A CRUCIAL European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) decision in a property case brought against Turkey by a Famagusta refugee will be announced in around three months, it was reported yesterday.
The decision is expected to affect similar cases before the court as it is linked to a Turkish demand to legitimise a ‘compensation commission’ set up by the Turkish Cypriot regime to provide effective domestic legal means dealing with Greek Cypriot property appeals.
Commenting on the case, Foreign Minister George Iacovou charged yesterday that members of the United Nations team had intervened with the court during the solution negotiations, with the aim off freezing the cases “supposedly to maintain the good climate”.
“During the discussions on the Annan plan, Cyprus was informed that there were even interventions from people on Mr. (Alvaro) De Soto’s team to freeze the cases,” the minister said.
“Thus, various cases had not been presented while others that had already been made admissible did not proceed,” he claimed.
The minister said Turkey had tried to create the impression that the ECHR would be flooded with Greek Cypriot appeals, while in reality, out of the 35,000 cases before the court, only 500 were from Greek Cypriot refugees.
Yesterday, the 10-member third section of the ECHR under German judge Georg Ress heard the two sides’ positions, while three of the judges raised several questions with the Turkish side.
Lawyer Achilleas Demetriades, who represented refugee Myra Xenidi-Aresti, said that the president of the court had asked for information on the role of the Turkish forces on the island, while the Irish judge noted that the property issue was very complicated.
Turkish Judge Riza Turmen inquired about the number of applications before the commission.
The Turkish representative told the court that three cases were pending before the commission and claimed that others had been withdrawn due to pressure.
The representative further noted that the property issue should not even be discussed before the ECHR because of its political aspects.
As for the Turkish occupying forces, he claimed that they were on the island in accordance with the 1960 Treaty of Guarantees.
Demetriades countered that the Treaty of Guarantees provided for 650 Turkish troops, while there were presently 35,000 on the island.
He added that there were also security forces under the command of a Turkish brigadier, while Varosha was being held hostage by Turkey.
Demetriades said Turkey maintained that the Annan plan had changed the situation in Cyprus, a position that he rejected since in reality nothing had changed on the ground with the rejection of the plan.
He told the court that his client’s case had been filed before the appointment of the commission, which in any case failed to address certain articles of the European Convention of Human Rights regarding the right for respect of private and family life and banning discrimination.
Demetriades argued the commission was illegal because it was based on an illegal constitution and it could not be effective since its members were biased.
It did offer compensation, but did not recognise an owner’s right to property, Demetriades said.
“Diplomacy is in contradiction with justice as it allows the conqueror to get away without punishment,” Demetriades told the court.
The sides’ positions have already been submitted to the court in writing.
The case is viewed as a test case by the ECHR and will affect most of the pending cases, apart from 33, which have already been admitted by the court.
In a May 14 letter, the ECHR asked the two sides to respond to three questions: the status of the Turkish Cypriot ‘property commission’, whether the applicants were discouraged by the authorities or others from applying, and what, if any, were the legal consequences of the failure of the Annan plan on the pending cases before the court.
The government’s position was that the ‘commission’ was illegal since it was created by an illegal regime, which according to a previous ECHR decision was defined as Turkey’s subordinate local administration.
The state also pointed out that the rejection of the Annan plan had nothing to do with individual applications.
Turkey, on the other hand, backs its position with arguments already rejected by the ECHR in the landmark Titina Loizidou case.
Turkey insists that there is a state in the north and therefore the commission is a legal and effective internal remedy.
It further argues that after the partial lifting of restrictions on the freedom of movement, there is free access to properties.
Around 300 refugee cases had been filed before the appointment of the commission and an additional 400 after that, Demetriades said.
“All cases, apart from the 33, which are admissible, will be affected by the outcome of the case,” he said.
Asked by the court about the potential consequences of the rejection of the Annan plan, Demetriades argued that the referendum had annulled the plan.
Turkey, however, argued that the rejection of the plan by the Greek Cypriots had upgraded the breakaway state to a certain degree.
This position was not based on legal arguments but was a political analysis of the current situation, Demetriades said.
The court reserved its decision, which is expected to be announced in around two to three months.
