IN A landmark decision, the Supreme Court yesterday ruled in favour of a Turkish Cypriot man who filed an appeal demanding the return of his property in Episkopi, which he had abandoned during the 1974 invasion.
The bombshell decision has immediate effect, forcing the family of refugees living in the house for the past 30 years to move out.
The government said it respected the court’s decision, but added the Attorney-general was considering an appeal.
Turkish Cypriot properties abandoned in 1974 came under the possession of the state, initially through appropriation and subsequently through the temporary provisions of the 1991 Law on Turkish Cypriot properties, which tasked the Guardian of Turkish Cypriot properties with their management.
The property in question, which has belonged to Arif Mustafa since March 22, 1963, includes a house and an orchard in Episkopi, in the Limassol district.
In September 2002, Mustafa moved to the government-controlled areas along with his family and rented a house in Polemidia in Limassol.
He then requested the return of his property from the Interior Minister, who rejected the demand because control of all Turkish Cypriot properties had been taken on by the Guardian, pending resolution of the Cyprus problem.
Mustafa appealed the decision, suggesting that the term ‘Turkish Cypriot’ as stipulated by the Law on Turkish Cypriot Properties did not apply to him, since his usual place of residence since September 2002 was in the government-controlled areas.
In his decision yesterday, Supreme Court judge Demetris Hadjihambis noted that the Republic did not deny that the applicant had his usual place of residence in the government-controlled areas.
“It suggests, however, that whether a person has his usual residence in the government-controlled areas was judged from the day the law came into effect and not at any later stage, so that from the moment the Guardian took over the management of Turkish Cypriot property, it would be impossible, for as long as the law is in effect, to terminate the administration,” the judge said.
Hadjihambis said he was “unable to accept this interpretation”, which the law itself did not support.
The term ‘Turkish Cypriot’ “is not linked to the date the law came into effect,” the judge said.
He added: “The criterion of the law as to who is a ‘Turkish Cypriot’ is in each specific instance his usual place of residence in the areas controlled by the Republic; it is not explained why there should be discrimination between the members of the Turkish Cypriot community who had, and those who did not have, their usual place of residence in the areas controlled by the Republic on July 1, 1991, when the law took effect”.
The judge suggested that such a distinction would not only be irrational but would constitute an unjustified and exaggerated restriction to the constitutional right to own property and would effectively punish Turkish Cypriots who, like the applicant, could not move, even if they wanted, to the south prior to July 1, 1991.
“Any such discrimination would constitute an acceptance of the partition of the population imposed by the Turkish invasion and occupation forces and refusal to recognise the property rights of the members of the Turkish community, who, in opposition to the segregation, desire to return to their homes and properties, which are controlled by the Republic,” Hadjihambis said.
He said that the assumption of the properties by the Guardian was not in reaction to the occupation and exploitation of Greek Cypriot properties in the north, but aimed at the protection of the properties in question in the absence of their owners.
Properties whose owners resided in the government-controlled areas did not need protection, thus “establishing a criterion, which does not generally apply to the mass of Turkish Cypriot but specifically to individual owners”.
