. It seems that Papadopulos’ plan to gain lands via judicial means came to a halt. On the other hand, there is properties belong to Turks in the South. The Politis daily on December 30,2005 published an article entitled “Bomb in the Foundations of Ownership Issue” pointing out the developments regarding judicial procedure that Celil Gülan, Sevdiye Tete and Yasemin Mehmet’in fallowed for their properties in the South and the comments on the issue. The article is as fallows: “The judicial procedure developed against the Justice of Cyprus put a bomb in the foundations of the ownership issue. In the said lawsuit, the Turks demand that the properties in the Tilliria region, which were illegally transferred to Greek Cypriots, be given back to the legitimate owners. No doubt that the frailty of justice in demanding the property be given to the legitimate owners will bring about great political issues. We talk about the illegal transfer of Turkish Cypriot’s properties, which were discovered by the Politis daily on October 2001 and concerns the government, the attorney general’s office, the security forces and naturally the public. In the court the lawsuit regarding three different pieces of land belonging to Celil Gülan, Sevdiye Tete and Yasemin Mehmet in the Pirgos-Ayos Theodoros region continues. The interesting point in the lawsuit is that the investment firm, White Knights, bought a part of these three lands from “the new owners” with 972 Cyprus Lira. In the view of the prosecutor, no doubt that the transfers are illegal. At this point the problem appears to be that the court reaches a decision to give the lands back to the legitimate owners. The reason is that the purchaser, in this case, the White Knights firm, gained the deed from the land registry with “good intention.” The prosecutor in the lawsuit, Savas Matsas, said in a statement “According to the law, the purchaser with good intention and a price that would not cause in any doubt about a fraud. In this case it is difficult to decide on extradition of the land.” Matsas stated that in this case the said company had bought the land with 30% over the real value of the land. He further said that the purchaser does not need to know the history of the land. So in this frame, the required solution will be that compensation to be paid to the legitimate Turkish Cyprus owners. According to the provided information, the Turkish Cypriot owners refuse the compensation and demand the extradition of the lands. They plan to apply to the European Court of Human Rights if the Republic of Cyrus does not grant their rights. In the case regarding the corruption in the land registry, the police called 75 witnesses, later extended to 150 witnesses. Three thousand evidences will be submitted to the court. It was said that a Greek Cypriot demanded to make a declaration to refute the claims that the transfer was made on the basis of usufruct law.