THE EUROPEAN Court of Human Rights yesterday recognised the Immovable Property Commission (IPC) in the occupied areas as an effective domestic remedy of Turkey.
As a result of the landmark ruling, Greek Cypriot refugees seeking compensation or restitution for their properties in the occupied areas will now have to exhaust all domestic remedies in the occupied areas before applying to the ECHR in Strasbourg.
Up until yesterday, Greek Cypriot refugees had bypassed the occupied areas on the grounds that there was no effective remedy there.
The ECHR decision is final and not subject to any appeal to either the court or any other body.
Although the decision is sure to be perceived as a huge blow to the Greek Cypriot side and a political win for the Turkish Cypriot side, the ECHR reiterated its position that the ‘TRNC’ has no legal standing and that Turkey in terms of human rights is responsible for violations in the northern part of the island.
In fact, the decision is also a “de-recognition” of the ‘TRNC’ by Turkey, said the lawyer Achilleas Demetriades representing three of the eight cases.
Demetriades based his comments on the decision that “the Turkish government no longer contested the responsibility under the Convention for areas under the control of the ‘TRNC’. They have, in substance, acknowledged the rights of Greek Cypriot owners to remedies for breaches of their rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1”.
Speaking to reporters at a news conference to announce the ECHR decision, Demetriades said the only question was whether refugees wanted to go to Turkey to claim their property rights.
“The remedy is Turkish. You don’t have to go, you can wait for a political solution,” he said.
Demetriades was referring to a passage in the 44-page decision regarding this point.
According to the ECHR “this decision is not to be interpreted as requiring that applicants make use of the IPC.
“They may choose not to do so and await a political solution.”
The lawyer said: “The message is clear. It is not about recognising the TRNC… The occupied parts in terms of human rights is Turkey.”
In the past, Turkey had washed its hands of the occupied areas and attributed any violations of human rights on the ‘TRNC’, which only she recognised, but now Ankara had changed its position on the issue and accepts that it is responsible for the violations and she therefore has to provide the domestic remedy, said Demetriades.
Up until yesterday’s decision Greek Cypriots had applied directly to Strasbourg on the grounds that there was no domestic remedy in the occupied areas.
“Now there is,” said Demetriades. “The European court will only intervene when all domestic remedies are exhausted.”
The lawyer said the ECHR decision in essence holds Turkey responsible for any violations of Greek Cypriot human rights and Turkey has accepted any violations as her own.
“This is new. Now it [the Court] clearly repeats that the TRNC does not exist. And now only Turkey is in the occupied areas,” he said.
“Essentially nothing changes in the road to Strasbourg except up until now people used to go straight to Strasbourg. Now the court said there is a Turkish domestic remedy that needs to be exhausted.”
In other words, refugees would first have to apply to the IPC. If the remedies offered are unsatisfactory, refugees would then have to apply to the High Administrative Court in the occupied areas as a matter of appeal. Again, if the remedies are unsatisfactory, only then could they apply to the ECHR.
The decision assessed the IPC’s legality and effectiveness and found that it was both a legal and effective remedy, he said.
Demetriades said the decision should come as no surprise and had been stated in past decisions but that some parties had chosen to ignore it.
He said this was not the first time Turkey had been up against similar cases and referred to the 1989 cases of Protopapas and others concerning the arrests in the Ayios Kassianos area where the ECHR did not consider the arrest, detention, trial and sentence of Greek Cypriots as illegal.
The decision also referred to applications to the IPC by refugees who had only lived in their properties for two years before the 1974 invasion. According to the ECHR, such refugees had no right to make a claim because they had not lived in their occupied properties long enough and therefore that did not qualify as a home.
