THE property aspect of the Cyprus dispute currently stands as one of the most intractable issues arguably rivalling only the topic on military guarantees.
Between 1955 and 1974, the main actors in the ‘’Cyprus Dispute’’ resorted to weapons in order to pursue interests or to defend their rights. Way into the second half of the 1990s, the international community feared that a war could resume between the two communities that would ultimately engulf both sides of the Aegean, i.e. Greece and Turkey. However, from the 1990s onwards, the ‘battle of weapons’ has been eclipsed by a ‘battle of books.’ Losing faith in diplomatic means to force Turkey’s troops out of Cyprus, the Greek side began placing more emphasis on international law in order to emphasise to Turkey’s elite the economic and political costs of maintaining the status quo.
Loizidou v. Turkey was a landmark legal case regarding the rights of Titina Loizidou in wishing to return to her home in Kyrenia. The European Court of Human Rights [ECHR] ruled that she, and persons like her, have the right to return to their former properties and that, despite all the laws passed in the ‘TRNC’, they continue to retain title to their lands. The ECHR ruled that Turkey was responsible for the violation of Loizidou’s human rights, that she should be allowed to return to her home and that Turkey should pay substantial damages to her, inter alia, for the loss of enjoyment of her home. After several years of protests, Turkey agreed to pay more than one million US dollars to Loizidou, just for the ‘loss of use’ of her house.
The case has served as a precedent for dozens of cases that have been concluded in a similar fashion. Starting from 2004, the Greek side opened another front at the European Court of Justice [ECJ] through the case Meletis Apostolides v. David Charles Orams and Linda Elizabeth Orams. Based on the ECJ opinion of 28 April 2009, the UK Court of Appeal recently decided to enforce a Greek Cypriot judgment that recognised the pre-1974 possessor’s right to ownership and put the brakes on the continuing development of Greek Cypriot properties in the north.
Compensating thousands of Greek Cypriot refugees may ultimately make Turkey foot a bill running up to billions of US dollars. Uncertainty as to the ownership of claimed Greek Cypriot-owned land in northern Cyprus has had a negative impact on the Turkish Cypriot economy. Despite their earlier successes in the ‘battle of weapons,’ the ‘battle of books’ is being lost by the Turkish side. Will this trend continue?
After 1974, the Republic put all Turkish Cypriot properties under the guardianship of the Interior Minister, who prohibits their sale, exchange and transfer because of the state of emergency. However, without following proper expropriation procedures enshrined in Law 15/1962, the Republic took large expanses of Turkish Cypriot-owned land for development projects and for refugee estates. Besides, the said restrictions placed on the right of Turkish Cypriots to alienate their properties in the south are arguably unreasonable to an extent. So far, hardly any Turkish Cypriots have decided to take action on these irregularities. Nevertheless, an increased appreciation that international law or local Cypriot law is not at the disposal of the Greek Cypriots only may change the situation.
In order to accommodate international law and ease the pressure from Strasbourg, the Turkish Cypriot authorities set up a commission (the “Immovable Property Commission”- hereafter the IPC) to examine applications under that law and decide on whether restitution, exchange of properties or payment of compensation is appropriate. It is composed of five to seven members, two of whom are foreign members. There is also the remaining ability for subsequent appeal to the “TRNC High Administrative Court” and thereafter to the ECHR in Strasbourg.
In the last four years, the property regime in northern Cyprus has been revised on different parameters and the right to a restitution of property has been limited on more objective grounds than ethnic background. The more recent law survived a challenge at the “Supreme Court” of the “TRNC” that upheld its validity.
On March 5, in the case of Demepoulos and Others v Turkey, the court finally agreed with the Turkish proposition that the Greek Cypriot applicants whose cases have not yet been declared admissible should first resort to the potential remedies available in northern Cyprus. This will be a potential sigh of relief for the Erdo?an government. A verdict along these lines will delay the process of more than 1,300 Greek Cypriot claims for up to five or seven years in the Turkish Cypriot legal system, giving Turkey more breathing space to reach a political solution.
One likely implication of last week’s decision is that hundreds of Greek Cypriot refugees or their descendants, fed up with the uncertainty of the last 35 years and not having the patience to further wait for an unpredictable amount of time for an ECHR judgement which may not ultimately be honoured by Turkey, may start rushing to the said IPC to accept a settlement where they will agree to renounce their property rights in return for monetary compensation. If such a scenario materialises the government of the Republic of Cyprus’ official stance on the property issue may suffer a blow. What is more it may simultaneously need to struggle with a future wave of litigation concerning Turkish Cypriot properties in the south. As for Turkey, after 1974, she created a Lebensraum in the north for the Turkish Cypriots and her settlers. Although at a huge cost, through the IPC, she may now embark on buying the title deeds to this living space and facilitating the achievement of a bi-zonal solution. What the future will bring remains to be seen.
- Murat Metin Hakki , LL. B. (Southampton), LL. M. (LSE), LL. M. (Cornell), A.M. (Harvard), PgDip. L.P., ACIArb, is a member of the New York State Bar, member of the Cyprus Bar Association, Barrister-at-Law, of the Honourable Society of Gray’s Inn.
