THE government and all political parties yesterday expressed their deep disappointment over the European Court of Human Rights’ decision to recognise the Immovable Property Commission (IPC) in the occupied areas as an effective domestic remedy of Turkey.
Government spokesman Stefanos Stefanou said the ECHR decision was respected but wrong.
“The ECHR cannot refer a property owner to a remedy that is essentially the product of and born from an illegality,” he said.
Speaking to reporters at a news conference yesterday morning Stefanou said even past findings could not support the ECHR’s decision.
Despite the fact that the decision holds Turkey responsible for any violations of Greek Cypriot human rights, it had still raised a series of problems which would be closely evaluated by the government, added Stefanou.
All parties including AKEL, DISY, DIKO, EDEK, EVROKO and the Greens were equally bleak regarding Friday’s decision.
House Legal Affairs Committee president and DISY vice president Ionas Nicolaou said the decision would have to be examined “carefully and calmly” and personal initiatives avoided “because maybe one of the reasons which led us here was the large number of cases [1,400] pending before the court”.
Nicolaou said the ECHR decision to recognise the IPC, irrespective of how it was set up, was extremely serious and needed to be addressed responsibly.
“As responsible political figures and particularly as the Legal Affairs Committee, we have the intention of examining its contents with the Legal Services and to discuss the next steps so as to avoid or limit negative consequences,” Nicolaou said.
Speaking on national radio former Attorney-general Alecos Markides said the ECHR decision was “very unfavourable” not only because it now obliged Greek Cypriot refugees to apply to the IPC in the occupied areas but because of the messages it sent out.
Referring to the decision, Markides said Turkey had been given the green light to take into account other considerations before reaching a decision on each application, namely the position of third parties such as Turkish settlers or Turkish Cypriots living in occupied properties since 1974.
This aspect of the ruling was one which also disappointed the government spokesman who said it was “unfortunate” that the ECHR had made such a claim.
“It is unfortunate that the Court claims that after 35 years have passed it is not possible for all Greek Cypriot applicants to have their properties restored, noting arbitrarily practical and legal difficulties that may arise and create new injustices,” said Stefanou.
In its decision, the Court said that it cannot agree that Turkey “should be prohibited from taking into account other considerations, in particular the position of third parties. It cannot be within this Court’s task in interpreting and applying the provisions of the Convention to impose an unconditional obligation on a Government to embark on the forcible eviction and rehousing of potentially large numbers of men, women and children even with the aim of vindicating the rights of victims of violations of the Convention”.
The IPC was set up in 2006 in answer to a ruling by ECHR that Turkey and its subordinate Turkish Cypriot administration were failing to offer an effective local remedy to Greek Cypriots seeking redress for properties they had lost in the north because they did not offer refugees the possibility of returning to their properties.
By November last year there were a reported 81 claims agreed through the property commission, with at least one record payment of over €22 million to two Greek Cypriot refugees.
Nevertheless accounts of agreement for compensation or records of funds having been paid are difficult to come by, with Greek Cypriots reluctant to draw attention to themselves as having made a deal with a body that was not recognised by the government.
The Central Agency for the Equal Distribution of Burden (SITOP), which is an association for property owners of occupied lands, said yesterday it had not yet convened to discuss the decision in order to take a formal position on the matter.
“There will most certainly be a reaction to see how this problem is dealt with,” said SITOP Vice President Lyssandros Flourenzou.
“Up until now we have disagreed with the IPC route but now we will examine the issue and see how to deal with it. As yet we have no official position,” he said.
Nevertheless as an individual and a refugee, Flourenzou said applying to the IPC in the occupied areas was a no-go.
“I don’t believe it’s the right choice. I don’t believe the IPC gives fair or satisfactory solution to the problem. I’ve heard the settlements they offer are humiliating,” he said.
Another refugee who wished to remain unnamed also said in light of the decision she would not be applying to the IPC for compensation or restitution.
“I will wait for a [political] solution [to the Cyprus problem],” she said.
Although a number of refugees are expected to share similar views, it is thought that a large portion of the 1,400 Greek Cypriot applications ruled inadmissible by the ECHR will now redirect their claims to the IPC first. Sources said a number of the eight applicants in the pilot case, on which the ECHR decision had been based, had already been advised to apply to the IPC as soon as possible.
