MEMORANDUM BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS
ON INDIVIDUAL MEASURES TO SECURE THE ENJOYMENT OF THE
PROPERTY RIGHTS OF THE APPLICANT IN THE INSTANT CASE
Introductory
At their 948th (DH) meeting on 29-30 November, the Committee of Ministers
agreed to resume consideration at the 955th (DH) meeting on 7-8 February, of the
judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (“the Court”) (on merits and
just satisfaction) in Loizidou v Turkey. It will be recollected that at the end of 2003,
(on 2 December 2003), the Committee had decided to “resume consideration of
the execution of the judgment of 18 December 1996 on merits, in due time, taking
into consideration proposals to do so at the end of 2005”.
The Government of the Republic of Cyprus proposes that at the meeting on 7-8
February, Deputies should consider the individual measures (as distinct from the
general measures) arising from the Loizidou case. Such measures are urgently
needed to put an end to continuing violations of this Applicant’s rights.
Just Satisfaction in the Loizidou Case
Nine years after Mrs Titina Loizidou brought proceedings under the Convention
to vindicate her right to the peaceful enjoyment of her property in occupied
Cyprus, the European Court of Human Rights, on 28th July 1998, awarded her
specified sums by way of just satisfaction.
The Court had decided, in its
principal judgment of 18th December 1996, that the continuous denial of the
applicant’s access to her property in the occupied part of Cyprus and the ensuing
loss of control over the property was a matter that fell within Turkey’s
‘jurisdiction’ within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention and was thus
imputable to Turkey. It also found that there had been a breach of Article 1 of
1
Protocol No.1 in that the applicant had effectively lost all control over, as well as
all possibilities to use and enjoy her property.
The Court ordered the Republic of Turkey to pay damages to Mrs Loizidou
within three months. Despite the repeated efforts of the Committee, including
the need for three Interim Resolutions, Turkey deliberately and persistently
refused to respect and comply with the Court’s judgment, in breach of its
obligations under the Convention and in flagrant defiance of the European rule
of law. It took more than five years from the Court’s judgment, and fourteen
years from Mrs Loizidou’s complaint, for Turkey to make payment on 2nd
December 2003 of the just satisfaction owed to Mrs Loizidou.
The Loizidou case was reaffirmed in Cyprus v Turkey (Judgment of 10 May 2001).
The Court concluded in paragraph 189 that:
“there has been a continuing violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 by virtue of
the fact that Greek-Cypriot owners of properties in northern Cyprus are being
denied access to and control, use and enjoyment of their property…”
In the recent Xenides-Arestis v Turkey Judgment of 22 December 2005, the Court
reiterated (paragraphs 28-32), in accordance with its findings in the cases of
Loizidou v Turkey, Cyprus v Turkey, Demades v Turkey, and Eugenia Michaelidou
Developments Ltd and Michael Tymvios v Turkey, that the applicant must still be
regarded as the legal owner of her land and that there has been and continues to
be a violation by virtue of the fact that the applicant is denied of access, control,
use and enjoyment of her property.
The Pressing Need for Individual Measures
As the Parliamentary Assembly noted in Resolution 1381 (2004), this settlement
of Mrs Loizidou’s case did not “in fact yet implement the basic context of the
2
decision (violation of Article 1 of the First Protocol to the ECHR, by illegal
expropriation). These elements will be examined by the Committee of Ministers
at the end of 2005.” On 3rd September 2003, the Chair of the Committee of
Ministers, had replied to Written Question No. 427 by Mr Jurgens, on “Property
rights of displaced persons in Cyprus” that
“As regards the question regarding further measures, it has first to be
noted that the Deputies have so far concentrated, for obvious reasons, on
the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court. Once this
question has been settled, the Committee will decide how to proceed on the other
issues raised by this case.”[Emphasis added]
The Declaration made by Turkey when they at last gave effect to the Court’s
judgment on just satisfaction to Mrs Loizidou, was in plain defiance of the
Court’s judgment in the Inter-State case. The Declaration stated that the payment
made to her was “in no way a precedent for cases presently pending before the
Court or for similar cases in the future.” It also claimed that an effective remedy
had been “set up to deal with property claims similar to those at issue in the
Loizidou case.” That specific claim was rejected by the Court in its admissibility
decision in Xenides-Arestis of 14 March 2005.
Neither this “law” nor any subsequent amendment in any way relates to
Loizidou case.
Request to the Committee of Ministers
Τhe fact that Mrs. Loizidou’s Application was lodged 17 years ago and that
Judgment on the Merits and Just Satisfaction in her case were delivered almost 10
and 8 years ago respectively, plus the fact that implementation of the judgment
has been unjustifiably delayed, is unacceptable. To condone this conduct and
faile to secure the effective enjoyment of Mrs. Loizidou’s Convention rights
would be to introduce an unprecedented practice that is would endanger the
credibility and the effectiveness of an Organization known for its devotion to the
3
effective protection of human rights and the European rule of law. It is a wellknown axiom that justice delayed is justice denied. Therefore, the Government of
the Republic of Cyprus requests Deputies, without more ado, to call upon the
Republic of Turkey to allow the Applicant to resume peaceful enjoyment of her
possessions in Kyrenia.
It must be emphasized that Mrs. Loizidou’s case is no longer pending before the
Court. Thus it is not within the scope of the Court´s ruling of 22 December 2005
in Xenides-Arestis v Turkey Case, which adjourned consideration of pending
applications concerning violations of the peaceful enjoyment and use of rights to
possessions in order that a systemic remedy could, in future, be introduced in the
occupied part of the Republic of Cyprus.
4