By Elias Hazou
REACTIONS to the European Court of Human Right’s ruling on the Loizidou vs Turkey case began coming in yesterday, with the decision hailed in Cyprus, but dismissed as “unfortunate” in Ankara.
In a written statement released yesterday, Kyrenia refugee Titina Loizidou said that the decision was important not only for her, but also for all Greek Cypriot refugees, though she added that the inability to enjoy her property could “not be counted in cold numbers and monetary compensation.”
“I am confident that the Cyprus Government… will use all available means of pressuring Turkey into allowing me to return to my native town of Kyrenia,” she went on to say.
Speaking at his daily press briefing, government spokesman Christos Stylianides pointed out that the decision was significant in that it “delegates responsibility to Turkey for the invasion”, and that it “confirms that Loizidou is still the rightful owner of her property in the north.”
Achilleas Demetriades, Loizidou’s lawyer, felt that Turkey would eventually have to pay up, and suggested that Turkish assets abroad might be targeted.
But a Turkish Foreign Ministry statement said yesterday that the court ruling was a hindrance to solving the division of Cyprus.
“This issue can only be addressed and settled between the two states in Cyprus,” it said. The statement added that individual cases like Loizidou’s would block a general settlement of thousands of similar cases on both sides of the Green Line that divides the island.
The Turkish foreign ministry said the case was a matter between the plaintiff and the authorities in the occupied areas, which the court did not recognise.
“It is unfortunate that the Court has taken the judgments on the case without taking into account the fact that the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is an independent state,” it said.
On Wednesday, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Turkey should pay Loizidou £300,000 in compensation for “prevention of enjoyment of her property.”
The ruling was the conclusion of a case filed in 1989 against Turkey. In 1996, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Turkey had violated Loizidou’s rights by denying her access to her property.
By a 14 to three vote on Wednesday, the court granted £300,000 compensation for prevention of enjoyment of property, an additional £20,000 for moral damages and a further £137,000 to cover her legal costs.
Ruling Disy party leader Nicos Anastassiades yesterday welcomed the court’s decision, congratulating Loizidou for showing “determination in her just battle, which the European Court’s ruling at long last vindicated.” This case, he went on in a written statement, “is strong proof that persistence and unity in a common cause can overcome the most difficult of obstacles.”
The United Democrats also issued a statement, saying the European court’s decision “vindicated legal efforts that condemn Turkey for its unlawful actions in Cyprus.”
The ruling is widely viewed as having a significant political aspect. If Turkey refuses to pay up, this would potentially work to the Cyprus government’s advantage in European diplomatic circles. As Demetriades put it: “if they (Turkey) want to be part of Europe, they should play by the club Europe rules.”
