Despite Ersin Tatar’s claims, the ECtHR ruling on a Greek Cypriot property case found serious flaws in the Immovable Property Commission’s performance and reasserted Turkey’s responsibility for rights violations.
The Claim:
Turkish Cypriot leader Ersin Tatar stated that a June judgment by the Court “reaffirmed that the Immovable Property Commission (IPC) constitutes an effective domestic legal remedy that must be exhausted in relation to claims concerning immovable properties abandoned by Greek Cypriots in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.”
“The Court noted that there were some delays in the proceedings before the IPC, partly due to the applicant, and stated that it would be beneficial for TRNC authorities to participate in IPC proceedings in a timely manner and to provide remedies for delayed adjudication. On these grounds, the Court held that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights was violated on procedural grounds in this application.”
“This decision by the ECtHR serves as a response to the Greek Cypriot side, which pursues an aggressive policy against our citizens by ignoring our property regime and its integral component, the IPC.”
“The IPC exists and continues to function effectively.”
The Cyprus Investigative Reporting Network (CIReN) examined Tatar’s excerpted statements, conducted a fact-check, and issued its verdict.
The Facts:
Since the early 1990s the ECtHR has received a huge number of property claims by Greek Cypriots, who were displaced in 1974 after the northern third of the island was occupied by Turkey in response to a coup aimed at annexing Cyprus to Greece.
In a landmark decision (Loizidou v. Turkey) in 1996, the ECtHR held Turkey responsible for property rights violations in north Cyprus and stated that Greek Cypriot property rights remain valid.
In 2004 the UN efforts to reunite the island failed when the Greek Cypriot community rejected a proposed comprehensive solution plan, while the Turkish Cypriot community voted “yes” in separate referenda.
In 2005 the ECtHR in another ruling (Xenides-Arestis v. Turkey) demanded that Turkey introduce a remedy that secures genuinely effective redress for the property violations. The IPC was set up following this judgment in 2006 in the northern part of Cyprus to create a local mechanism to deal with Greek Cypriot property claims and decide on the restitution, exchange of properties, or payment of compensation.
In a subsequent decision in 2010 (Demopoulos v. Turkey) the ECtHR held that the IPC was an effective and accessible domestic remedy for Greek Cypriot claims for properties. This liberated the Court from handling thousands of Greek Cypriot property claims.
K.V. Mediterranean Tours Limited, the owner of a building complex located in the fenced off city of Varosha in the northern part of Cyprus, applied to the IPC in July 2010, claiming compensation for the loss of use and restitution of the property. The proceedings before the IPC have been pending for almost fifteen years.
The company took the case to the ECtHR alleging a lack of effectiveness of the proceedings before the IPC.
What the court said:
The ECtHR held that the “protracted nature of the proceedings had been mainly due to the passive approach of the IPC” as well as Turkish Cypriot authorities and added: “In the present case the IPC did not act with coherence, diligence and appropriate expedition in examining the applicant company’s claim.”
The Court also stated that “ the current case clearly showed that consistent and long‑term efforts must continue in order to achieve compliance with the Convention requirements, in particular, as regards acceleration of proceedings and the creation of a remedy genuinely securing effective redress in respect of delays in the proceedings before the IPC.”
In its assessment, the Court noted that the excessive length of proceedings before the IPC is not a new issue. “In previous similar cases, the Court has criticised the protracted nature of the proceedings, and in particular it has referred to the “TRNC” authorities’ failure to respond to the applicants’ claims before the IPC in a timely manner,” it stated. It has also made clear that it remains attentive to the developments in the functioning of the IPC remedy and its ability to effectively address Greek Cypriot property claims.
Verdict: Misleading
Although Tatar acknowledges that the Court found violations of property rights due to delays, the overall message that he is pushing is misleading. In his statement he is avoiding to talk about the delays caused by the IPC, underlining only delays caused by the applicant. The ECtHR however, in its ruling clearly found serious faults and delays by IPC and asked Turkey to pay compensation.
Even though the Court still holds IPC as an effective domestic remedy, it also noted that excessive delays is not a new issue and underlined it is observing and continuously assessing the effective functioning of the IPC.
This project is supported by the European Media and Information Fund (EMIF). The sole responsibility for any content supported by the European Media and Information Fund lies with the authors and it may not necessarily reflect the positions of the EMIF and the Fund Partners, the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation and the European University Institute.
