Property and Human Rights in Cyprus: The European Court of Human Rights as a Platform of Political Struggle

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size

Notes

This article is based on research conducted as part of a project of the international Peace Research Institute, Oslo (PRIO), the PRIO Cyprus Centre. The research was also supported by the Eastern Mediterranean University. We would like to express our thanks to both institutions.

1. See A. Gürel and K. Özersay, The Politics of the Property Issue in Cyprus, PRIO Report 3/2006, Nicosia, 2006.

2. Loizidou v. Turkey, Merits, 18 December 1996, para. 51; and Loizidou v. Turkey, Preliminary Objections, 23 March 1995, para. 56.

3. P. Leach, Taking a Case to the European Court of Human Rights (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2nd edition, 2005), p.165.

4. Cyprus v. Turkey, Merits, 10 May 2001, para.15 and 69.

5. Loizidou v. Turkey, Merits, para.16.

6. Loizidou v. Turkey, Preliminary Objections, para.56.

7. Cyprus v. Turkey, para.29.

8. Michaelidou Developments v. Turkey, Merits, 31 July 2003, para.24; Demades v. Turkey, Merits, 31 July 2003, para.22.

9. Loizidou v. Turkey, Just Satisfaction (Article 50), 28 July 1998, para.21.

10. Loizidou v. Turkey, Merits, para.59.

11. A. Orakhelashvili, ‘Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory: Opinion and Reaction’, Journal of Conflict and Security Law, Vol.11, No.1 (2006), p.119, n.2.

12. UN Charter, Article 33.

13. Cyprus v. Turkey, para.33.

14. The Committee of Ministers' Resolution DH (92) 12 in respect of the Commission's 1983 report adopted on 2 April 1992, para.17.

15. Loizidou v. Turkey, Preliminary Objections, para.56.

16. Cyprus v. Turkey, para.66.

17. Loizidou v. Turkey, Merits, para.35.

18. Ibid., para.64.

19. Cyprus v. Turkey, para.188.

20. Michaelidou Developments v. Turkey, para.26.

21. Michaelidou Developments v. Turkey, Dissenting Opinion, para.23.

22. Xenides-Arestis, Admissibility Decision, 6 April 2005, pp.44–5.

23. Ibid., pp.12–13.

24. Xenides-Arestis, Merits, 22 December 2005, para.48.

25. Xenides-Arestis v. Turkey, Admissibility Decision, p.27.

26. Ibid., p.25.

27. Ibid., s.33.

28. Loizidou v. Turkey, Preliminary Objections, para.42.

29. Leach, p.160.

30. Loizidou v. Turkey, Preliminary Objections, paras.44–5.

31. Loizidou v. Turkey, Just Satisfaction, para.29.

32. Cyprus v. Turkey, Just Satisfaction, paras.27, 30 and 34.

33. Ibid., para.34.

34. Ibid., para.32.

35. Leach, p.403.

36. James v. UK, Just Satisfaction (Article 50), 21 February 1986, para.54.

37. Michaelidou Developments v. Turkey, para.46. See also Demades v. Turkey, para.53.

38. Xenides-Arestis v. Turkey, Merits, ss.46 and 47.

39. Ibid., para.48.

40. Ibid., para.48.

41. Xenides-Arestis v. Turkey, Admissibility Decision, p.21.

42. Ibid., pp.11–12.

43. Ibid., p.18.

44. Ibid., p.28.

45. Ibid., p.18.

46. Art.37 of the Convention: Striking out applications: 1) The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that: a) the applicant does not intend to pursue his application; or b) the matter has been resolved; or c) for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application. However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the protocols thereto so requires.

47. Xenides-Arestis v. Turkey, Merits, para.27.

48. Loizidou v. Turkey, Merits, para.36.

49. Xenides-Arestis v. Turkey, Admissibility Decision, p.29.

50. Loizidou v. Turkey, Merits, para.52.

51. Cyprus v. Turkey, Merits, para.56.

52. Loizidou v. Turkey, Just Satisfaction, para.28.

53. Ibid., para.35.

54. Ibid., paras.38 and 40.

55. Ibid., para.48.

56. Xenides-Arestis v. Turkey, Admissibility Decision, p.4.

57. Ibid., p.15.

58. Ibid., p.15.

59. Ibid., pp.16–17.

60. Ibid., p.18.

61. Loizidou v. Turkey, Merits, para.36.

62. UN Security Council Resolutions 541 (Nov. 1983) and 550 (May 1984) declaring the proclamation of the establishment of the TRNC as ‘legally invalid’ and calling upon all states not to recognize any Cypriot state other than the Republic of Cyprus; statements by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (Nov. 1983), the European Community and the Commonwealth Heads of Government, condemning the proclamation of statehood and calling upon all states to deny recognition to the TRNC.

63. Loizidou v. Turkey, Merits, para.42.

64. Ibid., para.45.

65. Loizidou v. Turkey, Preliminary Objections, para.57.

66. Ibid., para.62.

67. Loizidou v. Turkey, Merits, para.56.

68. Article 13 – Right to an effective remedy: Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.

69. Cyprus v. Turkey, para.83.

70. Ibid., para.101.

71. Ibid., para. 84 (emphasis added).

72. Article 1 of Protocol No. I: Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law. The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.

73. Cyprus v. Turkey, para.180.

74. Leach, p.162.

75. Cyprus v. Turkey, para.85.

76. Ibid., paras.91 and 92. See also paras.96–8.

77. Ibid., para.186.

78. Ibid., paras.96–7.

79. Xenides-Arestis v. Turkey, Admissibility Decision, pp.28–29.

80. Ibid., p.30.

81. Ibid., pp.31–2.

82. Ibid., p.34.

83. Ibid., p.37.

84. Ibid., p.40.

85. Ibid., pp.42–3.

86. Ibid., p.44.

87. Xenides-Arestis v. Turkey, Merits, para.38.