PRESS RELEASE (18.12.96)
BY THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

LOIZIDOU v. TURKEY EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS HUMAN RIGHTS NEWS 725 18.12.1996 Press release issued by the Registrar of the European Court of Human Rights

contents

JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE OF LOIZIDOU v. TURKEY

BACKGROUND TO THE CASE
A. Principal Facts
B. Proceedings before the European commission of Human Rights
C. The Court's first judgement in the case

SUMMARY OF THE JUDDGEMENT
1. The Government's preliminary objection
2. Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

A. Imputability issue
B. Interference with property rights
D. Article 50 of the Convention

APPENDIX
Convention Articles referred to in the release

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Article 8
Article 50

JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE OF LOIZIDOU v. TURKEY

In a judgement delivered in Strasbourg on 18 December 1996 in the case of Loizidou v. Turkey (Merits), the European Court of Human Rights dismissed the Government's preliminary objection ratione temporis that the Court could not examine the complaint because it concerned matters which occurred prior to Turkey's acceptance of its jurisdiction (11 votes to 6) and held that the denial to the applicant of access to her property in the northern part of Cyprus and consequent loss of control thereof was imputable to Turkey (11 votes to 6) and amounted to a violation of the applicant's property rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention of Human Rights (11 votes to 6). It also held unanimously that there had been no interference with the applicant's right to respect for her home under Article 8 of the Convention, and that the question of just satisfaction under Article 50 was not yet ready for decision and should be reserved.

The judgement was read out in open court by Mr. Rolv Ryssdal, the President of the Court.

BACKGROUND TO THE CASE

A. Principal Facts

The applicant, Mrs. Titina Loizidou, is a Cypriot citizen. She grew up in Kyrenia in northern Cyprus, where she owned certain plots of land. In 1972 she married and moved with her husband to Nicosia. Since 1974, she had been prevented from gaining access to the above-mentioned properties as a result of the presence of Turkish forces in Cyprus.

On 19 March 1989 a Greek Cypriot women's group, "Women Walk Home", organised a march with the announced intention of crossing the Turkish forces' cease-fire line. From Nicosia the demonstrators drove to the village of Lymbia, where a group managed to cross the buffer zone and the Turkish forces' line. Some of the women, including Mrs. Loizidou, were arrested by Turkish Cypriot policemen. Later the same day, they were released to United Nations officials (UNFICYP) in Nicosia and taken over to the Greek Cypriot area.

B. Proceedings before the European commission of Human Rights

The case originated in an application lodged with the Commission on 22 July 1989.

Having failed to secure a friendly settlement, the commission drew up a report on 8 July 1993 in which it expressed the opinion that there had been no violation of article 3 of the Convention (unanimously); Article 5 1 of the Convention (9 votes to 4); Article 8 of the Convention, as regards the applicant's private life (11 votes to 2); Article 8 of the Convention, as regards the applicant's home (9 votes to 4); or of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (8 votes to 5).

The case was referred to the Court by the government of Cyprus in so far as it related to the alleged interference with the applicant's property rights and her home (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 8 of the Convention).

C. The Court's first judgement in the case

The Turkish Government had submitted, by way of preliminary objections, inter alia, that the case fell outside the Court's jurisdiction on the grounds that it related to facts and events which occurred before 22 January 1990, when Turkey declared that she accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (objection ratione temporis) and that it did not concern matters arising within the territory covered by this declaration (objection ratione loci).

In a separate judgement of 23 March 1995 the Court rejected the latter objection but joined to the merits the first preliminary objection (ratione temporis).

SUMMARY OF THE JUDDGEMENT (1)

(1) This summary by the registry does not bind the Court

1. The Government's preliminary objection

The Turkish Government had claimed inter alia that the applicant had irreversibly lost ownership of her property prior to Turkey's declaration of 22 January 1990 accepting the Court's jurisdiction under Article 46 of the Convention.

The Court observed that its case-law recognised the concept of a continuing violation of the Convention. The present case would in principle concern alleged violations of a continuing nature, but only if Mrs. Loizidou could still be regarded as the legal owner of the land.

According to the Turkish Government, however, she had lost ownership on 7 May 1985 as a result of the operation of Article 159 of the Constitution of the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus ("TRNC") which purported to expropriate inter alia properties within the boundaries of the "TRNC" which were considered abandoned after 13 February 1975.

In this context, the Court took note of United Nations Security Council Resolution 541 (1983) declaring the proclamation of the establishment of the "TRNC" as legally invalid and calling upon all States not to recognise any Cypriot State other than the Republic of Cyprus.

A similar call was reiterated by the Security Council in Resolution 550 (adopted on 11 May 1984). The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in a Resolution of 24 November 1983 also condemned the proclamation of statehood and called upon all States to deny recognition to the "TRNC". A position to similar effect was taken by the European Community and the commonwealth Heads of Government. Moreover, it was only the Cypriot Government which was recognised internationally as the government of the Republic of Cyprus in the context of diplomatic and treaty relations and the working of international organisations.

In the Court's view, the principles underlying the Convention could not be interpreted and applied in a vacuum. Mindful of the Convention's special character as a human rights treaty, it had also to take into account any relevant rules of international law when deciding on disputes concerning its jurisdiction.

In this respect it was evident from International practice and the various strongly worded resolutions referred to above that the international community did not regard the "TRNC" as a State under international law and that the Republic of Cyprus had remained the sole legitimate government of Cyprus. Against this background, the Court could not attribute legal validity for purposes of the Convention to such provisions as Article 159 of the "TRNC" Constitution, and Mrs. Loizidou could not be deemed to have lost title to her property as a result of it.

-Since no other facts indicating that she had ceased to own the land had been advanced by the Turkish Government or found by the Court, she had still to be regarded as legal owner for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 8 of ;the Convention. The objection ratione temporis therefore failed.

[paragraphs 32-47 of the judgement and point 1 of the operative provisions]

2. Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

A. Imputability issue

The Court observed that the concept of "jurisdiction" under the Convention was not restricted to national territory. In particular, the responsibility of a Contracting State could arise when it exercised effective control in an area outside its national territory as a consequence of military action.

In the present case, the court found it significant that the Turkish Government had acknowledged at an earlier stage in the case that Mrs. Loizidou's loss of control of her property stemmed from the occupation of the northern part of Cyprus by Turkish troops and the establishment there of the "TRNC". Moreover, it had not been disputed that on several occasions she had been prevented by Turkish troops from gaining access to her property.

In the Court's view, 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". Thus the denial to Mrs. Loizidou of access to her property in northern Cyprus fell within Turkey's "jurisdiction" for the purposes of Article 1 of Convention and was imputable to Turkey.

The Court did not find it necessary to determine whether Turkey exercised detailed control over the policies and actions of the "TRNC" authorities or to examine the lawfulness of Turkey's intervention in the island in 1974.

[paragraphs 49-57 of the judgement and point 2 of the operative provisions]

B. Interference with property rights

The Court observed that although Mrs. Loizidou had remained the legal owner of the land, since 1974 she had effectively lost all control over it and all possibility to use and enjoy it. The continuous denial of access amounted, therefore, to an interference with her rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

The Turkish Government had not sought to justify this interference and the Court did not find any reason that could justify the complete negation of Mrs. Loizidou's property rights in the form of a total and continuous denial of access and a purported expropriation without compensation.

There had therefore been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

[paragraphs 58-64 of the judgement and point 3 of the operative provisions]

C. Article 8 of the Convention

Mrs. Loizidou had grown up in Kyrenia. After her marriage in 1972 she had moved to Nicosia and had made her home there ever since, although she had planned to live in one of the flats she had been building in northern Cyprus in 1974.

The Court observed that it would strain the meaning of the notion "home" in Article 8 to extend it to comprise property on which it was planned to build a house for residential purposes. Nor could that term be interpreted to cover an area where one had grown up and where the family had its roots but where one no longer lived.

Accordingly, there had been no interference with Mrs. Loizidou's Article 8 rights.

[paragraphs 65-66 of the judgement and point 4 of the operative provisions]

D. Article 50 of the Convention

Since the Turkish Government had not commented on Mrs. Loizidou's claim for just satisfaction, the Court decided to reserve the question and to invite the government and the applicant to submit written observations on the matter within the following six months

[paragraphs 67-69 of the judgement and point 5 of the operative provisions]

In accordance with the Convention, judgement was given by a Grand Chamber composed of seventeen judges, namely Mr. R. Ryssdal (Norwegian), President, Mr. R. Bernhardt (German), Mr. F. Golcuklu (Turkish), Mr. L.E. Pettiti (French), Mr. B. Walsh (Irish), Mr. A. Spielmann (Luxemburger), Mr. S.K. Martens (Dutch), Mrs. E. Palm (Swedish), Mr. R. Pekkanen (Finnish), Mr. A.N. Loizou (Cypriot), Mr. J.M. Morenilla (Spanish), Mr. A.B. Baka (Hungarian), Mr. M.A. Lopes Rocha (Portuguese), Mr. L. Wildhaber (Swiss), Mr. G. Mifsud Bonnici (Maltese), Mr. P. Jambrek (Slovenian), Mr. U. Lohmus (Estonian), and also of Mr. H. Petzold, Registrar, and Mr. P.J. Mahoney, Deputy Registrar.

Six separate opinions are annexed to the judgement.

The judgement will be published shortly in the Reports of Judgements and Decisions for 1996 (available from Carl Heymanns Verlag KG, Luxemburger Strabe 449, D-50939 Koln).

Subject to his duty of discretion, the Registrar is responsible under the Rules of court for replying to requests for information concerning the work of the Court, and in particular to enquiries from the press.

Registry of the European Court of Human Rights
F - 67075 Strasbourg Cedex
Contact: Mr. Roderick LIDDELL
Telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92; fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91

A P P E N D I X
Convention Articles referred to in the release

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

"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"

Article 8
"1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

1.There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."

Article 50
"If the Court finds that a decision or a measure taken by a legal authority or any other authority of a High Contracting Party is completely or partially in conflict with the obligations arising from the ...,Convention,... the decision of the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party."

PRESS RELEASE ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

SUMMARY OF THE CASE 138 23.3.1995 JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE OF LOIZIDOU v. TURKEY (Preliminary objections)

In a judgment delivered at Strasbourg on 23 March 1995 in the case of Loizidou v. Turkey, the European Court of Human Rights, by sixteen votes to two, held that the territorial restrictions attached to Turkey's Article 25 and 46 declarations were invalid but that these declarations contain valid acceptances of the competence of the Commission and Court. It also decided, by a unanimous vote, to join to the merits the preliminary objection that the complaint related to facts and events which occurred before the Turkish declaration of acceptance, pursuant to Article 46 (1), of the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court dated 22 January 1990 (objection ratione temporis). It is the first case against Turkey to come before the Court.

The judgment was read out in open court by Mr Rolv Ryssdal, President of the Court.

(1) The text of Article 46 of the Convention and of the Turkish declaration of acceptance of the compulsory juristriction of the Court are appended

contents

I. BACKROUND TO THE CASE

A. Principal facts
B. Proceedings before the European Commission of Human Rights

II SUMMARY OF THE JUDGMENT

A. The standing of the applicant Government
B. Abuse of process
C. The Turkish Government's role in the proceedings
D. Scope of the case
E. Objections Ratione Loci

1. Whether the facts alleged by the applicant are capable of falling within the jurisdiction of Turkey under Article 1 of the Convention
2. The validity of the territorial restrictions attached to Turkey's Articles 25 and 46 declarations
3. The validity of the Turkish declarations under Articles 25 and 46

F. Objection Ratione Temporis

APPENDIX

Article 46 of the Convention
Turkey's Article 46 Declaration of 22 January 1990

I. BACKROUND TO THE CASE

A. Principal facts

The applicant grew up in Kyrenia in northern Cyprus, where she owned certain plots of land. In 1972 she married and moved with her husband to Nicosia. Since 1974 she claims that she has been prevented from gaining access to the above-mentioned properties as a result of the presence of Turkish forces in Cyprus.

On 19 March 1989 a Greek Cypriot women's group, "Women Walk Home", organised a march with the announced intention of crossing the Turkish forces' cease-fire line. From Nicosia the demonstrators drove to the village of Lymbia, where a group managed to cross the buffer zone and the Turkish forces' line. Some of the women, including Mrs Loizidou, were arrested by Turkish Cypriot policemen. Later the same day, they were released to United Nations officials (UNFICYP) in Nicosia and taken over to the Greek Cypriot area.

The Turkish Government submitted, by way of preliminary objections, inter alia, that the case fell outside the Court's jurisdiction on the grounds that it related to facts and events which occurred before the Turkish declaration of acceptance of the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 46 (22 January 1990) (objection ratione temporis) and did not concern matters arising within the territory covered by this declaration (objections ratione loci).

B. Proceedings before the European Commission of Human Rights

The application was lodged with the Commission on 22 July 1989; it was declared admissible on 4 March 1991.

Having attempted unsuccessfully to secure a friendly settlement the Commission drew up a report (1) on 8 July 1993 in which it established the facts and expressed the opinion that there had been no violation of (1) Article 3 (unanimously); (2) Article 8 as regards the applicant's private life (eleven votes to two); (3) Article 5 s.1 (nine votes to four); (4) Article 8 as regards the applicant's home (nine votes to four) and (5) Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (eight votes to five).

The case has been referred to the Court by the Government of the Republic of Cyprus under Article 48 (b) of the Convention in so far as it relates to the alleged interference with the applicant's property rights (Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 and Article 8 of the Convention).

(1) Available to the press and the public on application to the Registrar of the Court

II SUMMARY OF THE JUDGMENT (1)

A. The standing of the applicant Government

The Court confined itself to noting, with reference inter alia to the consistent practice of the Council of Europe, that the applicant Government had been recognized by the international community as the Government of the Republic of Cyprus. Its locus standi as the Government of a High Contracting Party cannot therefore be in doubt.

[See paragraphs 39-41 of the judgment.]

B. Abuse of process

The Court observed that this objection was not raised in the proceedings before the Commission. Accordingly the Turkish Government was estopped from raising it before the Court in so far as it applied to Mrs Loizidou.

In so far as it was directed to the applicant Government, the Court noted that this Government have referred the case to the Court inter alia because of their conern for the rights of the applicant and other citizens in the same situation. The Court did not consider such motivation to be an abuse of its procedures.

[See paragraphs 42-46 of the judgment and point 1 of the operative provisions.]

C. The Turkish Government's role in the proceedings

The Court did not consider that it lay within the discretion of a Contracting Party to the Convention to characterise its standing in the proceedings before the Court in the manner it saw fit. It observed that the case originated in a petition made under Article 25, brought by the applicant against Turkey in her capacity as a High Contracting Party to the Convention and had been referred to the Court under Article 48 (b) by another High Contracting Party.

The Court therefore considered - without prejudging the remainder of the issues in these proceedings - that Turkey was the respondent party in this case.

[See paragraphs 47-52 of the judgment.]

(1) This summaryby the Registry does npt bind the Court

D. Scope of the case

In the application referring the case to the Court under Article 48 (b) the applicant Government confined themselves to seeking a ruling on the complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 8, in so far as they have been declared admissible by the Commission concerning access to the applicant's property. Accordingly, it is only these complaints which were before the Court.

[See paragraphs 53 and 54 of the judgment.]

E. Objections Ratione Loci

1. Whether the facts alleged by the applicant are capable of falling within the jurisdiction of Turkey under Article 1 of the Convention

The Court emphasised that it was not called upon at the preliminary objections stage of its procedure to examine whether Turkey was actually responsible under the Convention for the acts which form the basis of the applicant's complaints. Nor is it called upon to establish the principles that govern State responsibility under the Convention in a situation like that obtaining in the northern part of Cyprus. Such questions belong rather to the merits phase of the Court's procedure. The Court's inquiry is limited to determining whether the matters complained of by the applicant are capable of falling within the jurisdiction of Turkey even though they occur outside her national territory.

The concept of "jurisdiction" under Article 1 is not restricted to the national territory of the High Contracting Parties. Responsibility may also arise when as a consequence of military action, whether lawful or unlawful, a Contracting Party exercise effective control of an area outside its national territory.

It was not disputed that the applicant was prevented by Turkish troops from gaining access to her properties.

The Court concluded that the facts alleged by the applicant were capable of falling within Turkish "jurisdiction" within the meaning of Article 1. Whether the matters complained of were imputable to Turkey and gave rise to State responsibility are questions which fall to be determined by the Court at the merits phase.

[See paragraphs 56-64 of the judgment and point 2 of the operative provisions.]

2. The validity of the territorial restrictions attached to Turkey's Articles 25 and 46 declarations

The Court had regard to the special character of the Convention as a treaty for the collective enforcement of human rights and the fact that it is a living instrument to be interpreted in the light of present day conditions. In addition, the object and purpose of the Convention requires that its provisions be interpreted and applied so as to make its safeguards practical and effective.

It then sought to ascertain the ordinary meaning given to Articles 25 and 46 in their context and in the light of their object and purpose. Regard was also had to subsequent practice in the application of the treaty.

If substantive or territorial restrictions were permissible under Articles 25 and 46, Contracting Parties would be free to subscribe to separate regimes of enforcement of Convention obligations depending on the scope of their acceptances. Such a system, which would enable States to qualify their consent under the optional clauses, would not only seriously weaken the role of the Commission and Court in the discharge of their functions, but would also diminish the effectiveness of the Convention as a constitutional instrument of European public order ("ordre public"). Moreover, where the Convention permits States to limit their acceptance under Article 25, there is an express stipulation to this effect (e.g. Article 6 s.2 of Protocol no. 4 and Article 7 s.2 of Protocol No. 7).

In the Court's view, the consequences for the enforcement of the Convention and the achievement of its aims would be so far reaching that a power to this effect should have been expressly provided for. However, no such provision exists in either Article 25 or Article 46.

This approach is confirmed by the subsequent practice of Contracting Parties under these provisions. Since the entry into force of the Convention until the present day, almost all of the thirty parties to the Convention, apart from the respondent Government, have accepted the competence of the Commission and Court to examine complaints without restrictions ratione loci or ratione materiae. The existence of such a uniform and consistent State practice clearly rebuts the respondent Government's arguments that restrictions attaching to Article 25 and Article 46 declarations must have been envisaged by the drafters of the Convention in the light of practice under Article 36 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice.

It was not contested that Article 46 of the Convention was modelled on Article 36 of the Statute of the International Court which has been interpreted as allowing restrictions. However, in the Court's view, it did not follow that such restrictions on the acceptance of jurisdiction of the Court must also be permissible under the Convention.

The fundamental difference in the role and purpose of the respective tribunals, coupled with the existence of a practice of unconditional acceptance, provides a compelling basis for distinguishing Convention practice from that of the International Court.

Finally, the Court did not accept that the application of Article 63 s.4, by analogy, provided support for the claim that a territorial restriction was permissible.

Taking into consideration the character of the Convention, the ordinary meaning of Articles 25 and 46 in their context and in the light of their object and purpose and the practice of Contracting Parties, the Court concluded that the restrictions ratione loci attached to Turkey's Article 25 and Article 46 declarations were invalid.

[See paragraphs 65-89 of the judgment and point 3 of the operative provisions. ]

3. The validity of the Turkish declarations under Articles 25 and 46

The Court did not consider that the issue of severability of the invalid parts of Turkey's declarations could be decided by reference to the statements of her representatives expressed subsequent to the filing of the declarations. In this connection, it observed that the respondent Government must have been aware, in view of the consistent practice of Contracting Parties under Articles 25 and 46 to accept unconditionally the competence of the Commission and Court, that the impugned restrictive clauses were of questionable validity under the Convention system and might be deemed impermissible by the Convention organs.

The subsequent reaction of various Contracting Parties to the Turkish declarations provided convincing support to the above observation concerning Turkey's awareness of the legal postion. That she, against this background, subsequently filed declarations under both Articles 25 and 46 indicated a willingness on her part to run the risk that the limitation clauses at issue would be declared invalid by the Convention institutions without affecting the validity of the declarations themselves.

The Court examined the text of the declarations and the wording of the restrictions with a view to determining whether the impugned restrictions could be severed from the instruments of acceptance or whether they formed an integral and inseparable part of them. It considered that the impugned restrictions could be separated from the remainder of the text leaving intact the acceptance of the optional clauses.

The Court concluded that the declarations of 28 January 1987 and 22 January 1990 under Articles 25 and 46 contain valid acceptances of the competence of the Commission and Court.

[See paragraphs 90-98 of the judgment and point 3 of the operative provisions.]

F. Objection Ratione Temporis

The Court considered that the correct interpretation and application of the restrictions ratione temporis, in the Turkish declarations under Articles 25 and 46, and the notion of continuing violations of the Convention, raised difficult legal and factual questions.

It considered that on the present state of the file it had not sufficient elements enabling it to decide these questions. Moreover, they were so closely connected to the merits of the case that they should not be decided at the present phase of the procedure. It therefore decided to join this objection to the merits.

[See paragraphs 99-105 of the judgment and point 4 of the operative provisions.]

In accordance with the Convention and the Rules of Court, judgment was given by a Grand Chamber composed of eighteen judges, namely Mr R. Ryssdal (Norwegian), President, Mr R. Bernhardt (German), Mr F. Golcuklu (Turkish), Mr L. -E. Pettiti (French), Mr B. Walsh (Irish), Mr R. Macdonald (Canadian), Mr A. Spielmann (Luxemburger), Mr S.K. Martens (Dutch), Mrs E. Palm (Swedish), Mr R. Pekkanen (Finnish), Mr A.N. Loizou (Cypriot), Mr J.M. Morenilla (Spanish), Mr A.B. Baka (Hungarian), Mr M. A. Lopes Rocha (Portuguese), Mr L. Wildhaber (Swiss), Mr G. Mifsud Bonnici (Maltese), Mr p. Jambrek (Slovenian), and Mr U. Lohmus (Estonian), Judges, and also of Mr H. Petzold, Registrar.

A joint dissenting opinion by two judges, as well as their separate dissenting opinions, are annexed to the judgment.

For further information, reference is made to the text of the judgment, which is available on request and will be published shortly as volume 310 of Series A of the Publications of the Court (obtainable from Carl Heymanns Verlag KG, Luxemburger Strasse 449, D - 50939, Koln).

Subject to his duty of discretion, the Registrar is responsible under the Rules of Court for replying to requests for information concerning the work of the Court, and in particular to enquiries from the press.

Registry of the European Court of Human Rights
Registry contact: Montserrat ENRICH/MAS -
External Relations - F - 67075 Strasbourg Cedex
Telephone: 88 41 23 95; Fax: 88 41 27 91

A P P E N D I X

Article 46 of the Convention

"1. Any of the High Contracting Parties may at any time declare that it recognises as compulsory ipso facto and without special agreement the jurisdiction of the Court in all matters concerning the interpretation and application of the � Convention.

2. The declarations referred to above may be made unconditionally or on condition of reciprocity on the part of several or certain other High Contracting Parties or for a specified period.

3. These declarations shall be deposited with the Secretary General of the Council of Europe who shall transmit copies thereof to the High Contracting Parties."

Turkey's Article 46 Declaration of 22 January 1990

"On behalf of the Government of the Republic of Turkey and acting in accordance with Article 46 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, I hereby declare as follows:

The Government of the Republic of Turkey acting in accordance with Article 46 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, hereby recognises as compulsory ipso facto and without special agreement the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights in all matters concerning the interpretation and application of the Convention which relate to the exercise of jurisdiction within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention, performed within the boundaries of the national territory of the Republic of Turkey, and provided further that such matters have previously been examined by the Commission within the power conferred upon it by Turkey.

This declaration is made on condition of reciprocity, including reciprocity of obligations assumed under the Convention. It is valid for a period of 3 years as from the date of its deposit and extends to matters raised in respect of facts, including judgments which are based on such facts which have occurred subsequent to the date of deposit of the present Declaration."

THE PROJECT

"Women Walk Home", a non-party political initiative conceived by a group of Greek Cypriot women and pursued with the support of aware women from the United States and Europe.

THE GOAL

The reunification of the divided island republic of Cyprus and the peaceful coexistence, without outside interference or artificial barriers, of the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities.

THE HISTORY

Cyprus became independent from British colonial rule in 1960. Britain, Greece and Turkey were appointed guarantors of the fledgling republic. Racial tensions were virtually built into the Cypriot constitution, in the drafting of which the Greek and Turkish Cypriots had had little say. To the credit of the Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities at large, Cyprus did not slip into civil war. Although occasional clashes were not avoided, featuring extremists on both sides and leading to the dispatch of United Nations troops to the island, the overwhelming majority of Greek and Turkish Cypriots strove to live peacefully with one another. In 1974 however all efforts towards coexistence received a harsh blow. Turkey invaded Cyprus and occupied over one third of the island using as an opening a coup staged by the military junta ruling Greece at the time, while Britain, the third guarantor of Cypriot independence and territorial integrity, looked on. As a result of the invasion, the Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities, which until then had been living alongside each other throughout the island, were forced into an artificial segregation across the military line that now divided Cyprus in two. Hundreds of thousands of people in a total population of just over half a million were made refugees. Fourteen years later, despite numerous United Nations resolutions calling for an end to outside interference in the affairs of Cyprus, the Turkish occupation and de facto partition of the island continues. It becomes more entrenched as tens of thousands of mainland Turks are settled in the occupied area in order to alter its demographic character.

THE TARGET

The "Green (or Attila) Line", the infamous military line maintained by 35,000 Turkish troops which divides Cyprus east to west and separates the Greek and Turkish Cypriots. In the Spring of 1975, in June and November 1987, and in March 1989, women under the "Women Walk Home" banner braved United Nations and Turkish troops in attempting to cross the Line. Theirs is a determined, but peaceful, resistance to the division of Cyprus.

THE MESSAGE

One of hope for the future of Cyprus. It is an appeal to all those who believe in the right to live peacefully without military interventions to lend their support towards reuniting Cyprus and its people.

FACTS AND FIGURES ABOUT THE CYPRUS INVASION

AREA

9250 sq. km
POPULATION

About 700,000 (Greek Cypriots 81,6%, Turkish Cypriots 18,4%)
OCCUPIED AREA

37% of total area
REFUGEES

200,000
ENCLAVED

less than 520 Greek Cypriots living in the Turkish occupied area of Karpas under constant pressure from Turkish occupation forces seeking to drive them out. (In 1974 there were 20,000 enclaved Greek Cypriots in the Karpas.)
TURKISH MILITARY OCCUPATION FORCES

35,000 troops, heavily armed with Nato supplied modern weapons
COLONISATION BY TURKEY OF THE OCCUPIED AREA

62,000 settlers from mainland Turkey; names of Greek towns and villages changed to Turkish and churches and monuments bearing witness to the continuation of the country's cultural heritage destroyed

Women Walk Home is an independent non-party movement of Greek Cypriot women from all walks of life.

They are dedicated to non-violent dynamic action to demonstrate their rejection of the division of Cyprus.

Women Walk Home are working towards a country in which there is no dividing line and no occupation army.

A case beyond barriers

Titina Loizidou v. Turkey

On the 28th July 1998 the legal battle of Titina Loizidou v. Turkey in the European Court of Human Rights came to a satisfying- as far as individual human rights are concerned- end. The legal battle for Titina Loizidou began in 1989, when Turkish military forces, which currently occupy 38% of Cypriot land, disallowed Ms. Loizidou, a Greek Cypriot citizen, from entering land which was legally hers. The battle ended with a final decision of the Court ordering Turkey to submit specified sums to the injured party. With this unique and important legal recognition of individual human rights in Cyprus established, the road is now open for any similar cases, either in the instance of occupied Cyprus or in those of similar illegal witholding of land by its rightful owners. While observers of this case await the implementation of the Court’s decision by the Council of Ministers (and indeed the options available, should Turkey fail to adhere to the ECHR’s ruling) an analysis of the legal and political implications of this European legal precedent seems prudent.

The facts of the case need to be outlined in the light of the important European legal realities that they recognize: the European Court of Human Rights found Turkey (and not the so called Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, which the court described as a "subordinate local administration") guilty of preventing Titina Loizidou, the legal owner of Greek Cypriot land in the northern part of Cyprus from gaining access to, and peacefully enjoying her property. While recognizing Loizidou as the rightful owner of territory which since 1974 has been under the overall control of the Turkish military, the court ordered Turkey to pay a total amount of 457 000 CYP (900 000 USD) for the 8 year loss of enjoyment that Loizidou has suffered since Turkey finally recognized the jurisdiction of the ECHR in 1990.

Turkey is now responsible for paying the total amount within 3 months of the ECHR judgment.

While perceived as a Homeric local row, the legal implications of the case traverse an array of issues. The Loizidou case addresses Human Rights abuses, the effects and implications of Europeanisation on Cyprus and the Cyprus conflict, the political implications for European Union membership for Cyprus and indeed for Turkey and the effects of such an outcome on the internal dynamics of the Cypriot conflict. From an international perspective the Loizidou case may prove a benchmark for similar cases involving human rights abuses and illegal withholding of land by or in any of the 40 countries that recognize the jurisdiction of the ECHR

The first and most important conclusion that this ECHR decision establishes, is the power that the individual may acquire vis a vis the state, and in this specific case a state that abuses one’s basic human rights: free movement and settlement, enjoyment of property and exercise of property rights. In the context of the Loizidou v. Turkey decision, a legal precedent is created on a European level, by which 200 000 Greek Cypriot refugees could be offered through similar legal proceedings, compensation for the inability to exercise their property rights in the northern part of Cyprus. This could prove a huge political and economic dilemma for Turkey, whose human rights violations in Cyprus can at last be measured in real, monetary terms. While the Turkish occupation of Cyprus continues, Turkey will be brought to the European Court of Human Rights time and again, for its abuse of basic human rights on the island, be them those of Greek or Turkish Cypriots ( case of Ahmet Djavit An v. Turkey).

Apart from the monetary burden that this could create for the occupying state (the annual cost of its illegal withholding of land in Cyprus is estimated at about 1 billion USD), it also creates a political and moral dilemma: if Turkey accepts to pay, and thus honor the Convention that incorporates human rights in European law (a convention that Turkey legally bound itself by in 1990) it automatically accepts that its presence in the north of Cyprus is indeed illegal, and against European perceptions of human rights. The doctrine of Necessity and the political negotiations in search for a solution to the Cyprus problem that Turkey has claimed in the past in an attempt to thwart the decision of the court, have been by now overruled. Should Turkey adhere to the ruling, the payment would be conceived as recognition of the findings of the ECHR: violation of human rights in Cyprus clearly exists, despite the political attempts at a solution, which often muddle the realities of injustice and illegality that have existed in Cyprus since 1974. Should Turkey pay, it accepts its role as an occupying force, both in moral and political terms.

Alternatively Turkey could deny the jurisdiction of the ECHR, and with that reject the institutionalized perception of human rights that Europe has wholeheartedly accepted. Turkey would then forfeit its position in the Council of Europe and would immediately find herself one step further away from the European Union.

The Loizidou v. Turkey decision could also be judged in political terms, although the case has well kept itself away from the complicated politics that have for 24 years surrounded the Cyprus problem. Turkey has been charged through this trial with a form of war reparations, described in her responsibility for the loss of use and revenue that the Greek Cypriot legal owner of the land has suffered. This case serves therefore as a strong legal precedent for similar instances observed in the case of the Bosnian war (and its infamous ethnic cleansing legacies) and in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, where Palestinian Arabs who forcibly fled their homes in 1948 and again in 1967 no longer have access to their land.

Domestically, the Loizidou v. Turkey judgment serves as a firm legal stronghold in attempts to solve the Cyprus problem: whatever the political solution may be, the rightful owners of land in the northern part of Cyprus can only be absolved of their property rights when they themselves decide to surrender that land. Possible endeavors by the negotiating parties to reach a land settlement can not ignore now the reality of land ownership nor can Turkey be relieved of her monetary debts towards the citizens whose land it has illegally withheld for 24 years. The bearing of such a European Court ruling stands in the way of any such attempts at a political solution.

Last but not least is the re-affirmation that this court ruling has offered to the numerous UN Security Council resolutions, calling for Turkey to withdraw its illegal military presence in northern Cyprus and allow for the return of the forcibly expelled population, that is the refugees. The bearing of such a European Court ruling stands as a powerful means of ensuring that the rights of the citizens of Cyprus are neither sidelined nor postponed for the benefits of a prompt and impartial political solution.

By Eleni Apeyitou

LOIZIDOU v. TURKEY

European Commission of Human Rights/European Court of Human Rights/ Council of Europe

19 March 1989

March by Women Walk Home - events that gave rise to Application.

22 July 1989

Introduction of Application

11 January 1991

Hearing before Commission on admissibility

07 March 1991

Decision by Commission on admissibility

09 &10 June 1992

Hearing before Commission of witnesses

04 December 1992

Hearing before Commission on merits

08 July 1993

Adoption of Report by Commission

09 November 1993

Application referred to Court by Cyprus Government

22 June1994

Hearing before the Court on Preliminary Objections

23 March 1995

Judgment by Court on Preliminary Objections

25 September 1995

Hearing before the Court on merits

18 December 1996

Judgment by Court on merits

27 November 1997

Hearing before the Court on Article 50

28 July 1998

Judgment by Court on Article 50

July 1998

Case Transmited to Committee of Ministers for supervision of execution

28 October 1998

Turkey fails to meet deadline on damages

22 June 1999

Letter by Chairman of the Committee of Ministers to Turkish Foreign Minister

6 October 1999 

Interim Resolution by Committee of Ministers

24 July 2000

Interim Resolution by Committee of Ministers

2 December 2003

The Turkish authorities paid the just satisfaction awarded by the European Court in the Loizidou case.

14 February 2007

At the Committee’s request, the Immovable Property Commission (“IPC”) made an ex officio offer to Mrs Loizidou, where no restitution was offered.

28 May 2008

The Applicant wrote to the Committee, criticising in particular the IPC’s refusal to offer restitution.

For communication by Applicant and Respondent to Committee of Ministers for execution, please click on "Case Documents" in the following link: http://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=004-37072

4-6 June 2019

At the 1348th DH meeting, the Secretariat proposed to the Committee to close the Loizidou case.

22 September 2022

At the 1443rd DH meeting, the Committee of Ministers decided to close the supervision of the execution of the Judgment of 18 December 1996 in the Loizidou case.

The case in brief

Titina Loizidou comes from Kyrenia, a city in the northern part of Cyprus. She lived in Kyrenia up until 1972 when together with her husband, they moved to Nicosia temporarily with the intention of settling back to Kyrenia at a later stage.

However, the Turkish invasion in 1974 denied her access to her hometown and subsequently to the 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 along with other women held her captive for participating in the march.

In July 1989 she applied to the European Commission of Human Rights in Strasbourg by filing an individual application against Turkey. She had then started a long complicated and difficult process, which lasted nine years. The European Court of Human Rights delivered 3 different judgments on the Loizidou case, which established the fact that Turkey was indeed the party responsible for the inability of the applicant to peacefully access and enjoy her property in Kyrenia. The Court found Turkey guilty of violating Loizidous's property rights (according to Article 1 Protocol No. 1 of the European Convention for Human Rights) and responsible for reversing such an illegality. Furthermore, Turkey was held responsible (according to the Court's July 28 1998 judgment) for paying Loizidou pecuniary damages -just satisfaction- which amounted to Cyp 300.000 ($US 600,000). The non pecuniary damages were estimated according to the Court's award to a Cyp20.000 (US $ 40,000) amount. 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 property rights and of human rights. She has argued her case and obtained 3 judgments 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 judgment 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 judgments 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 1999 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 the Court ordered Turkey to pay the woman approximately $915,000 in damages and costs by October 28. 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. The Council of Europe (COE) during 1999 continued to call on the Turkish Government to comply with the Court's decision. In October the COE Committee of Ministers' Deputies voted to deplore Turkey's lack of compliance. A number of similar cases have been filed with the ECHR."

Web: www.cyprus.com.cy

Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

For information about the page and its content please send an e-mail to: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.