The European Court of Human Rights on Tuesday ordered Turkey to pay €18,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, costs and expenses to the Greek Cypriot company K.V. Mediterranean Tours Limited that owns property in the fenced off area of Famagusta.
According to the decision in the case of K.V. Mediterranean Tours Limited v. Türkiye, the Court holds, unanimously, that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that concerns the peaceful enjoyment of possession and that Turkey was to pay the applicant €7,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and €11,000 in respect of costs and expenses. The Court found, by 5 votes to 2, that the question of pecuniary damage was not yet ready for decision, and reserved it for future decision.
The company owns a building complex located in the area of Famagusta, fenced-up following the 1974 Turkish intervention and in July 2010, applied to the “Immovable Property Commission (IPC)”, claiming compensation for the loss of use of its building complex. It also claimed restitution of the property, compensation for non-pecuniary damage, statutory interest and legal costs.
After the company had submitted an application to the “IPC” in 2010 without result, and exhausted Turkey’s domestic legal remedies in the island’s Turkish-occupied territories, it filed an application against the Republic of Turkey with the Court.
According to the ECHR’s press release, having been provided with official certificates in support of K.V. Mediterranean Tours Limited’s property claim, the Court considered the company to be the legal owner of the property for its assessment of the case.
It notes that the case concerned the effectiveness of the “IPC” as a “legal avenue for compensation claims brought by Greek Cypriots in the ‘trnc’ ” – as the Court refers to the illegal regime set up by Turkey in the areas under military occupation – as well as the participation of a religious foundation in the IPC proceedings “and the alleged lack of impartiality of the High Administrative Court (appeal panel) as a higher judicial authority for IPC cases”. The religious foundation in question is Evkaf, the organisation overseeing the functionality of vakıfs (foundations) and their registered properties in Cyprus.
In general, it adds, the Court acknowledged the progress made by the “IPC” in processing property claims and noted the diverse range of remedies provided, including compensation, exchange, and restitution, and welcomed the ongoing efforts. “In this case, however, the Court found that the protracted nature of the proceedings had been mainly due to the passive approach of the IPC and the procrastination of the ‘trnc’ authorities towards preparing documents and gathering evidence”, it said, adding that the “IPC” “had not acted coherently, diligently and quickly enough in examining the claim.”
Under Article 46 (binding force and enforcement of judgments) it said, the Court found that consistent and long‑term efforts had to be continued, in particular as far as expediting “IPC” proceedings was concerned and creating a remedy which secured genuinely effective redress in respect of delays.
The Court also rejected as unsubstantiated the allegations by the company as regards the admission of the Evkaf Administration as a third party to the proceedings and its impact on a fair hearing. Evkaf claims that the property in question was registered to an Islamic religious organisation, which was managed by Evkaf.
The Court pointed out that the participation of the Evkaf Administration in the “IPC” proceedings as a potentially affected party had been necessary to comply with the principle of a fair trial and that the company “had failed to convincingly demonstrate how the Evkaf Administration’s involvement had rendered the proceedings unfair.” The “IPC” had not automatically assigned ownership to the religious foundation, and the company had had the opportunity to contest the foundation’s ownership claims in the “IPC” proceedings, it adds.
It is noted that Judges Yüksel (Turkey) and Paczolay (Hungary) expressed a partly dissenting opinion, among other things on that the violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in the present case is of a procedural nature and it relates to the lack of coherence, diligence and appropriate expedition in examining the applicant company’s claim. They note that, as the applicant company’s claim is still pending, “we see no reason to depart from the approach taken in Joannou, where the Court deferred to the possibility of redress being achieved through the further course of the proceedings before the IPC”, according to the press release.
Cyprus has been divided since 1974, when Turkey invaded and occupied its northern third. Varosha, the fenced off section of the Turkish occupied town of Famagusta, is often described as a ‘ghost town’.
UN Security Council resolution 550 (1984) considers any attempts to settle any part of Varosha by people other than its inhabitants as inadmissible and calls for the transfer of this area to the administration of the UN. UN Security Council resolution 789 (1992) also urges that with a view to the implementation of resolution 550 (1984), the area at present under the control of the United Nations Peace-keeping Force in Cyprus be extended to include Varosha.
On October 8, 2020, the Turkish side opened part of the fenced area of Varosha, following an announcement made in Ankara on October 6. Then, in July 2021, Turkish Cypriot leader, Ersin Tatar, announced a partial lifting of the military status in Varosha.
In his latest UNFICYP report, UN Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, notes that no steps were taken to address the call made by the Security Council in 2024 for the immediate reversal of the action taken since October 2020. The EU has also expressed concern.
Also read: Arrest warrants issued over land usurpation in occupied Lefkoniko
Source: CNA
