MINISTERS’ DEPUTIES

Notes on the Agenda

CM/Notes/1545/H46-39

4 December 2025

1545th meeting, 2-4 December 2025 (DH) Human rights   H46-39 Cyprus v. Turkey (Application No. 25781/94) Supervision of the execution of the European Court’s judgments Reference documents DH-DD(2025)1141, DH-DD(2025)1142, DH-DD(2025)1250, DH-DD(2025)345, DH-DD(2025)465, DH-DD(2025)346, H/Exec(2014)8; CM/Del/Dec(2024)1507/H46-34

 

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 Türkiye in July and August 1974.

The Committee has decided to examine at the present meeting the measures relating to the rights of displaced Greek Cypriots in relation to their homes and property situated in the northern part of Cyprus they had had to abandon in 1974 and the question of the payment of the just satisfaction awarded in the Court’s judgment of 12 May 2014.^[1]

It is recalled that the Court in the Cyprus v. Turkey judgment found that the continuing and total denial of access to their property, by reason of the restrictions placed by the “TRNC” authorities on their physical access to that property, was “a clear interference with the right of the displaced Greek Cypriots to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions within the meaning of the first sentence of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1”.

The Court further noted that, “as regards the purported expropriation, no compensation has been paid to the displaced persons in respect of the interferences which they have suffered and continue to suffer in respect of their property rights” (§§ 187-189) (continuing violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1). It also found that there had been “a continuing violation of Article 8 of the Convention by reason of the refusal to allow the return of any Greek-Cypriot displaced persons to their homes in Northern Cyprus”. Finally, it found a violation of Article 13 of the Convention due to the absence of a remedy for displaced Greek Cypriots to contest interferences with their rights under Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (violation of Article 13).

Status of execution

1) Homes and immovable property of displaced Greek Cypriots

a)     Measures adopted in 2003 and the Court’s findings in the Xenides-Arestis case

In 2003, the Turkish authorities adopted a “Law on Compensation for Immovable Properties Located within the Boundaries of the “TRNC”” and set up an Immovable Property Commission. Since questions concerning this law were pending before the Court in the context of new cases, in December 2003 the Committee decided to await the Court’s assessment before pursuing its own examination.^[2]

The Court duly examined this remedy in the Xenides-Arestis v. Turkey admissibility decision of
14 March 2005 and concluded that, as it then stood, deficiencies in the framework, including the lack of any possibility for restitution, meant that it “cannot fully redress the negation of the applicant's property rights”. Following this decision, the Court adopted a pilot judgment in the same case on 22 December 2005, where it indicated under Article 46 that the violation of the applicant’s rights originated “in a widespread problem affecting large numbers of people, namely the unjustified hindrance of her “respect for her home” and “peaceful enjoyment of her possessions” as a matter of “TRNC” policy or practice (see Cyprus v. Turkey, cited above, §§ 174 and 185)” (§ 38). The Court indicated that the respondent State should introduce a remedy which would secure effective redress for the Convention violations identified in all similar applications pending before it, in line with the indications in its admissibility decision of 14 March 2005 (§ 40).

b)     Immovable Property Commission (IPC) set up in 2005

Following the above Xenides-Arestis pilot judgment, Law No. 67/2005 on the Compensation, Exchange or Restitution of Immovable Property (“the IPC Law”) was adopted, setting up a modified Immovable Property Commission (IPC).

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 according to criteria set out in Section 8 of the Law. If the property in question falls into one of the categories making it ineligible for restitution, the IPC can make a proposal to exchange it for property situated in the southern part of Cyprus belonging to Turkish Cypriots or to receive financial compensation.^[3] 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 damages can be awarded for the loss of access to a home, taking into account personal and family links. The decisions of the IPC can be appealed before the High Administrative Court.

c)     The Committee’s examination while awaiting the Court’s assessment of the IPC Law

In 2006, the Cypriot authorities expressed concern that the property of displaced persons was being affected either by property transfers or construction activities and asked the Committee to call for a moratorium on such transfers and construction activities. The Committee did not request a moratorium, but instead asked for information about the current situation of the properties of displaced persons, to ensure that, awaiting the evaluation by the Court of the new restitution, exchange and compensation mechanism in the context of the Xenides-Arestis case and follow up cases, the possibilities of restitution offered by this mechanism are guaranteed.^[4]

In decisions adopted between June 2006 and March 2010, the Committee asked the Turkish authorities to provide detailed and concrete information about transfers of and changes to Greek Cypriot property, while also underlining that it did not wish to pre-empt or influence in any way the assessment of the mechanism by the Court.^[5]

d)     Findings of the Court in relation to the IPC Law: the Demopoulos inadmissibility decision

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). With regard to the provisions limiting the availability of restitution, the Court held that “from a Convention perspective, property is a material commodity which can be valued and compensated for in monetary terms. If compensation is paid in accordance with the Court’s case-law, there is in general no unfair balance between the parties” (§115).

The Court stated that, taking into account the passage of time, the need to respect the rights of third parties, and the principle that the choice of implementation of redress for breaches of property rights was for the respondent State, “no problem therefore arises as regards the impugned discretionary nature of the restitutionary power under Law No. 67/2005” (§§ 84, 116-119).

e)     The Committee’s examination following the Demopoulos decision

Based on the Court’s assessment in the Demopoulos inadmissibility decision, the Secretariat in 2010 proposed to the Committee to close its examination of the part of the Cyprus v. Turkey judgment concerning the home and property rights of Greek Cypriot displaced persons.^[6] The positions expressed by delegations on this question at the June 2010 meeting are presented in the Records of that meeting.^[7] Summing up the debate, the Chairman noted that a large number of delegations, several of which declared that they supported the position of the Secretariat, wished nonetheless to have more time to consider in greater depth the questions raised during the discussions.

The Committed examined further this issue at its September 2010 meeting, when it decided to resume consideration of the Cyprus v. Turkey case “at one of their forthcoming meetings”.

f)      Cyprus v. Turkey (just satisfaction) judgment of 12 May 2014

In November 2011, Cyprus submitted to the Court an application for just satisfaction in the inter-state case, also requesting the Court to adopt a “declaratory judgment” stating “(i) that Turkey is required by Article 46 to abide by the judgment in Cyprus ν. Turkey by abstaining from permitting, participating or acquiescing or being otherwise complicit in, the unlawful sale and exploitation of Greek Cypriot homes and property in the northern part of Cyprus; and (ii) that this obligation arising under Article 46 is not discharged by the Court’s admissibility decision in Demopoulos and Others” (see § 61 of the just satisfaction judgment).

The Court responded by observing that Türkiye was bound by Article 46 of the Convention to comply with the principal judgment. It reaffirmed the general principle that the respondent State remains free to choose the means by which it will discharge its legal obligation under the above-mentioned provision, and that the supervision of the execution of the Court’s judgments is the responsibility of the Committee of Ministers.

Nonetheless, the Court continued (§ 63) that compliance by Türkiye with the Court’s findings in the judgment on the merits “could not, in the Court’s opinion, be consistent with any possible permission, participation, acquiescence or other form of complicity in any unlawful sale or exploitation of Greek-Cypriot homes and property in the northern part of Cyprus. Furthermore, the Court’s decision in the case of Demopoulos and Others, cited above, 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”.

g)     Further decisions and judgments of the Court concerning the IPC remedy

In a subsequent inadmissibility decision in Meleagrou and Others v. Turkey, delivered on 2 April 2013, concerning a complaint by displaced Greek Cypriots about the refusal of the IPC to grant them restitution of their plots of land in northern Cyprus, the Court found that, although the applicants had submitted claims for restitution to the IPC, they had not made claims either for exchange of land in the south of Cyprus or for pecuniary compensation, which would also have permitted the award of damages for loss of use or
non-pecuniary compensation if restitution was not afforded.

That failure meant the applicants had not made proper use of the IPC remedy. The Court rejected as manifestly ill-founded claims related to the lack of independence of the IPC and the length of the proceedings before it.

In an inadmissibility decision delivered on 2 October 2017 in the Loizou case, the Court rejected as manifestly ill-founded 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 examined a complaint about the length of time taken by the IPC to determine the applicant’s claim for compensation for property originally belonging to her aunt. The Court had regard to statistics from November 2017 showing that a total of 6,369 applications had so far been lodged with the IPC, of which 1,035 had been finalised, mainly with awards of compensation (§§ 46-47). It recalled its findings in Demopoulos and Others (§ 76) and further held that nothing in the applicant’s arguments and submissions “could, in itself, at present call into question the effectiveness of the IPC remedy as such” (§ 81). It continued: “the IPC mechanism and the redress provided by that mechanism are dependent on the relevant domestic arrangements and mandatory budgetary inclusions … that were found to be adequately established in the Demopoulos and Others judgment. … At present, there is no conclusive evidence allowing the Court to call the adequacy of such arrangements into question” (§ 82). Nonetheless, in the applicant’s individual case the Court found that the IPC did not act with coherence, diligence and appropriate expedition concerning the applicant’s compensation claim (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1). Despite that conclusion, the Court did not award just satisfaction to the applicant for the value of her property, as it considered that “the further course of the proceedings before the IPC, conducted in compliance with the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, should allow the applicant to obtain compensation for her property claim”.^[8]

In the judgment K.V. Mediterranean Tours Ltd. V. Türkiye of 10 June 2025 (final on 10 September), the Court examined complaints concerning the alleged ineffectiveness of the proceedings before the IPC, based mainly on two arguments: first, the alleged lack of an opportunity to recover property located in the fenced-up area of Famagusta on account of the claims of a third party; and secondly, the alleged excessive length of the proceedings before the IPC.^[9] The Court recalled its previous findings concerning the IPC remedy and indicated that it would address the manner in which the IPC operated in the applicant company’s particular case, “without calling into question the effectiveness of the IPC remedy as such” (§ 60). Concerning the complaint about the impossibility for restitution, the Court indicated that it could not speculate on the outcome of the proceedings before the IPC and that, in any event, as it had previously found in the cases of Demopoulos and Others and Meleagrou and Others, restitution does not have to be afforded in every case, since exchange of land and the payment of compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage are also effective remedies (§§ 64-65). As regards the length of the proceedings, the Court found that in the present case, the IPC had not acted with coherence, diligence and appropriate expedition in examining the applicant company’s claim (§ 70). It held that a significant delay occurred in the initial stage of the proceedings due to the Attorney General’s failure to submit a reply to the applicant company’s claim between 2010 and 2019 (even if this delay was caused to some extent by the need to await the result of parallel proceedings) (§§ 66-68). It also remained unpersuaded about the purported availability of effective remedies for excessive length of proceedings before the IPC, noting that the respondent State had failed to furnish any concrete examples of cases in which complainants had successfully obtained compensation before the High Administrative Court (§ 69). It concluded therefore that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The applicant company also complained about the participation of a Religious Foundation in the proceedings and the alleged lack of impartiality of the High Administrative Court, but these grievances were rejected by the Court.

Under Article 46, the Court took note of recent statistical data relating to the functioning of the IPC and, although the number of finalised cases (1,869) remained much lower than the number of pending applications (7,800), “note[d] the progress achieved in settling the property claims”. The Court “noted also the efforts made by the Turkish authorities aimed at bringing the IPC proceedings into compliance with the Convention requirements, and also the statistics demonstrating progress in dealing with Greek Cypriots’ property claims”.

It added that “nevertheless, the current case clearly shows that consistent and long-term efforts must continue in order to achieve compliance with the Convention requirements, in particular, as regards acceleration of proceedings (especially the provision of a reply to property claims before the IPC by the relevant “TRNC” authorities) and the creation of a remedy which secures genuinely effective redress in respect of delays in the proceedings before the IPC” (§104). 

h)     Examinations by the Committee of Ministers^[10]

• December 2014 – September 2021

The Committee resumed its examination of this part of the inter-state case in December 2014. To assist it, the Secretariat prepared a document taking stock of the Committee’s supervision so far and analysing the impact of the above judgment of 12 May 2014. The Secretariat indicated that in order to determine the additional measures that Türkiye should adopt, it would be necessary to identify clearly what was covered by the term “unlawful sale or exploitation” in § 63 (quoted above).^[11] The Secretariat presented two possible, alternative readings of this phrase. The first possible reading was that “unlawful sale or exploitation” referred to a sale or exploitation of property in breach of the 2005 Law, in other words, a transaction concerning property which had been found by the IPC to be restituable, either immediately or potentially. The alternative possible reading suggested by the Secretariat was to understand the term as referring to any sale or exploitation without the consent of the Greek Cypriot owners. The Secretariat pointed out, however, that this would appear inconsistent with the findings of the Grand Chamber in its inadmissibility decision Demopoulos and Others of 1 March 2010 and of the Chamber in the Meleagrou and Others decision of 2 April 2013 (see above).

The Secretariat further suggested that if the Committee preferred the first reading, it could ask the Turkish authorities to take measures to guarantee that properties suitable for restitution under the 2005 Law were not subject to sale and exploitation without the consent of their Greek Cypriot owners. The analysis continued that “if the Committee concludes that it is not possible to take a decision [as to which reading was correct or identify other interpretations], then the question of a request for interpretation under Article 46 § 3 of the Convention could arise.” 

In its first decision on the substance adopted after the 2014 just satisfaction judgment, in December 2017, the Committee recalled the Court’s findings in the Demopoulos and Meleagrou inadmissibility decisions, as well as in the Cyprus v. Turkey just satisfaction judgment.

It also “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 and invited them to present additional information on their practical implementation to allow the Committee to assess the effectiveness of these avenues, and if necessary, the need for further measures”.

In its decisions adopted in September 2021, the Committee noted the information provided by the Turkish authorities on the existing avenues within the framework of the IPC mechanism to address the issue of possible unlawful sale and exploitation of the properties in question. In particular, it noted the information on the implementation of the provision according to which, following a decision by the IPC providing for immediate restitution of such properties or for their restitution after the solution of the Cypriot problem, they cannot be sold or developed without the consent of their Greek Cypriot owners. The Committee in addition recalled that, in accordance with the relevant provisions, while an application for the restitution of property is pending before the IPC, any increase in its value following the date of the application is not taken into consideration when the IPC decides whether restitution is possible (it is not possible if the property has doubled its value).

The Committee invited the Turkish authorities: 1) to clarify whether the calculation of increases in property value, when deciding whether restitution is possible, includes only increases due to development or also increases due to inflation; 2) to provide information on the regulation and application in practice of other avenues to prevent any changes to a property which is the subject of a pending claim for restitution before the IPC; and 3) to submit statistical data on the functioning of the IPC, and in particular, on the number of cases pending, the length of time they have been pending, the number of awards of compensation made and the total amount and the number of awards that have been paid in full so far, as well as the funds and staff at its disposal.

• September 2022 - June 2025

The Committee has not adopted a decision on the substance regarding this part of the inter-state case since September 2021.

In an action report submitted by the Turkish authorities for the Committee’s examination in September 2022 (see DH-DD(2022)683), they underlined that most of the claims to the IPC are for compensation and that in only 3.5% of the applications do the applicants request restitution only. They indicated that in 12 out of the 56 such applications concluded at that time, the IPC granted restitution, and that in the 42 others the applicants either withdrew their applications or chose another form of redress. They provided information on the progress of the remaining 196 restitution claims. As regards the prevention of changes to the property while claims are pending, they indicated that, according to the IPC Rules, the Ministry of Interior, which is a respondent party in the proceedings before the IPC and also competent to oversee transactions and developments of the relevant properties, is notified of each application to the IPC within 21 days. There had never been an appeal to the High Administrative Court to challenge an IPC decision on the ground that restitution was rejected due to changes to the property which occurred while the application was pending before the IPC.

In addition, it appeared that the IPC has powers to make interim orders to prohibit development, although there had only been two cases where the applicants initially asked for an interim order when their restitution applications were pending, but in both the applicants switched their claims from restitution to compensation and so did not require the interim orders to be made. Statistical data on the functioning of the IPC was also provided, as well as information on the resources available to it. In any event, the Turkish authorities pointed out that the European Court had already assessed the situation as regards the resources available to the IPC and the number of pending applications, in the context of the Joannou v. Turkey judgment (§§ 82-86).

In their submission for the September 2022 meeting (DH-DD(2022)875), the Cypriot authorities recalled that, according to their interpretation of § 63 of the judgment on the just satisfaction, in order to comply with the main judgment, Türkiye has 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. As to the functioning of the IPC, the Cypriot authorities considered that the data provided by the Turkish authorities demonstrated the ineffectiveness of this mechanism.

The Secretariat’s analysis for the September 2022 examination was that the information submitted by the Turkish authorities provided the clarification requested by the Committee. The Secretariat underlined that the Court had made detailed and positive assessments of the effectiveness of the IPC, notably in the Demopoulos and Meleagrou decisions and the Joannou judgment. Furthermore, in the latter judgment, adopted in 2017, the Court had made no reference to its above statement in § 63 of the Cyprus v. Turkey just satisfaction judgment, but instead reaffirmed its conclusions in the Demopoulos decision about the effectiveness of the IPC remedy, taking into account also its current workload and resources. In the light of this case-law, the Committee’s 2017 and 2021 decisions and the information submitted in response by the Turkish authorities, the Secretariat concluded that the Deputies could consider closing their supervision of the issue of the home and property rights of Greek Cypriots.

For the Committee’s examination in September 2023, the Turkish authorities invited again the Committee to close the part of the Cyprus v. Turkey judgment concerning the issue of property rights of the displaced persons. They indicated that the specific information requested by the Committee had been provided and that the IPC had been continuing to operate effectively and to deliver concrete results for the Greek Cypriot property claims.

The Cypriot authorities asked the Committee either to call on Türkiye to desist from encouraging and facilitating the unlawful use and exploitation of Greek Cypriot homes and properties in the northern part of Cyprus in line with the Court’s statements in § 63 or, in case of doubt that this was the correct interpretation and conclusion to draw from that paragraph, consider making a request to the Court for interpretation of it under Article 46 § 3 of the Convention.

In their submission for the September 2024 meeting (DH-DD(2024)736), the Turkish authorities underlined that the Committee has already adopted “the only justified interpretation proposed by the Secretariat on the meaning of ‘unlawful sale and exploitation’ mentioned in paragraph 63 of the 2014 just satisfaction judgment” when it adopted decisions in 2017 and 2021 asking questions and requesting information. They consider that a reference to the Court for interpretation under Article 46 § 3 of the Convention would run counter to the decisions of Committee.

The Cypriot authorities submitted “an Independent Expert Opinion” commissioned by Cyprus from Mr Robert Spano, former Judge and President of the European Court, which concludes that there are strong grounds militating in favour of triggering the procedure under Article 46 § 3 of the Convention (see
DH-DD(2024)949). They referred to 30 additional developments of Greek Cypriot property in the northern part of Cyprus since September 2023, and reiterated their claims about the ineffectiveness of the IPC with regard to the backlog of claims awaiting decision and payment.

In their submission of 20 March 2025 (DH-DD(2025)345, DH-DD(2025)346), the Turkish authorities provided updated information on the functioning of the IPC and concluded that no issue arises concerning the interpretation of the 2001 Cyprus v. Turkey judgment, given that the European Court has repeatedly pronounced itself on the measures necessary to redress the violations found in this judgment.^[12]

In their submission of 15 April 2025 (DH-DD(2025)465), the Cypriot authorities requested the Committee to instruct the Secretariat to prepare a draft interim resolution for the referral, under Article 46 § 3 of the Convention and reiterated their position about the ineffectiveness of the IPC remedy.

i)      Latest submissions by Türkiye (DH-DD(2025)1141, DH-DD(2025)1142)

The Turkish authorities consider that in the recent judgment of K.V. Mediterranean Tours Ltd. v. Türkiye, the Court has sent a clear message to the Committee that the issue of the property rights of displaced Greek Cypriots is ready for closure.

They underline that the IPC was established to comply with the Court’s indications in the Xenides-Arestis pilot judgment, that a mechanism was needed to provide redress for the Convention violations identified in all similar property-related applications of Greek Cypriots. They indicate that in the K.V. Mediterranean Tours Ltd judgment the Court reiterated the findings made in previous cases concerning the effectiveness, independence and impartiality of the IPC and the redress it provides.^[13] A referral by the Committee for interpretation under Article 46 § 3 of the Convention aimed at confirming the interpretation of the Cyprus v. Turkey judgment advanced by the Cypriot authorities would, in the opinion of the Turkish authorities, be contrary to the Demopoulos Grand Chamber decision and the subsequent Court’s case-law.

Finally, they declare that they are committed to continuing their efforts consistently and in the long term to maintain the compliance of the IPC mechanism with the Convention requirements as outlined by the Court. They provide updated information on the progress in the examination of claims by the IPC and indicate that the Ministry of Interior and the Attorney General have accelerated the submission of their initial replies.^[14] They will submit an action plan for the execution of the K.V. Mediterranean Tours Ltd case in due course, concerning the availability of an effective remedy for delays in the proceedings before the IPC, as they did for the Joannou judgment, whose supervision was successfully closed.

In conclusion, the Turkish authorities consider that the judgment of Cyprus v. Turkey judgment of 2001 is very clear, given that the European Court has repeatedly pronounced itself on the measures necessary to redress the violations found in this judgment, most recently in the K.V. Mediterranean Tours Ltd judgment.

j)      Latest submissions by Cyprus (DH-DD(2025)1250)

The Cypriot authorities indicate that the obligation to execute the Court’s judgments requires both the provision of an effective remedy and the cessation of any ongoing violations. They consider that the recent K.V. Mediterranean Tours Ltd judgment concerns only the first aspect, namely the adequacy of the IPC remedy, while the “Turkification” of properties belonging to Greek Cypriots continues apace in the northern part of Cyprus, as evidenced by a number of additional statements and actions.[15]

Thus, as they have been underlining to the Committee for many years, the IPC mechanism is insufficient to end the continuing violations of the Convention found in the Cyprus v. Turkey judgment of 2001.

They insist that in § 63 of the Cyprus v. Turkey just satisfaction judgment of 2014, the Court clearly stated that the provision of adequate remedies, endorsed in Demopoulos, had not removed the obligation of the respondent State to cease the continuing disposal of the land and property of Greek Cypriots in the northern part of Cyprus.

The Cypriot authorities consider that it is highly appropriate time for the interpretation procedure under Article 46 § 3 to be invoked and that the purpose of such procedure would be to determine whether the inter-State judgments are concerned with nothing more that the adequacy of the IPC or whether, as Cyprus maintains, they additionally require an end to the unlawful sale and exploitation of all Greek Cypriot properties. They again ask the Committee to instruct the Secretariat to prepare a draft interim resolution for the referral of the question of interpretation to the Court. They indicate that Cyprus does not wish to be prescriptive as to the wording of the referral request, as long as the essential issue for decision, identified in their submission, is presented clearly to the Court.

As to the functioning of the IPC, the Cypriot authorities reiterate their position that available data, including statistics published after the K.V. Mediterranean Tours Ltd judgment, demonstrate the ineffectiveness of this mechanism. They refer to delays, lack of resources and application pending before the European Court, including concerning non-enforcement of IPC awards.^[16]

Finally, they raise the issue of absence of payment of the just satisfaction awarded in the judgment Cyprus v. Turkey of 2014.

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

The Court held that Türkiye 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 as a result of the violations found by the Court of Articles 3, 8, 9, 10 and 13 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 1. It 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 its 1521^st meeting (March 2025) (DH), the Committee deplored the absence of response to Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2021)201 and instructed the Secretariat, if the situation remains unchanged, to prepare draft interim resolution concerning the issue of payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court, for consideration at its next examination of the issue of the missing persons at the March 2026 DH meeting.^[17]

So far, no payment has been made nor has any indication been given that payment will be made.

Analysis by the Secretariat

In accordance with the Committee’s procedure in respect of inter-State cases, a draft decision will be prepared in the light of the debate.

1) Home and property rights of displaced Greek Cypriots 

The Secretariat’s analysis and conclusions are set out at length in thenotes for the Committee in September 2022 and September 2023^[18] and summarised in the “status of execution” (September 2022) above.

The recent K.V. Mediterranean Tours Ltd judgment does not fundamentally change the situation. Indeed the Court, while considering that consistent and long-term efforts must continue in order to ensure compliance with Convention requirements as regards acceleration of proceedings and the provision of a remedy in respect of delays in the proceedings before the IPC, did not call into question the effectiveness as such of the IPC to provide redress in respect of complaints about interference with property owned by Greek Cypriots. It also acknowledged the progress made by the IPC in processing property claims.

Depending on the Committee’s decisions, the issues related to the functioning of the IPC (acceleration of proceedings and setting up of a remedy in case of delays) could possibly be supervised under the K.V. Mediterranean Tours Ltd. case.

2) Payment of the just satisfaction awarded in the judgment of 12 May 2014

The Committee might wish to deplore once more the absence of response to Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2021)201, and recall its decisions adopted in March 2025, instructing the Secretariat, if the situation remains unchanged, to prepare draft interim resolution concerning the issue of payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court, for consideration at its next examination of the issue of the missing persons at the March 2026 DH meeting.

 

Financing assured: YES