TURKISH CYPRIOT VICTORY AT EHCR

Judges have ruled that Greek Cypriots must appeal to the TRNC’s Immovable Property Commission (IPC) if they want compensation or the return of their land before a settlement.

The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has declared eight pilot cases inadmissible and said the IPC was “an effective remedy” to hear property cases.

A panel of 17 judges agreed that the IPC, “an appropriate domestic body, with access to the relevant information”, was clearly the more appropriate forum for deciding on complex matters of property ownership and valuation and assessing financial compensation. The IPC was born out of a call by the ECHR for an effective local remedy to tackle the raft of claims on property in North Cyprus by Greek Cypriots following the 1974 division of the island.

About 1,400 Greek Cypriots currently have cases lodged with the ECHR on property issues. These are now set to be referred back to the IPC in a major blow to the Greek Cypriot authorities who had argued it was illegal and part of the unrecognised TRNC.

The judgement, recently published, stated the eight cases, brought by 17 Greek Cypriots from South Nicosia, Limassol, Lakatamia and Larnaca, were the first to be examined following the successful case against Turkey by Myra Xenides-Arestis. She won 850,000 euros in compensation in 2006 for the denial of access to her property in Maras, the area of Gazi Magusa fenced off since 1974.

It added that applicants should exhaust all effective local remedies to solve their case before seeking leave to take their case to the ECHR.

The IPC was launched in 2005 and has agreed 92 of more than 450 applications, awarding nearly £40 million in compensation. This included, last November, 22 million euros to be shared by two applicants – with land in Lefkosa, Girne and near Guzelyurt – who only wanted financial recompense for the loss of their property.

On the pilot case of Ariana Lordou Anastasiadou, the ECHR said she did not have “any realistic prospect” as a non-property owner of applying to either the IPC or TRNC courts. It said there was no “present interference with her right to respect for her home as she had not been living in the family home for almost her entire life!

It added that the possible inheritance of a share in the title of that property was “hypothetical and speculative”.

The Greek Cypriot Government had spent time, effort and money trying to demolish the case for the IPC. In December, Attorney-General Petros Clerides revealed a survey of some of the world’s leading international lawyers had decided that the IPC was not a “legal” remedy.

The 17 applicants had argued that the presence of Turkish military officers on the IPC, whose board was chosen by President Mehmet Ali Talat, head of a country only recognised by Turkey, meant the Commission could not be impartial.

But the EHCR judges, including a Greek, Christos Rozakis, said it was not convinced by this claim or that the sums of compensation awarded would fall short of what could be regarded as reasonable compensation.

They said that while Turkey was regarded by the international community as being in “illegal occupation” of North Cyprus it did not mean its “discretion as to the manner in which it executed a judgement should not be respected”.

And the ECHR ruling argued that because there had been so many changes since the division of the island it would risk “being arbitrary and injudicious to impose an obligation to effect restitution in all cases.

It added that the IPC procedure was not inaccessible or unduly onerous and that none of the applicants had appealed to the High Administrative Court concerning sums awarded, or with allegations of material unfairness and procedural irregularity.

EXTRACT TAKEN FROM CYPRUS TODAY MARCH 6 2010