Cyprus-Forum.com

[simonwjones]

DT, paaul refuses to answer your question so we must assume that he/she is in a GC property. He/she obviously has no thoughts whatsoever towards people like you, he/she should be ashamed of himself/herself. People like paaul12 are scum in my eyes. People who are taking advantage of cheap property/land need locking up in my opinion and the British people who are buying into the north are letting the UK down and giving us a bad name.

DT, you say you went to your house and saw someone occupying, that would of done my head in and i would of probably lost it. I really hope you sort something out.

[polis]

polis tells us:

This is just wishful thinking. The ECHR has not yet had an opportunity to review the provisions of the so called “Law on Compensation, Exchange and Restitution of the Immovable Property” and has not yet ruled as to whether the so called Property Commission is an effective internal remedy. The issue will be considered by the Court in one of the fourty or so cases that are currently pending before it which the court has already deemed admissible but has not yet made a ruling on the merits. In the meantime, the ECHR will rule on the compensation to be paid by Turkey in two other pending cases in which the court has already ruled on the merits and found that the property rights of the claimants are being violated by Turkey.

So, is it wishful thinking or not, I guess the 72 Greek Cypriots who have already claimed their land from the relevant committee would call it reality!! But you guys with your heads so deep in the sand will tell us all its not really happening, I say to you wake up and smell the coffee, times are changing, at last.

Sorry, but you don't seem to be able to carry out a simple discussion. You made a claim that the ECHR has recognised the so called property committee as an effective interanl remedy. I pointed out that this is not true. The property committee does exist some people may have applied to the committee, but that's their own prerogative, still the ECHR has yet to rule as to whether it is an effective internal remedy or not. Before doing so it's going to award damages for loss of use of their property to two more Greek Cypriot owners of Turkish occupied land.

[paaul12]

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

761

7.12.2006

Press release issued by the Registrar

CHAMBER JUDGMENT (JUST SATISFACTION)
XENIDES-ARESTIS v. TURKEY

The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing a Chamber judgment[1] dealing with the question of just satisfaction in the case of Xenides-Arestis v. Turkey (application no. 46347/99).

The case concerns a Cypriot national who has been prevented from living in her home and having access to, using and enjoying her property since August 1974 following the conduct of military operations in northern Cyprus by Turkey in July and August 1974.

Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Court, unanimously, has awarded the applicant:

· 800,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage,

· EUR 50,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and

· EUR 35,000 for costs and expenses.

(Today’s judgment is available only in English.)

1. Principal facts

The applicant, Myra Xenides-Arestis, is a Cypriot national who was born in 1945 and lives in Nicosia.

The applicant owns half a share in a plot of land in the area of Ayios Memnon, in Famagusta (Northern Cyprus), which was given to her by her mother. There are a shop, a flat and three houses on the land. One of the houses was her home, where she lived with her husband and children, and the rest of the property was either used by members of the family or rented out. She also owns part of a plot of land with an orchard.

The applicant has been prevented from living in her home and having access to, using and enjoying her property since August 1974 since the conduct of military operations in northern Cyprus by Turkey in July and August 1974.

On 30 June 2003 the “Parliament of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” (TRNC) enacted the “Law on Compensation for Immovable Properties Located within the Boundaries of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” (Law no. 49/2003”). A commission was set up under that “law” with a mandate to deal with compensation claims.

On 22 December 2005 the “TRNC” authorities enacted the “Law for the Compensation, Exchange and Restitution of Immovable Properties” (Law no. 67/2005). The authorities subsequently enacted a “By-Law under Law no. 67/2005[2], which entered into force on 20 March 2006.

A commission (the “Immovable Property Commission”) was set up under Law no. 67/2005 to examine applications under that law and decide on the restitution, exchange of properties or payment of compensation. It is composed of five to seven members, two of whom are foreign members, Hans-Christian Krüger[3] and Daniel Tarschys[4]. There is a right of appeal to the “TRNC” High Administrative Court.

2. Procedure and composition of the Court

The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 4 November 1998. A hearing on admissibility took place on 2 September 2004 and the application was declared admissible on 14 March 2005.

It its decision on admissibility the Court found that the remedy proposed under the preceding compensation law, “Law no. 49/2003” could not be regarded as an “effective” or “adequate” means for redressing the applicant’s complaints .

The Court delivered its principal judgment in the case on 22 December 2005.

The Government filed observations on 21 March 2006 and, subsequently, the applicant and the Government each filed observations on 21 June 2006. The applicant submitted updated claims in respect of just satisfaction.

The Government of Cyprus, who had made use of their right to intervene under Article 36 of the Convention, submitted observations on 16 August 2006.

The Government filed additional observations on 10 and 11 October 2006.

Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:

Georg Ress (German), President,
Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portuguese),
Lucius Caflisch (Swiss)[5],
Riza Türmen (Turkish),
John Hedigan (Irish),
Kristaq Traja (Albanian),
Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenian), judges,

and also Vincent Berger, Section Registrar.

3. Summary of the judgment

The Court welcomed the steps taken by the Turkish Government in an effort to provide redress for the violations of the applicant’s Convention rights as well as in respect of all similar applications pending before it. The Court noted that the new compensation and restitution mechanism, in principle, had taken care of the requirements of the decision of the Court on admissibility of 14 March 2005 and its judgment of 22 December 2005.

The Court pointed out that the parties in the present case had failed to reach an agreement on the issue of just satisfaction, where it would have been possible for the Court to address all the relevant issues concerning the effectiveness of the remedy in detail. The Court considered that it could not accept the Government’s argument that the applicant should now be required, when the Court had already decided on the merits, to apply to the new Commission in order to seek reparation for damages. It therefore proceeded to determine the compensation the applicant was entitled to in respect of losses emanating from the denial of access and loss of control, use, and enjoyment of her property and to grant her an award under Article 41 of the Convention.

***

The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site (http://www.echr.coe.int).

Press contacts

Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)
Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54)
Beverley Jacobs (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21)

The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.

[polis]

This is indeed the press release of the Court regarding the Xenidis-Aresti case. The material part of the judgment, however, is the following:

"The Court points out that the parties failed to reach an agreement on the issue of just satisfaction where, like in the case of Broniowski v. Poland (friendly settlement and just satisfaction) ([GC], no. 31443/96, ECHR 2005 ...), it would have been possible for the Court to address all the relevant issues of the effectiveness of this remedy in detail."

In the Polish case, the Court, having made a long and detailed consideration of the relevant provisions of Polish Law, found that they did not meet the requirements of the European Convention of Human Rights and that therefore they did not constitute an effective internal remedy.