Ministers’ Deputies
Notes on the Agenda
CM/Notes/856/H54-1 (restricted) 14 October 2003
———————————————
856 Meeting, 15 October 2003
4 Human Rights
H54-1 Loizidou against Turkey – judgments of 18/12/96 (merits) and 28/07/98 (just satisfaction)
Interim Resolutions DH(99)680, DH(2000)105 and ResDH(2001)80
Reference documents
CM/Del/OJ/OT(2003)854/H54-790 (pages 109 to 111)
———————————————
|
Action To resume consideration of this case. |
At the present stage of the examination of the case the Deputies have decided to concentrate on the question of payment of the just satisfaction awarded in the last-mentioned judgment on account of the violation of the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of certain properties located in the Northern part of Cyprus (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1). The Court specified that payment was to take place within 3 months, i.e. before 28/10/1998.
As no payment took place, the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers wrote on two occasions to the Turkish Minister of Foreign Affairs expressing the Committee’s expectation that Turkey would honour its obligations. The Committee also adopted 3 interim resolutions[1], the last on 26 June 2001. In this last resolution the Committee notably declared what follows:
“Very deeply deploring the fact that, to date, Turkey has still not complied with its obligations under this judgment;
Stressing that every member State of the Council of Europe must accept the principles of the rule of law and of the enjoyment by all persons within its jurisdiction of human rights and fundamental freedoms;
Stressing that acceptance of the Convention, including the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court and the binding nature of its judgments, has become a requirement for membership of the organisation;
Stressing that the Convention is a system for the collective enforcement of the rights protected therein,
Declares the Committee’s resolve to ensure, with all means available to the organization, Turkey’s compliance with its obligations under this judgment,
Calls upon the authorities of the member States to take such action as they deem appropriate to this end.”
Following the initiatives and discussions which came in the wake of the adoption of this resolution, the Representative of Turkey could indicate on 19 June 2003, at the 844th meeting (regular) that his authorities had “initiated the measures necessary to enable the Committee to take note of payment of the just satisfaction award and approve a draft final resolution at the DH meeting on 7 and 8 October 2003 [854].”
The Parliamentary Assembly was informed of this “unambiguous” declaration in the context of the replies given by the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers to written question n° 427 and to the questions put at the Assembly’s June and September sessions 2003.
However at the 854th meeting (DH) the necessary measures had not been taken by the Turkish authorities and the Deputies could not conclude that the payment of the sums due to the applicant in this case had taken place.
The Deputies accordingly decided to resume consideration of the case at the present meeting. In accordance with the undertaking given by the Chair, the Secretariat has prepared a new draft interim resolution, sent to all delegations on 9 October 2003 (see Appendix I to the present document).
|
Financing assured: YES |
Appendix I
DRAFT
COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS
Interim Resolution ResDH(2003)…
concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
of 28 July 1998
in the case of Loizidou against Turkey
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on .. …….. 2003
at the …th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)
The Committee of Ministers, having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (“the Court”) of 28 July 1998 in the case of Loizidou against Turkey and transmitted the same date to the Committee for supervision of execution in accordance with Article 46 § 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“the Convention”);
Recalling that, in that judgment, the Court held that Turkey was to pay to the applicant as just satisfaction specific sums for damages and for costs and expenses;
Recalling its three earlier Interim Resolutions and the fact that on 19 June 2003, before the Committee of Ministers, the Turkish authorities declared unambiguously that they had initiated the measures necessary to enable the Committee to take note of payment of the just satisfaction award and approve a draft final resolution at the DH meeting on 7 and 8 October 2003;
Recalling that it was clear that this payment had to intervene before the examination of the draft final resolution;
Very deeply deploring the fact that Turkey did not honour its undertaking and has thus still not complied with its obligation under Article 46 of the Convention to abide by this judgment,
Stressing anew that the obligation to comply with the Court’s judgments is unconditional;
Strongly urges Turkey to reconsider its position and to pay without any conditions whatsoever the just satisfaction awarded to the applicant by the Court, within one week, i.e. 22 October at the latest,
Declares the Committee’s resolve to take all adequate measures against Turkey if Turkey fails once more to pay the just satisfaction awarded by the Court to the applicant.
Appendix II
COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS
________
INTERIM resolution DH (99) 680
CONCERNING THE JUDGMENT OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
OF 28 JULY 1998
IN THE CASE OF LOIZIDOU AGAINST TURKEY
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 October 1999
at the 682nd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)
The Committee of Ministers,
Having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 28 July 1998 which ordered Turkey to pay to the applicant before 28 October 1998 specific sums for damages suffered and for costs and expenses ;
Considering that this judgment has been transmitted to the Committee of Ministers for supervision of its execution in accordance with Article 54 of the Convention;
Having regard to the fact that Turkey’s compliance with this judgment has been examined by the Committee of Ministers’ Deputies in subsequent meetings since September 1998;
Considering that the Government of Turkey has indicated that the sums awarded by the European Court could only be paid to the applicant in the context of a global settlement of all property cases in Cyprus and concluding that the conditions of payment envisaged by the Government of Turkey cannot be considered to be in conformity with the obligations flowing from the Court’s judgment ;
Deploring the fact that Turkey has not yet complied with the judgment by paying to the applicant the sums awarded by the Court,
Stressing the obligation undertaken by all contracting States to abide by the judgments of the Court, in accordance with Article 53 of the European Convention on Human Rights;
Strongly urges Turkey to review its position and to pay the just satisfaction awarded in this case in accordance with the conditions set out by the European Court of Human Rights so as to ensure that Turkey, as a High Contracting Party, meets its obligations under the Convention.
Appendix III
COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS
Interim Resolution DH (2000) 105
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 24 July 2000
at the 716th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)
The Committee of Ministers, acting under the terms of Article 54 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),
Deeply deploring the fact that, to date, Turkey has still not complied with its obligations under the judgment delivered by the European Court of Human Rights on 28 July 1998 in the case of Loizidou against Turkey;
Recalling its Interim Resolution DH (99) 680 of 6 October 1999, in which, inter alia, the Committee of Ministers strongly urged Turkey to pay the just satisfaction awarded in this case so as to ensure that Turkey, as a High Contracting Party, meets its obligations under the Convention;
Recalling that, subsequently, the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers wrote to his Turkish counterpart recalling that, as for all Contracting Parties, Turkey’s obligation to abide by judgments of the Court is unconditional;
Stressing that Turkey has had ample time to fulfil in good faith in the present case its obligations,
Emphasises that the failure on the part of a High Contracting Party to comply with a judgment of the Court is unprecedented;
Declares that the refusal of Turkey to execute the judgment of the Court demonstrates a manifest disregard for its international obligations, both as a High Contracting Party to the Convention and as a member State of the Council of Europe;
In view of the gravity of the matter, strongly insists that Turkey comply fully and without any further delay with the European Court of Human Rights’ judgment of 28 July 1998.
Appendix IV
COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS
Interim Resolution ResDH(2001)80
concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
of 28 July 1998
in the case of Loizidou against Turkey
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 26 June 2001
at the 757th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)
The Committee of Ministers, acting under the terms of former Article 54 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention” below),
Having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (“the Court” below) of 28 July 1998 which ordered Turkey to pay to the applicant before 28 October 1998 specific sums for damages and for costs and expenses;
Recalling its Interim Resolution DH (2000) 105, in which it declared that the refusal of Turkey to execute the judgment of the Court demonstrated a manifest disregard for Turkey’s international obligations, both as a High Contracting Party to the Convention and as a member State of the Council of Europe, and strongly insisted that, in view of the gravity of the matter, Turkey comply fully and without any further delay with this judgment;
Very deeply deploring the fact that, to date, Turkey has still not complied with its obligations under this judgment;
Stressing that every member State of the Council of Europe must accept the principles of the rule of law and of the enjoyment by all persons within its jurisdiction of human rights and fundamental freedoms;
Stressing that acceptance of the Convention, including the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court and the binding nature of its judgments, has become a requirement for membership of the Organisation;
Stressing that the Convention is a system for the collective enforcement of the rights protected therein,
Declares the Committee’s resolve to ensure, with all means available to the Organisation, Turkey’s compliance with its obligations under this judgment,
Calls upon the authorities of the member States to take such action as they deem appropriate to this end.