THE TURKISH Cypriot authorities yesterday announced the formation of a property commission that, if accepted as legitimate by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), could soon be handling Greek Cypriot applications for the reinstatement of properties in the north.
The establishment of the commission came after the ECHR last December handed the baton to Turkey to find a way of offering redress to Greek Cypriot Myra Xenides-Arestis, who lost her property in Varosha during the 1974 Turkish invasion. Turkey accepted the challenge and has in turn given the Turkish Cypriot authorities – as its ‘subordinate local authority’ – the task of delivering justice on Greek Cypriot property claims.
In making the ruling, the ECHR has 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.
“Any person who wants to get his or her property back, get compensation, or exchange his or her property for another property can come and apply. It [the property commission] is there, and it has started work,” Turkish Cypriot legal expert Dr Kudret Ozersay told the Cyprus Mail yesterday.
He added that Greek Cypriots were welcome to either apply in person or through a legal representative to the commission’s office in central north Nicosia.
The seven-man commission, which includes foreign legal experts Hans Christian Kruger and Daniel Tarschys, will meet if and when applications from Greek Cypriots are forthcoming. It remains to be seen whether or not this will happen and whether the Cypriot government will take legal measures to prevent their nationals from applying.
Ozersay said yesterday he did not expect Arestis to apply to the commission, and that it would become clear in the near future whether Turkey or the Turkish Cypriot authorities would independently put forward possible solutions to her request for reinstatement. But with Turkey legally bound by the ECHR to offer Arestis redress for her losses within the next three months, it seems highly likely that even if Arestis declines to approach the commission Turkey will be keen to appear to be taking action.
“The procedure can only work when an application is made. We do not expect Arestis to come [to the commission], so alternatively the north’s government can invite her to come to discuss ‘a friendly settlement’. If she does not come, Turkey can make a proposal either through the commission or through the government here.”
Ozersay warned, however, that if Arestis refused to discuss the matter with the commission, or accept its proposals in her absence, she would be forced to wait for a comprehensive solution of the Cyprus problem.
“But as the one who asked for redress, and in the light of the fact that Turkey is trying to resolve the issue, I don’t think it will be easy for her to stay away,” Ozersay said.
He added that it would constitute a political own goal for the government to actively put pressure on Greek Cypriots not to apply.
“I would love it if they did, because our effectiveness can only be judged by the ECHR when we have applications,” he said. If applications were actively prevented by the Cypriot government, Turkey and the Turkish Cypriot side would, by default, appear blameless, he said.
Asked what the likelihood of full reinstatement of Arestis’ property, which lies within a closed-off military area, Ozersay said it was “possible” but ultimately up to the commission to look at whether it was in the public interest for her to return.
“Redress does not necessarily mean reinstatement. It can also involve full or partial exchange, and/or compensation,” he said. Ozersay did not rule out the possibility of a full or partial military withdrawal from Varosha.
On whether the Turkish military might be willing to see such a thing happen he said, “The commission can ask any body or institution to advise it on a case. But it is not bound in any way to adhere to the interests they express”.
Two political parties in the north are seeking to have the changes in the property law, which allowed the establishment of the commission, to be annulled. One of the parties, the right-wing National Unity Party (UBP), says the law is “unconstitutional” because it allows redress for pecuniary damages – something it says would be tantamount to an admission of guilt on the Turkish Cypriot side.
The other party opposing the changes, the left-wing Communal Liberation Party (TKP), says the law is merely a way of getting Turkey off the hook at the ECHR, and is of no benefit to Turkish Cypriots.
??
??
??
??
