BOTH sides claimed victory yesterday as the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ordered Turkey to pay Greek Cypriot refugee Myra Xenides-Arestis 850,000 euros in compensation for denying her access to the property she lost in the 1974 Turkish invasion.
While Arestis appeared to celebrate yesterday’s ruling, it also came as relief to the Turkish Cypriot authorities, as the ECHR appeared to give a tentative green light to the north’s property commission yesterday – despite saying it was not in a position to deliver justice on the case that sparked its existence.
Most pleasing for the north was the court’s statement that “the new compensation and restitution mechanism, in principle, has taken care of the requirements of the decision of the court.” Less pleasing, however, was its statement that because of its newness, it would not be fair to force Arestis to apply to it. Arestis’ claim goes back to 1987, while the property commission has existed in its current form only since March this year.
“The court cannot accept the [Turkish] government’s argument that the applicant should now be required at this stage of the proceedings where the court has already decided on the merits to apply to the new commission in order to seek reparation for her damages. The court will therefore proceed to determine the compensation the applicant is entitled to in respect of losses emanating from the denial of access and loss of control, use, and enjoyment of her property,” the court concluded.
As a result of yesterday’s ruling, Turkey must now pay 850,000 euros worth of damages to Arestis within the next three months. The figure includes 50,000 euros for non-pecuniary damages, and 35,000 for court costs. At around £460,000, the figure is considerably higher than the £240,000 compensation offered earlier this year to Arestis by the commission. However, it is also considerably lower than the £700,000 demanded in her original claim.
Arestis’ lawyer Achilleas Demetriades welcomed yesterday’s decision, saying the ruling did not, however, give any indication as to the ECHR’s view over the validity of the property commission.
“The court avoided considering the effectiveness of the commission as Turkey’s domestic remedy. Therefore, this issue remains open,” he told the Cyprus Mail.
A definitive verdict on the commission, he said, would only emerge if Turkey decided to ask for a referral of the Arestis case, or through rulings emerging from subsequent cases by other Greek Cypriot refugees. He added that 38 cases were pending at the ECHR which had already been accepted by the court as admissible. Such cases, he said, could not be referred to the north’s commission, although a subsequent 1,360 cases could, in theory at least, be referred.
Demetriades noted, however, that even if subsequent cases were referred to the commission in the north, Turkey would be unable to offer less compensation for non- pecuniary damages than the 50,000 euros offered to Arestis. This, he said, meant that Turkey was, for that alone, looking at a bill of around 8 billion euros.
Turkish Cypriot international law expert at the Eastern Mediterranean University (EMU), and one of the main architects of the property commission, Dr Kudret Ozersay agreed with Demetriades yesterday that a definitive ruling on the commission was yet to be delivered. However, he said it was possible that the ECHR could, rather than waiting for another test case, hold a special session purely to decide on whether the nine rulings made so far by the commission were fair.
What will happen now to Arestis’ property in the fenced-off area of Varosha under Turkish military control remains unclear. Although the ruling states unequivocally that the property still belongs to her, she still does not have access to it. The property commission offered her £240,000 in June as compensation for the property itself. Arestis, however, rejected the offer, meaning the refugee will either have to wait for a solution of the Cyprus problem, or for the Turkish Cypriot authorities to return the area to civilian control under its own authority.
The controversial property commission came to life when the ECHR in December 2005 called on to Turkey to find a way of offering Arestis “redress” for the loss of her property in Varosha. Turkey accepted the task, and in turn gave the Turkish Cypriot authorities – as its ‘subordinate local authority’ – the job of delivering justice on Greek Cypriot property claims. In making the ruling, the ECHR effectively adjourned around 1,400 Greek Cypriot applications, pending a later decision on whether the Turkish Cypriot property commission truly fits the criteria spelled out by the ECHR.
