REFUGEES WISHING to pursue their property rights have two months left to apply to the Immoveable Property Commission (IPC) in the north, said human rights lawyer Achilleas Demetriades yesterday.
Speaking at a press conference, Demetriades highlighted that the IPC, set up by Turkey in 2006 as a domestic remedy to property claims of displaced Greek Cypriots, would close its doors on December 21, 2011, unless Turkey decides to extend its lifespan in the meantime.
In the 2010 Demopoulos case, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruling clarified that Greek Cypriots would have to exhaust all domestic remedies first before going to Strasbourg Court.
Demetriades noted that the ECHR decision left refugees with two choices: “Either do nothing and wait for a solution to the Cyprus problem, or apply to the IPC before the deadline on December 21, 2011.”
At the IPC, applicants can seek loss of use (rent) for the period 1974-2011, combined with a choice of three options: restitution, exchange with property in the government-controlled areas or expropriation with compensation.
Those who apply but are not happy with the result can appeal to the High Administrative Court in the north. If still not satisfied, only then can they seek recourse to the ECHR.
The human rights lawyer responsible for taking on Turkey in the seminal Titina Loizidou case which carved a path for refugees to seek loss of use and restitution from Turkey in Strasbourg clarified that his law office was not taking on any more clients for IPC applications. The aim was simply to remind people that if they wanted to pursue their property rights, they have two months to do so.
The lawyer rejected the argument that going to the IPC was against the national interest and undermining negotiations to reunify the island. He slammed efforts to make people feel guilty over this, arguing nobody had the right to decide on a property owner’s individual human rights regarding their property.
He repeated calls for waves of mass applications by Varosha property owners, the fenced off area of Famagusta, followed by those owning property used by the Turkish army, plus those with economic interests and moveable property in the north, and finally, everyone else.
Demetriades has long argued in favour of applying to the IPC, saying this was the only legal option on the table for extracting rent from Turkey for the continued occupation of Greek Cypriot properties. And if Turkey wasn’t offering enough, this was the only way to reach the ECHR and seek a remedy there.
According to Demetriades, the IPC has yet to decide on what values to give for Varosha applications. The commission is waiting to see what the ECHR will decide in the Dinos Lordos case, the last Greek Cypriot refugee case at Strasbourg. “We’re seeking €90m for loss of use. We expect the decision in six to nine months.”
The result will provide an indication to the IPC of the values calculated for properties in the fenced off area.
He also highlighted the “worst case scenario” should the IPC shut up shop in two months. A hypothetical scenario would be one where Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan announces on December 22, 2011, that only those who applied would be offered some kind of a remedy.
For those who did not apply, Erdogan might decide the logical conclusion is they really don’t want to go back and don’t want to assert their rights.
As such, he could announce the expropriation of the rest of the Greek Cypriot properties in the north.
Demetriades stressed that people needed to realise that ECHR case law acknowledges a right to property but does not guarantee a right of return. Post-Demopoulos, the right of the current user is growing in weight.
According to the IPC website, as of October 19, 2011, 2,133 applications have been lodged with the IPC of which 181 have been concluded through friendly settlements and seven through formal hearing. The IPC has paid £58,614,200 Sterling to applicants as compensation.
It has ruled for exchange and compensation in two cases, for restitution in one case and for restitution and compensation in five cases. In one case, it has delivered a decision for restitution after a settlement and in another case partial restitution.
