There's a marvellous, timeless quality to the old harbour at Kyrenia, nestled between the steep hills and sea. Sitting sipping brandy sours on the quayside, in the shadow of one of the finest surviving Byzantine castles in the Mediterranean, one can taste history.
There's also the palpable sense, despite the bustle of tourists, slightly less manic than in the south of the island, of unfinished business in Cyprus. It's there in the pace of life, the repair of buildings, the attitudes of waiters, the uncertainty of the tenant life, of occupation.
Titina Loizidou knows all about it. She has land here, a family plot of olive and carob trees and an unfinished block of flats that she has not seen since the Turkish invasion of 1974. And on Wednesday in Strasbourg, her legal battle to reclaim her birthright took another significant step forward.
In truth, the Loizidou case may be the most significant yet heard and ruled on by the European Court of Human Rights. Its political implications are far-reaching, and a failure to implement its findings would substantially undermine the court at a time when its crucial remit is extending to the new democracies of eastern Europe.
In 1996, it ruled in Ms Loizidou's favour that the Turkish government should compensate her to the tune of close on £400,000 (as well as £25,000 damages), for loss of access to her property.
Significantly, the decision distinguished between Ms Loizidou's compensation, or "just satisfaction", and her continued enjoyment of her rights, in effect her access to her property.
In respect of the latter the court accepted that she would not be able to return to her land except in the context of a political settlement of the Cyprus question, a major component of which will be resolution of myriad land disputes in both parts of the island.
But the Turkish authorities have refused to pay up, breaking the October 1989 deadline to do so, the first time a member of the Council of Europe has openly defied the court since Greece did so 30 years ago under military rule. The price the latter paid was suspension from the council.
Turkey faces a real dilemma. Agreement to pay Ms Loizidou, it believes, would unleash a flood of up to 200,000 similar demands, potentially costing billions, while refusal could ultimately lead, some way down the road, to suspension from the Council of Europe.
That prospect is seriously worrying to Ankara, not just because of the international opprobrium it would bring, but also because good standing with the council is a precondition to membership of the EU. And Turkey is hoping that December's Helsinki summit will bring an offer of accession candidate status.
Ironically on Wednesday, just as the EU Commissioner for Enlargement, Mr Gunther Verheugen, was telling MEPs in Strasbourg he hoped this will happen, only yards away in the Council of Europe headquarters ambassadors were putting the finishing touches to a draft resolution "deploring the fact that Turkey has not yet complied with the judgment" and reminding the Turkish authorities of their obligations.
The resolution rejected the Turkish argument that it could only pay "just satisfaction" in the context of a global settlement of the Cyprus question.
The ball is now out of the hands of the court and in those of the Council of Ministers charged with ensuring implementation of judicial decisions. From November 1st, Ireland takes over the six-month presidency of the council, with this hot potato. Ireland's ambassador, Mr Justin Harman, has already been in bilateral contact with the Turkish authorities about it. They must respond formally to the resolution next month.
Mr Harman still sees some hope for agreement both in the fact that the Turks have not ruled out compliance and in the distinction between "just satisfaction" and the question of "general measures" to find a final settlement of the property issues in Cyprus. But he notes that Turkey, for its own reasons, has decided to link the two.
Yet, in the Norris case, for example, it was some time before the Irish Government enacted legislation decriminalising homosexual behaviour, although Mr David Norris received compensation reasonably promptly.
What is non-negotiable, Council of Europe sources say, is the idea that Ms Loizidou's personal complaint could be put on hold for political reasons. To do so would fundamentally dilute the capacity of the court and the principle of the rule of law.
As for Ms Loizidou, the struggle she started in 1989 goes on. "All I want to do is go back to my property and use it peacefully," she said recently. "I want to build a home there. It was the intention of my grandfather that we should all have houses on that land. And I would go back if I was allowed, even though I know it would not be the same."
