PEOPLE OF LEFKONICO Vs TURKEY
|
 R1418/454/dm
THE CASE OF
(EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS (40/1993/435/514)
Titina Loizidou comes from Kyrenia which is in the northern part of Cyprus, now in the Turkish occupied part of the island. She lived in Kyrenia until 1972 and moved to Nicosia when married intending to settle back to Kyrenia at a later stage. The Turkish invasion in 1974 denied her access to her hometown and to her property which she had inherited from her family. She tried to go back several times during the peaceful demonstrations of the movement “Women Walk Home”. In the last march on 19 March 1989 the Turkish armed forces stopped her and seized her for some time. In July 1989 she applied to the European Commission of Human Rights in Strasbourg filing an individual application against Turkey. She started a long complicated and difficult process, which lasted nine years. Her case went from the Commission to the Court, in 1993, as case No.40/1993/435/514. The Court, after hearing the case and rejecting all sorts of objections raised by Turkey, delivered its first judgement on 23 March 1995 and its second judgement on the 18 of December 1996. By its judgements the European Court of Human Rights, inter alia, dismissed the objections of Turkey to the effect that the Court could not examine the application by Mrs. Loizidou. The Court held that the denial to the Applicant of access to her property in that part of Cyprus and the consequent loss of control thereof was imputable to Turkey and amounted to a continuing violation of the Applicant’s property rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court in fact found that the so called “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” which is not recognised by the International Community, and Law could not and did not take away or deprive, (inspite of its various “Laws” or “Rules” which it issued), the property of the Applicant, which still belongs to her. It, further, held that the Turkish Army and consequently Turkey, was directly responsible for not allowing the Applicant to enjoy her property. Furthermore the Court in its last judgement on 28 July 1998 decided that, because of the continuous violation of the Applicant’s human rights by Turkey and the consequent loss of use of her property, she was entitled to just satisfaction under Article 50 of the Convention. The Court’s award consisted of C£300.000 (about US$600.000) in pecuniary damages C£20.000 (about US$40.000) in non-pecuniary damages as well as the Applicant’s costs and expenses in full. The deadline for payment of this amount was 28 October, 1998. The Applicant has placed her trust in the legal system developed by the Council of Europe to ensure respect and protection of human rights for individuals. She has argued her case and obtained 3 judgements by the Court. Nevertheless Turkey has showed no sign of intending to comply with the Court’s monetary award nor has it in fact complied with the Court’s judgement of 18 December 1996 so as to allow the Applicant to return to and peacefully enjoy her property in Kyrenia. It is now up to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to ensure that judgements of the Court are enforced and the Public Order of Europe is preserved. In fact the Committee after an exchange of letters with the Turkish Government, has on 6 October 1999 adopted an Interim Resolution (DH (99) 680) which, inter alia: “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”. It is perhaps interesting to note what the Cyprus Country Report on Human Rights Practices for 1998 by the U. S. Department of State mentions in relation to this case: In 1996 the European Court of Human Rights ruled 11 to 6 that Turkey
committed a continuing violation of the rights of a Greek Cypriot woman
by preventing her from going to her property located in north Cyprus.
The ruling reaffirmed the validity of property deeds issued prior to 1974.
The Court also found in this case that: "It was obvious from the
large number of troops engaged in active duties in northern Cyprus that
the Turkish army exercised effective overall control there. In the
circumstances of the case, this entailed Turkey’s responsibility for the
policies and actions of the ‘TRNC’". In July 1998 the Court ordered
Turkey to pay the woman approximately $915,000 in damages and costs by
October 28, 1998. The Turkish Government stated that it cannot implement
the Court’s decision, which it contends is a political decision, and argued
that the land in question is not Turkish but is part of the "Turkish Republic
of Northern Cyprus".
Nicosia 31 December 1999 N.B. For further information you may visit the following homepages:
|