by Jerry » Fri Apr 16, 2010 8:13 pm
Three more replies from MEPs in response to my letter. They do seem to be aware of the Cyprus problem and Turkey’s responsibility (no mention of Greece) in finding a solution. I have highlighted the important bits.
Dear Mr “Jerry”,
Thank you for your email regarding northern Cyprus. Mr A. read it with great interest and asked me to reply on his behalf.
The European Union does not recognise northern Cyprus and considers the situation there to be an illegal occupation. The European Court of Human Rights is also not an institution of the European Union, and as such I am afraid that neither R. nor the Commission have the power to compel the Court to change its stance. The ECHR is a separate entity above political lobbying and though its decisions often impact on the lives of European citizens, the EU takes the view that it is not bound by the rulings of the Court. However, R. asked me to make it clear that the EU has consistently sought to foster good relations between the Turkish and Cypriot communities. A major stumbling block has of course been the question of compensation for those whose homes are now occupied. The EU as a body is of the view that this problem can be solved satisfactorily but believes that any deal must come from the parties themselves and cannot be imposed by a third party. The negotiations are ongoing and R. and his Conservative colleagues are hopeful that a mutually acceptable deal.
I hope that this answers your questions, thank you again for contacting Mr A.
Yours sincerely,
E. G.
Assistant to R. A. MEP
Dear Mr Jerry,
Thank you for your email about your rights in relation to your property in Cyprus. C. has asked me to respond on her behalf and I am sorry for the delay in doing so but she receives hundreds of enquiries each day and we cannot always write back to people as promptly as we would like.
The European Court of Human Rights is totally independent from the European Parliament. Indeed it is a fundamental principle that the courts should not be subject to any kind of influence from a political body. What is more, the EU is not a signatory of the European Convention on Human Rights – rather individual countries are in a national capacity. Responsibility for upholding the Convention is therefore very much with national governments, which is why, as you have been advised, all challenges must first exhaust the national courts. The European Court of Human Rights will only consider a case if an individual considers the national courts have not acted in accordance with the Convention. So you are right that Cyprus will in the first instance determine whether or not your human rights have been breached, but there is a right of appeal via the European Court of Human Rights and this acts as a check on the national courts.
Having said that, C. does think that the European Union has an important role to play in pressing member states such as Cyprus to address corruption amongst property developers and in the courts. There is an ongoing process that allows for progress to be monitored and specific action to be taken if member states do not comply with EU law or standards. There have been moves at European Parliament level to call for reforms to national property legislation in a number of member states. MEPs have focused on cases involving property in Northern Cyprus, for example, because large numbers of citizens have lodged petitions with the Parliament about their treatment. The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights does protect the right to own property and this is also enshrined in the constitution of Cyprus. However, the legal basis for upholding these rights is far from clear-cut. The law at EU wide level has tended to focus on ensuring that European citizens receive the same treatment as nationals. Moreover, European consumer rights law excludes property and this area remains very much the responsibility of member states. So, there is currently no EU wide legislation that protects people in your situation.
C. is very conscious that the situation in Cyprus is sensitive and has written previously to the European Commission urging them to take a more proactive role in promoting a resolution to the current situation in Cyprus in the specific context of land disputes, and hopes that progress can be made on this over the next few years. In the meantime, please be assured that Greens in the European Parliament will be pressing for justice and equality to be a feature of any debate around Turkish membership of the EU.
Thank you for taking the time to write to C. about this and please do visit her website if you would like more information about her work on a range of issues.
Kind regards,
C.
Constituency Coordinator and Researcher
Dear Mr. “Jerry”,
Thank you for your email regarding the recent ECHR ruling.
You are probably aware that the ECHR is not an EU institution and is not responsible to the European Parliament. To effectively raise a complaint against its judgments I would advise that you contact the UK members of the Parliamentary Assembly for the Council of Europe, rather than your MEPs, as this is the Parliamentary body that is responsible for executing the European Charter of Human Rights.
The ECHR ruling does offer a Cypriot approach to Cypriot issues and it has endorsed the IPC as capable, fair and effective for providing redress for claims to restitution or compensation. The decision was made on this basis.
The ECHR decision also holds Turkey legally responsible under its European Charter obligations for violations of Greek Cypriot human rights. This means the legal framework is clearer and Turkey will have to accept responsibility for issuing fair judgments. Meanwhile the ECHR route still remains if IPC rulings are not found to be fair.
Yours sincerely,
S. B. MEP
And from my MP, who is a “shadow” Cabinet minister.
Dear Mr “Jerry”
Thank you for writing to me regarding the decisions of the Turkish Immovable Properties Commission in determining ownership of property in Cyprus.
At present, there is still an opportunity to make progress in finding a solution that could lead to reunification of the island, but both sides should be aware that delay at this point will not create an environment for the talks to succeed, and could have the opposite effect. Unless further signs of flexibility appear, a valuable opportunity to reaching a lasting settlement could be lost.
Conservatives have said that Britain should also do all it can to work for a peaceful settlement. That also applies to the other guarantor powers. Turkey, for instance, has a greater role to play in achieving a solution, and it would be beneficial if it showed greater flexibility in its relations with Cyprus in order to facilitate that solution. In the context, it is an interesting coincidence that the progress of Turkey’s accession to the EU is due to be evaluated at the EU’s December Council. It would undoubtedly be a good sign of Turkey’s intent to pursue its European vision if, as a candidate country, it could demonstrate good will towards its future EU colleague, Cyprus, by showing some flexibility aimed at bringing a solution.
Yours Sincerely
D.G.
