Strasbourg dances around the Cypriot question

Recently, the Strasbourg Court declared inadmissible a series of applications by Greek-Cypriot applicants claiming a violation of their property rights due to the continued occupation of the Northern part of Cyprus by Turkey.

The eight admissibility cases were the first such applications to be examined by the Court following the pilot-judgment Xenides-Arestis v. Turkey (app. no. 46347/99, 2006) in which the Chamber had found a violation of articles 8 and 1 Protocol 1. In Xenides-Arestis v. Turkey the Court had instructed Turkey to introduce a remedy which secures genuinely effective redress for the Convention violations.

In the decisions of Demopoulos and others v. Turkey and 7 similar cases, the Grand Chamber of the Court declared the applicants’ claims inadmissible due to non exhaustion of domestic remedies. The Grand Chamber was of the opinion that the amended Compensation Law, as enacted by the authorities of the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” (“TRNC”) following the pilot-judgment, provided an accessible and effective framework for redress. It came to this decision despite, inter alia, claims of a lack of subjective impartiality of the responsible body, the Immovable Property Commission (IPC), which features Turkish military personnel among its members, who are all appointed by the “TRNC” President.

The ECtHR clearly had to walk a tightrope in dealing with these cases, pronouncing its decision while avoiding making strong political statements on the Cypriot question. To pre-empt any claims of interference in areas where it does not belong, the Court explicitly stated that the current situation of occupation in Cyprus was beyond its competence to resolve. Instead the Court focused on its task: the guaranteeing of enjoyment by individuals of their inalienable human rights. The Court thus maintained its view that pending resolution of the illegal occupation of northern Cyprus, it was crucial that individuals continued to receive protection of their rights on a daily basis. The Court decided to take a pragmatic approach to this protection by ruling that even if the applicants did not live as such under the control of the “TRNC”, for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, remedies available in the “TRNC”, in particular the IPC procedure, may be regarded as “domestic remedies” of the respondent State. The rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies thus applied.

At the same time, the Grand Chamber was fully aware of the complicated de facto situation in Cyprus and clearly wanted to grant the “TRNC” the opportunity to comply with the pilot-judgment. In one of the most striking paragraphs of the decision, the Court established that, in the light of the many changes some 35 years after the properties were left, it would risk being arbitrary and injudicious for the Court to impose an obligation to effect restitution in all cases – which would result in the forcible eviction and re-housing of many men, women and children – even with the aim of vindicating the rights of victims of violations of the Convention. Since the “TRNC” had lived up to its obligations under the pilot-judgment procedure by amending the law in order to provide effective means of redress, the Strasbourg Court presumably felt a need to encourage the positive consequences given to its pilot-judgment procedure, which is increasingly seen as one of the more promising tools available to the Court to handle its heavy caseload.

At the last instance the Court apparently became aware of the sensitivity of (potentially) legitimating the authority of the “TRNC”. It concluded its decision by stressing that it was not to be interpreted as an obligation to make use of the IPC. The claimants could choose to wait for a political solution. However, it was also made clear that if Greek-Cypriot applicants wish to lodge an application before the European Court of Human Rights in similar cases, the admissibility will be decided in line with the principles established in Demopoulos and others v. Turkey.

By Stijn Smet

One thought on “Strasbourg dances around the Cypriot question

  1. Its worth noting that the main reason why the Court found the IPC to be an effective remedy is because Turkey had submitted a number of settlements achieved through this mechanism whereas the applicants had foolishly (and for political reasons in alliance with the Government of Cyprus) refused to actually test this domestic remedy so as to have counterexamples to put in front of the Court. As someone with sufficient training in the area of human rights and specifically the Cypriot cases,and having been and argued in front of the IPC, I can testify that this remedy is not an effective one and does not meet the minimum standards of the ECTHR jurisprudence on effective remedies under Art 13. Thus the Court has decided this issue, which affects at least 150 thousand property owners, who have been displaced and deprived of their rights under Art 1 Prot 1 and Art 8, since 1974, on the available hard evidence provided by Turkey (the applicants having failed to come up with the goods) which though strictly speaking follows the existing practice , nonetheless the result is hugely unfair, and the Court is in position to suspect that this is so. The entire judgment seems infused with a vengeful intent to shut up the Greek Cypriots and punish them for their stupidity in failing to follow the rules of the Court. Onceagain, the Court stuck to its principles but it demonstrated an unseemly inflexibility and haste in approving this domestic remedy which can not be overturned for years to coem if at all, and this at the expense of thousands of innocent applicants whohc the Court should have known had no say in the foolish nationalist policy followed by their Government. So what about their individual human rights under the Convention? Why allow the ire of the Court against the official government line undermine the rights of individuals in this fashion?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s