MINISTERS’ DEPUTIES

Notes on the Agenda

CM/Notes/1348/H46-28

6 June 2019

1348th meeting, 4-6 June 2019 (DH) Human rights   H46-28 Cyprus v. Turkey Supervision of the execution of the European Court’s judgments Reference documents DH-DD(2019)277, DH-DD(2019)552, CM/Del/Dec(2018)1324/H46-20

 

Application	Case	Judgment of	Final on	Indicator for the classification
25781/94	CYPRUS v. TURKEY	10/05/2001 12/05/2014	Grand Chamber	Inter-state case

Case description

The case concerns 14 violations in relation to the situation in the northern part of Cyprus since the military intervention by Turkey in July and August 1974, concerning:

- Greek Cypriot missing persons and their relatives (violation of Articles 2, 3 and 5)

- homes and immovable property of displaced Greek Cypriots (violation of Article 8 and 13 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1)

- living conditions of Greek Cypriots in the Karpas region of the northern part of Cyprus (violation of Articles 3, 8, 9, 10 and 13 and Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No. 1)

- rights of Turkish Cypriots living in the northern part of Cyprus (violation of Article 6).

Status of execution

Preliminary remarks: The summary of the present status of execution concerns exclusively the issue of home and property rights of displaced Greek Cypriots and the payment of the just satisfaction awarded in the judgment of 12 May 2014.[1]

- Home and immovable property of displaced Greek Cypriots

a) Measures taken by the respondent State and

Following the judgment of 22 December 2005 in the Xenides-Arestis case, an Immovable Property Commission (IPC) was set up in the northern part of Cyprus under Law No. 67/2005 on the compensation, exchange or restitution of immovable property.

This Law enables Greek Cypriot owners to apply to the IPC for restitution, compensation and/or exchange, as well as for compensation for loss of use, in respect of immovable property located in the northern part of the island that was registered in their names on 20 July 1974 (or in the name of a person of whom they are the legal heirs). A claim for restitution is considered on the basis of criteria set out in Section 8 of the Law. If the property in question does not fall into the categories eligible for restitution, the IPC can make a proposal to exchange it for property belonging to Turkish Cypriots situated in the southern part of Cyprus or to receive financial compensation.[2] The IPC calculates the value of a property on the basis of the market value in 1974, increased each year with reference to the “market value index” of average increases and decreases in property prices in northern Cyprus.

It calculates compensation for loss of use as 5% of the value of the property per year. Non-pecuniary damage can be given for the loss of access to a home, taking into account personal and family links to the property in question. The decisions of the IPC can be appealed before the High Administrative Court.

On 30 April 2019, the number of cases brought before the IPC stood at 6,539. Of these, 1,194 had been concluded, the vast majority by means of friendly settlement. In seven cases the IPC ordered restitution and compensation; in four cases, restitution or partial restitution was agreed; in two cases, exchange of property and compensation were agreed; and in one case the applicant agreed to restitution on resolution of the Cyprus problem. In 976 cases, compensation was awarded (totalling 302,145,102 pounds sterling).[3]

In their memoranda presented to the Committee the Cypriot authorities expressed the view that, in order to comply with the main judgment, Turkey had inter alia to introduce measures to put an end to all transfers of immovable property belonging to displaced Greek Cypriots and ban all construction activities carried out in respect of such properties without the consent of the owners.

The Turkish authorities considered that Turkey had already taken the measures required for the execution of this part of the judgment with the setting-up of the IPC. They also referred to protective measures prohibiting the sale and improvement of property which restitution to its owners had been decided by the IPC, either “within a reasonable time” or “after the solution of the Cyprus problem”. Finally, they underlined that, from the moment the IPC is seized with an application, any action aimed at modifying the factual situation of the property will be deemed null and void and will have no bearing on the redress ordered by the IPC.  

b) Findings of the European Court in relation to the IPC

 

In its inadmissibility decision in Demopoulos and Others, delivered on 5 March 2010, the Grand Chamber found that Law No. 67/2005 “provides an accessible and effective framework of redress in respect of complaints about interference with the property owned by Greek Cypriots” (§ 127 of that decision).

In a subsequent inadmissibility decision in Meleagrou and Others v. Turkey, delivered on 2 April 2013, the Court found that the applicants had not made proper use of the IPC for the purposes of the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies before applying to the Court, since they had submitted only claims for restitution but not for exchange or compensation. 

In the judgment Cyprus v. Turkey (just satisfaction), delivered on 12 May 2014, § 63, the Court stated that Turkey had not yet complied with the conclusion of the main judgment, according to which there had been a violation of the property rights of displaced persons as they had been denied access to and control, use and enjoyment of their property as well as any compensation for the interference with their property rights. The Court said that “such compliance” with this conclusion “could not … be consistent with any possible permission, participation, acquiescence or otherwise complicity in any unlawful sale or exploitation of Greek Cypriot homes and property in the northern part of Cyprus” and that  “theCourt’s decision in the case of Demopoulos and Others to the effect that cases presented by individuals concerning violation of property complaints were to be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, cannot be considered, taken on its own, to dispose of the question of Turkey’s compliance with Part III of the operative provisions of the principal judgment in the inter-State case” (see § 63 of the judgment on just satisfaction of 12 May 2014).

In an inadmissibility decision delivered on 2 October 2017 in the Loizou case, the Court rejected claims related to the length of the proceedings before the IPC and the alleged delay in the payment of the compensation awarded by the IPC.

In the judgment Joannou v. Turkey of 12 December 2017, the Court found that the IPC did not act with coherence, diligence and appropriate expedition concerning the applicant’s compensation claim (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1). However, the Court also underlined that the possible difficulties arising in the processing of particular cases before the IPC did not call into doubt the findings in the Demopoulos and Others decision, according to which that remedy is accessible and capable of efficiently delivering redress (§§ 81-86, § 106).[4]

c) Last examinations by the Committee of Ministers[5]

At its 1302^nd meeting (December 2017) (DH), the Committee recalled the inadmissibility decision in Demopoulos and Others in which the European Court concluded that the law which set up the restitution, exchange and compensation mechanism provided for “an accessible and effective framework of redress in respect of complaints about interference with the property owned by Greek Cypriots”. The Committee recalled, however, that in the judgment on the just satisfaction of 12 May 2014 in the Cyprus v. Turkey case the European Court expressed the opinion that compliance with the conclusions of the main judgment “could not be … consistent with any possible permission, participation, acquiescence or otherwise complicity in any unlawful sale and exploitation of Greek Cypriot homes and property in the northern part of Cyprus”. In this respect, it noted the information conveyed by the Turkish authorities on the existing avenues within the framework of the above mechanism to address the issue of possible unlawful sale and exploitation of the properties in question.[6] It therefore invited the Turkish authorities to present additional information on the practical implementation of these avenues to allow it to assess their effectiveness, and if necessary the need for further measures.

At its 1324^th meeting (September 2018) (DH), the Committee deeply regretted the decision of Turkey not to participate in the discussions and called on Turkey to co‑operate with the Committee. The Committee regretted also that no information had been provided by the Turkish authorities in reply to its decision of December 2017 (DH) as regards the issue of the property rights of displaced persons and called upon them to provide the requested information in good time for the next examination of this issue.

On 15 May 2019 the Turkish authorities submitted a memorandum in response to the Committee’s last decision on these issues (DH-DD(2019)552), adopted in September 2018.

- Just satisfaction awarded by the Court in its judgment of 12 May 2014

In this judgment, the Grand Chamber held that Turkey was to pay the Government of Cyprus 30,000,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage suffered by the relatives of missing persons and 60,000,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage suffered by the enclaved Greek Cypriot residents of the Karpas peninsula. The Court indicated that these amounts should be distributed by the Government of Cyprus to the individual victims under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers within 18 months of the date of the payment or within any other period considered appropriate by the Committee of Ministers.

At each of its meetings since June 2015 the Committee has recalled that the obligation to pay the just satisfaction awarded by the Court is unconditional and called upon the Turkish authorities to pay the sums awarded in the judgment on just satisfaction of 12 May 2014.

Analysis by the Secretariat

- Home and property rights of displaced Greek Cypriots 

Due to the late submission of the memorandum of the Turkish authorities it was not possible to present an analysis of the information it contains.

- Payment of the just satisfaction awarded in the judgment of 12 May 2014

To date, no information has been submitted on the payment of the just satisfaction awarded in this case.

Financing assured: YES