Turkey, TRNC pleased with COE’s Loizidou case decision
TURKEY and the TRNC have welcomed a decision by the Council of Europe’s (COE) Committee of Ministers to end its “supervision” of the execution of the judgment of the Loizidou v Turkey court case.
The case dates back to 1996, when the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ordered Turkey to pay Titina Loizidou compensation after she fled her home in 1974.
It was a landmark ruling regarding the rights of those who were impacted by the large-scale displacements of people which took place in Cyprus, and paved the way for the establishment of the Immovable Property Commission (IPC), which allows Greek Cypriots to claim compensation for property in North Cyprus that they no longer have access to.
The COE committee had been supervising the implementation of the ECHR’s judgment on the case since it was ruled upon, and Turkey paid Loizidou around one million euros in compensation in 2003.
Since then, Ms Loizidou’s lawyers had periodically raised the issue with the COE committee, but following nearly two decades of implementation of various applications to the IPC, the committee has taken the decision to cease its supervision of the case.
Following the announcement, the Turkish Foreign Ministry issued a statement that said: “With this decision, it has been once again reaffirmed that the Immovable Property Commission, established in the TRNC, in
line with the European Court of Human Rights judgments, is an effective domestic remedy.”
It added that “despite the fact that Turkish Cypriot people have been subjected to inhumane isolation in front of the international community for decades, we appreciate the efforts of the TRNC to implement the relevant judgments of the European Court of Human Rights”, and that “these efforts make a significant contribution to the preservation of the European Convention on Human Rights system”.
The TRNC’s Foreign Ministry also welcomed the Loizidou case decision, saying in a statement that its position that the “restitution of Lozidiou’s properties in question is not possible in accordance with the IPC Law, [and that] the applicant could apply to the IPC and claim compensation and exchange instead, has been acknowledged” by the COE committee.
The statement continued: “Thus, while it has been revealed that the Greek Cypriot administration’s years-long propaganda for the realisation of restitution with reference to the Loizidou judgment is unfounded, the effectiveness of the remedies of compensation and exchange for the property claims has once again been reaffirmed. . . This decision demonstrates once again that our country has established a property regime in line with international law.
“Therefore, it is crystal clear that the IPC is the correct address for the property claims of Greek Cypriots within our country’s territory.
“Despite the fact that the Greek Cypriot side and their supporters, acting with political incentives in the committee, delayed the closure of the supervision of the Loizidou judgment, the decision taken on September 22, 2022, is a step in the right direction.”
IPC chair Növber Ferit Vechi said: “Although this decision was taken too late, it is a positive decision for the TRNC and Motherland Turkey. It has been confirmed once again that the IPC, which was established in line with this verdict, is an effective domestic remedy.”
Ms Vechi, explaining that the IPC became active in 2006 as a place where Greek Cypriots with land or property left within the boundaries of the TRNC after 1974 can apply for
compensation, restitution or exchange, added that “our law has also been accepted and recognised by the ECHR”.
Published figures from the IPC, which have not been updated since April 29 of this year, show that 7,111 applications have been lodged with the IPC, of which 1,324 have been concluded through “friendly settlements” and 34 through “formal hearings”.
To date it has paid out a total of around £335 million to successful applicants as compensation.
The IPC has ruled for exchange and compensation in two cases, for restitution in three cases and for restitution and compensation in seven cases.
In one case it has delivered a decision for restitution after the settlement of the Cyprus issue, and in one case it has ruled for partial restitution.
WARNINGS
Lawyer Murat Metin Hakkı described the COE committee’s decision to end its supervision of the Loizdiou case as a “defeat” for the Greek Cypriot side.
He said it means that Ms Loizidou should now apply to the IPC if she wants to continue her case.
Mr Hakkı warned, however, that the IPC is still “in danger” because “no concrete solution has been put forth or proposed” regarding outstanding compensation payments and claims relating to Maraş/Varosha, which means that the IPC’s effectiveness “will continue to be questioned”.
Former foreign minister and People’s Party leader Kudret Özersay voiced similar views, saying: “I hope the importance of the [IPC], which was established as a result of great struggles in the TRNC, will be understood and it will be able to work much more effectively after this time.
“It needs to work faster and its decisions should be implemented without delay. There are some problems with the IPC today, especially due to the Interior Ministry, and we will all be sorry tomorrow if we do not take them seriously.”
He added: “In the eyes of the European human rights system, yes, the IPC is a domestic legal remedy in the context of Turkey, but it is a TRNC institution and was established by the TRNC with a law accepted by the TRNC Parliament.
“When the issue is viewed from this perspective, the IPC is an institution that should be protected much more than in the past.”
GREEK CYPRIOT SIDE ‘DISAPPOINTED’
On the other hand, the Greek Cypriot foreign ministry expressed its “disappointment” at the decision and lambasted the “negative role and involvement of the Secretariat of the Council of Europe in ending the supervision”.
The Greek Cypriot foreign ministry noted that “Turkey, despite paying some compensation to Ms Loizidou, continues to not comply with its obligation to restore all or part of Ms Loizidou’s property” before calling the decision “legally unsound and politically problematic”.
Gazimağusa’s Greek Cypriot “mayor in exile” Simos Ioannou was also left disappointed by the decision, labelling it as “unfair and negative” and claiming that it “gives Turkey an alibi to not abide by the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights”.