Cyprus-Forum.com

[CBBB]

By Elias Hazou
Published on July 30, 2010

THE EUROPEAN Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has awarded a Greek Cypriot refugee €1.4 million as compensation for loss of use of his property in the occupied areas.

It was a case with an unusual twist, as in the midst of the process the Greek Cypriot applicant had also filed a claim – which was later withdrawn – with the Immovable Property Commission (IPC) in the north, a move which nearly jeopardised his chances for ECHR compensation.

The court’s judgment, delivered earlier this week, relates to the case of Antonakis Solomonides v Turkey, for 44 plots of land in Kyrenia, Famagusta, Morfou and Nicosia, representing a total area of 340,000 square meters.

Finding that the applicant “was denied access to and control, use and enjoyment of his properties,” the court awarded €1.4 million – a far cry from the original €6.68 million claim.

Solomonides died in 1998, after which the application was being handled by Rodothea Karaviotou, administrator of his family’s estate.

The ECHR calculated its compensation from January 1987, when Turkey accepted the right of individual petition, and September 1999. The claim was lodged in January 1990.

The figure awarded was closer to the €1.36 million proposed by the respondent, Turkey. That in turn was based on an estimate of the IPC, to which the applicant had applied in the meantime.

Karaviotou had applied for compensation to the IPC in early 2009. According to the ECHR ruling, at the time she was ready to “discuss any serious offer concerning the above case” Finally, she undertook the engagement to preserve the confidentiality of the negotiations before the IPC.”

In September of the same year, Karaviotou “failed to comply” with a request by the Turkish Cypriot ‘Attorney-general’ to produce a search certificate as well as documents showing that the mortgage debts raised on the applicant’s properties had been paid off.

She subsequently withdrew her application before the IPC, informing the European Court of her action in December 2009. In her statement to the ECHR, Karaviotou said:

“Furthermore, I would like to express the fervent wish of Mr Solomonides' heirs that the procedure of their father's application for damages to the ECHR [shall] not be discontinued, in any case, as a result of a possible misunderstanding on my part and through misleading information I received, regarding the said application.”

In a fax dated 1 February 2010 the applicant’s lawyer stated that Karaviotou had not consulted him or his client's heirs (the two daughters of Solomonides) as to the steps she had taken after the delivery of the Court's principal judgment.

According to the ECHR, Karaviotou had ‘misinterpreted’ the court’s request that she keep the court appraised of any agreement between the applicant and Turkey, thinking that she “had to apply to the IPC in order to reach a settlement on the issue of compensation.

“She subsequently realised that she had made a mistake and withdrew her application to the IPC,” the court said in its ruling.

The ECHR obliquely acknowledges that its decision was influenced by the procedure before the IPC. It notes: “Having regard to the exceptional circumstances of the present case, in which the administrator of the applicant's estate had first submitted and then withdrew a claim for compensation before the IPC, on 1 June 2010 the Court decided to admit these submissions to the file and to transmit a copy of them to the applicant's representative for information.”

The outcome might be well be viewed as a classic win-lose situation, given that the ECHR could have decided to throw out the case given that Karaviotou had meantime sought recourse elsewhere.

In fact, Turkey had asked the court to dismiss the case for the very same reason, but the ECHR rejected the request, arguing: “The Court cannot but reiterate its case-law according to which objections based on non-exhaustion of domestic remedies raised after an application has been declared admissible cannot be taken into account at the merits stage.”

http://www.cyprus-mail.com/cyprus/greek ... r/20100730

[denizaksulu]

To be honest, 1.4 EU sounds like peanuts considering the amount of property involved.

[CBBB]

To be honest, 1.4 EU sounds like peanuts considering the amount of property involved.

It is only for loss of use.

[humanist]

Deniz, I think he got ripped off

[denizaksulu]

To be honest, 1.4 EU sounds like peanuts considering the amount of property involved.

It is only for loss of use.

Still...........well, its the courts decision.

[bill cobbett]

Well 1.4 million euros for loss of use of around 300 donums... arguable if it's a good amount or not but the important matter in this case is there was an intermediary application to the Scam Commission which was withdrawn and in the circumstances of this case the ECHR continued to hear the case through to a judgment. So it's this bit which may be of further and wider interest, and poss may have implications for others.

[DTA]

It is not a lot of money at all for that much land, did he get the land back or is he going to be compensated for that? Or exchange.

[bill cobbett]

It is not a lot of money at all for that much land, did he get the land back or is he going to be compensated for that? Or exchange.

Interference with use... land still belongs to the family.

Would be interested to hear opinions from the CF Legal Team on this matter.