Turkish Cypriot Writer takes Turkey to ECHR for Harassment

Turkey, which claims to champion Turkish Cypriot rights, is trying to silence one for being a critic.

Turkish Cypriot writer, Mr. Sener Levent who is the editor-in-chief of the newspaper Avrupa, has filed a lawsuit against Turkey at the ECHR.  

According to the Cyprus News Agency, Levent’s lawyer Onjell Polili argued that Turkey violated Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and that his client was ‘judicially harassed’ by the Turkish government for repeated criminal cases opened against Mr. Sener Levent.

When Will The West Care About Cyprus ...

From The DailyWire by Uzay Bulut:

 In the 21st century, a member state of the United Nations and the European Union continues to be colonized and occupied by a NATO and UN member and EU hopeful. The colonizer is Turkey and the victim is Cyprus.

Read More »

Some Hope for the Greek Cypriots Enclaved in the Occupied North

A landmark case at the European Court of Human Rights has safeguarded the rights of relatives of Greeks in Istanbul to inherit property even if they are not Turkish nationals.  And this raises hopes for the Greek Cypriots enclaved in the occupied Karpas peninsula where the non-inheritance policy is also applied by the Turkish regime.

This is the view of Achilleas Demetriades - one of the lawyers in the case of late Polyxeni Foka whose blood brothers were awarded five million euros by the Strasbourg-based Court on October 1, 2013.

“I believe this is an important case because it repeats the rights of ‘Romioi’ in Istanbul to have their properties inherited by their heirs who may not necessarily be of Turkish nationality.”

He added: “And it also has a link to Cyprus because a similar policy of non-inheritance was applied with the Karpas enclaved persons who, when they pass away, their relatives living in the government-controlled areas are not allowed to inherit.”

Ekaterini-born Polyxeni was adopted by Apostolos and Elisabeth Bitsika, wealthy Greeks of Istanbul, or Romioi (Greek: Ῥωμαῖοι/Greek: Ρωμιοί, "Romans") as they were branded by the Turks, back in the mid-50s.

She lived there happily and in very comfortable surroundings and when the father died in 1981, the mother inherited the family property.

The mother died in 1987 and Polyxeni actually inherited the property – both movable and immovable property.  But later on the Turkish state decided that this inheritance was contrary to the existing law because she was not a Turkish national.  By that time, she was not very well and was admitted to a psychiatric hospital called Zentiburul with the authorities appointing a guardian.

Meanwhile, her two blood brothers from Ekaterini wanted to help and began contacting Polyxeni who passed away in hospital in 2000.  That’s when the brothers’ interest in the inheritance led to the launch of a litigation in Turkey but their bid was unsuccessful.

So, in 2002 an application was submitted before the ECHR claiming the inheritance rights of the brothers.  The case was successful in 2009 when the Court accepted that a violation had occurred and their right to the property was established.

On October 1, 2013, the judgment for just satisfaction was announced awarding the brothers the sum of €5 million for loss of use and for expropriation and moral damages they had suffered because of these violations.

---Applicable to the enclaved---

Amendments to the ‘inheritance law’ in the occupied areas are already underway and the matter is being discussed before the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, said Achilleas Demetriades.

“It is expected to be finally resolved in June 2014. That is when the Committee of Ministers will issue a decision whether the ‘law’ is in fact adequate remedy to satisfy the actions taken by Turkey remedy the breaches which have been established by the 4th interstate application,” Demetriades said.

“I understand certain memos were generated but it’s a matter handled by the Attorney General’s office…I think the properties in Istanbul may very well be the subject matter of a new immovable property commission set up by Turkey to deal with this dormant for quite some time issue,” he added.

Demetriades wondered whether any of the enclaved people will initiate legal proceedings to challenge the new ‘law’ in the occupied areas and then in Strasbourg.  “The matter of the enclaved is part of the interstate application and the government should deal with it,” he said.

ECHR awards Greek Cypriots damages due to Turkish occupation

ECHR awards Greek Cypriots damages due to Turkish occupation

Turkey has been ordered to pay thousands of euro in damages to Greek Cypriots for violating their human right to peaceful enjoyment of their property in Cyprus’ northern Turkish occupied areas. 

The European Court of Human Rights on Tuesday delivered its judgment regarding the allegation by 13 Greek Cypriot applicants (Lordos and Others v. Turkey) that “the Turkish occupation of the northern part of Cyprus following the 1974 conflict had deprived them of their homes and properties”. 

In its judgment today, the Court awarded each of the applicants between EUR 100,000 and EUR 8,000,000 “for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages and EUR 15,000 jointly to all applicants for costs and expenses”.

In its principal judgment, delivered on 2 November 2010, the Court held in particular that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) as concerns eight of the applicants and a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) with regard to seven of the applicants.

Cyprus has been divided since 1974, when Turkey invaded and occupied its northern third.

Turkey occupied 36,2 percent of the sovereign territory of the Republic and forcibly expelled about 180.000 Greek Cypriots from their homes. Another 20.000 Greek Cypriots, who had remained in the occupied areas, were also forced to eventually abandon their homes and seek refuge in the safety of the government controlled areas. Today, fewer than 500 enclaved Greek Cypriots remain in the occupied areas.

Turkey still deprives the displaced Greek Cypriots of their right to return to their homes and properties. This has given rise to appeals to the European Court of Human Rights, which has issued major decisions on Turkey’s violations of the European Convention.

ECHR finds Turkey guilty...again

The Court found violations of the right to life in the cases of Kallis and Androulla Panayi v. Turkey and Andreou v. Turkey. The applicants complained about injuries and a death caused by the Turkish armed forces in the United Nations buffer zone in Cyprus.

European Court condemns Turkey of human rights violations in Cyprus

(Financial Mirror) - The fourth section of the European Court of Human Rights issued today its decisions on two cases Greek Cypriots brought against Turkey, condemning Ankara of violation of the right to life, as enshrined in the European Convention on Human rights.

The first case, concerning the application of Kallis and Androulla Panayi against Turkey, the Court ruled that there was a violation of Article 2, of the Convention and awarded 35,000 euro each in respect of non-pecuniary damages and 9,888,30 euro for costs and expenses.

Androulla and Kallis Panayi's son, Stellios, 19, at the time serving with the armed forces, was killed in June 1996 by the Turkish occupation forces when he entered the UN buffer zone, while off duty and unarmed. When members of the UN Peace keeping force in Cyprus (UNFICYP) attempted to reach him in order to provide medical treatment needed to save his life, the Turkish armed forces fired and did not allow it, as a result of which he died.

The Turkish government disputed the facts presented by the applicants, claiming that Panayi was ''fully armed, making gestures by hand and calling the Turkish Cypriot soldiers to go over to him.''

Disputing Turkey's allegations that Panayi was armed, the Court ruled ''that although Stelios had been wearing uniform and hence one could have assumed that he might have carried a gun, that fact alone could not in the circumstances have justified the shots fired at him,'' adding ''the Turkish soldiers had been in complete control of the area and Stelios’ behaviour had not posed a threat to them; consequently the soldiers would have been able to stop him without jeopardising his life.''

''The Court found unanimously that Stelios Panayi had been killed by representatives of the Turkish authorities who had used excessive force, not justified by the circumstances of the case, in violation of Article 2,'' the judgment said.

The second case concerns Georgia Andreou, now deceased, a British national who was shot by Turkish soldiers on 14 August 1996, during the tensions that followed the death Anastasios Isaak, kicked and beaten to death by Turkish-Cypriot policemen and counter-demonstrators three days earlier at a motorcycle rally in protest against the Turkish occupation of the northern part of Cyprus.

Although outside the buffer zone, she sustained a serious gunshot wound to her abdomen; she was immediately taken to hospital where she was operated on. Moreover, according to a press release, issued following the incident by the UN Forces in Cyprus (UNFICYP), two of its high-ranking members had seen uniformed Turkish or Turkish-Cypriot military personnel kneeling down and firing in the direction of the demonstrators inside the UN buffer zone.

As a result, two British UNFICYP soldiers and two Greek-Cypriot civilians (one of whom was the applicant) were hit by gunfire. According to the ECHR, this version of events was also confirmed in a report by the UN Secretary General.

''The indiscriminate and unwarranted firing into the crowd which was gathering inside and outside the buffer zone had put numerous lives at risk. The fact that the applicant had not been killed was fortuitous. Nor was the seriousness of her injuries, corroborated by the medical reports, in dispute between the parties. The Court therefore considered that, irrespective of whether or not the soldiers had actually intended to kill Ms Andreou, she had been the victim of conduct which by its very nature had put her life at risk, even though, in the event, she had actually survived. Article 2 was therefore applicable in the applicant’s case,'' the Court ruling notes.

Consequently, under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded Ms Andreou’s husband and children 585,68 euro (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damages, EUR 40,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damages and EUR 10,000 in respect of costs and expenses.

The case of Varnava and Others V. Turkey

ECHR finds Turkey guilty

(Cyprus Weekly) - STRASBOURG - The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on Friday found Turkey guilty in the case of a number of missing Greek Cypriots. It also ordered damages to be paid to their families.

Friday’s judgment of the Grand Chamber was in the case of Varnava and Others v. Turkey which dates back to 1990.

“(The Court) holds by sixteen votes to one that there has been a continuing violation of Article 2 of the Convention on account of the failure of the authorities of the respondent State to conduct an effective investigation into the fate of the nine men who disappeared in life-threatening circumstances,” said the 58-page-long judgment.

The applications were introduced before the Court in the name and on behalf of 18 Greek Cypriots.

The ECHR also ordered Turkey to pay, within three months, €12,000 per application, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damages.

Also, to pay €8,000 per application, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants or their heirs, in respect of costs and expenses.

Cyprus marks 35th anniversary of second Turkish offensive

(CNA) - Cyprus marks Friday the 35th anniversary of Turkey`s second offensive against the island in the summer of 1974 resulting in the occupation of the island’s northern third.

It was 14 August 1974 when Ankara`s representatives to the Geneva peace talks refused to give the Greek Cypriot representative time to consider their proposals and effectively presented Glafcos Clerides, former President of the Republic, with an ultimatum.

Turkish troops invaded Cyprus on 20 July 1974, five days after the legal government of the late Archbishop Makarios III was toppled by a military coup engineered by the military junta then ruling Greece.

Two unproductive conferences in Geneva followed; the first between Britain, Greece and Turkey and the second with the additional attendance of Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot representatives.

Three weeks after a ceasefire was declared on 22 July, and despite the fact that talks were still being held and just as an agreement seemed about to be reached, the Turkish army mounted a second full-scale offensive.

As a result, Turkey increased its hold to include the booming tourist resort of Famagusta in the east and the rich citrus-growing area of Morphou in the west. All in all almost 37% of the territory of the Republic of Cyprus came under Turkish military occupation.

Nearly one third of the population, some 200,000 Greek Cypriots, were forcibly uprooted from their homes and properties, thousands were killed during the hostilities, over 1,000 persons were listed as missing while thousands of Greek Cypriots and Maronites remained enclaved.

The European Court of Human Rights has found Turkey guilty of mass violations of human rights in Cyprus.

Over the years, a number of unsuccessful peace rounds were launched under the auspices of the United Nations to find a settlement. These efforts were short lived as they stumbled on the Turkish Cypriot side’s insistence to gain recognition for the puppet regime it set up in November 1983. Only Turkey has recognized the so-called regime which was branded by the Security Council ``legally invalid``.

Ankara has ignored numerous UN resolutions calling for respect of the sovereignty, the independence and the territorial integrity of the Republic of Cyprus and the immediate withdrawal of the Turkish occupation troops.

Cyprus President Demetris Christofias and Turkish Cypriot leader Mehmet Ali Talat began in September 2008 UN-led direct talks to achieve a comprehensive settlement to the Cyprus problem and so far had 40 meetings covering the first reading of all main aspects of the Cyprus problem (Governance and power-sharing, property, territory, EU matters, economic matters and security).

The agreed solution, they added, will be put to separate simultaneous referenda.

The two leaders are scheduled to enter the second phase on September 3.

MP wants Turkey to own up on G/C prisoners of war

(Cyprus Weekly) - NICOSIA – DISY MP and Vice President of the Committee on Human Rights of PACE, Christos Pourgourides called on Terry Davis, Council of Europe Secretary General, to ask the Turkish government for clarifications on what happened to Greek Cypriot prisoners of war.
Recent evidences suggests that soldiers were executed after being captured by Turkish army during Turkey’s invasion in 1974.

Pourgourides has also asked the President of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights of PACE, German MP Herta Daubler-Gmelin, to include the issue on the agenda of the Committee’s next meeting in September.

Pourgourides -- through PACE -- has requested the Turkish government for full disclosure on what happened to Greek Cypriot soldiers. He will also underline that the execution of prisoners constitutes a war crime, therefore the Turkish government is obliged, according to the relevant decision of the ECHR, to proceed with a full investigation.

ECHR Ruled Turkey had Violated Property Rights

ECHR ruled Tuesday that Turkey had violated the property rights of a Greek Orthodox foundation on the Aegean island of Bozcaada (Tenedos) by seizing its land and ordered the government of Turkey to pay damages.

The ECHR judgment itself is available only in French, but the Court's press release in English can be found here.

A snippet from the Court's press release below:

The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) of the European Convention on Human Rights, on account of the refusal of the Turkish courts to register the immovable property of the applicant foundation in the land register in its name.

Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 100,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 5,000 for costs and expenses.

ECHR Finds Turkey Guilty (Yet Again)

(The following article is reproduced for fair use and educational purposes)


The Online Newspaper of Romiossini:

European Court today: Turkey is guilty!


Brussels, 24/06/08:- Turkey was today found guilty in the European Court of Human Rights, in two cases of young Greek Cypriots who were murdered in 1996.

1. Anastasios Isaak was lynched by a mob of Turkish soldiers and Turkish Cypriot "policemen" and other Turkish and Turkish Cypriot extremists belonging to a nationalist group called "Grey Wolves". It happened in the buffer zone separating the turkish army occupied northern part of Cyprus from the southern part of the island.

2. Solomos Solomou was shot dead at short range, by Turkish soldiers when he attempted to climb up a Turkish flag pole in the buffer zone.

The Court unanimously ruled that Ankara is guilty of violating Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights in respect of the killing of Anastasios Isaak and Solomos Solomou.

The Court also ruled that Turkey is guilty of violating Article 2 in respect of the failure to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances in which Anastasios Isaak and Solomos Solomou were killed.

Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded 80,000 euro to Anastasios Isaak’s widow for pecuniary damage. In respect of non-pecuniary damage, the Court awarded 35,000 euro each to Anastasios Isaak’s widow, his parents, and to Solomos Solomou’s father, and also 15,000 euro to each of Anastasios Isaak’s and Solomos Solomou’s siblings. The applicants in both cases were also awarded 12,000 for costs and expenses.

The two applications were filed to the Court by the families of Tasos Isaak and Solomou Solomou, both of whom were murdered by Turkish or Turkish Cypriots during demonstrations in 1996.

Click here for the judgment in the case of:
ISAAK v. TURKEY (Application no. 44587/98)
SOLOMOU AND OTHERS v. TURKEY (Application no. 36832/97)

ECHR Judgment: Varnava and Others v. Turkey

Turkey violated the rights of nine Greek Cypriot nationals who went missing when detained by the Turkish Army during its 1974 invasion of northern Cyprus, Europe's top human rights court ruled Thursday. The seven-judge panel said the case filed against Turkey by the families of 18 people who were originally captured and nine of whom remain missing after they were detained by Turkish forces was justified, and awarded representatives of the nine 4,000 (US$5,872) each in damages to cover legal costs and expenses. The court said it had accepted witness testimony "to seeing eight of the missing men in Turkish prisons in 1974." The body of one of the nine was found in 2007, but the other eight remain missing.

Below is the judgment in its entirety:

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

10.1.2008

Press release issued by the Registrar

CHAMBER JUDGMENT
VARNAVA AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment1 in the case of Varnava and Others v. Turkey (application nos. 16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90).

The Court held:

· by six votes to one, that there had been a continuing violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning Turkey’s failure to conduct an effective investigation into the whereabouts and fate of nine of the applicants, who disappeared in life-threatening circumstances;

· by six votes to one, that there had been a continuing violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the Convention concerning the remaining nine applicants, relatives of the nine men who disappeared;

· by six votes to one, that there had been a continuing violation of Article 5 (right to liberty and security) concerning Turkey’s failure to conduct an effective investigation into the whereabouts and fate of the nine men, concerning whom there was an arguable claim that they had been deprived of their liberty at the time of their disappearance; and,

· unanimously, that no violation of Article 5 had been established concerning the alleged detention of the nine men.

Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court held, by six votes to one, that the finding of violations constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants, and awarded them 4,000 euros (EUR), per application, for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)

1. Principal facts

The applicants are or were 18 Cypriot nationals, nine of whom disappeared after being captured and detained during the Turkish military operations in northern Cyprus in July and August 1974. The other applicants (three of whom have since died and been replaced by their heirs) are or were relatives of the men who disappeared.

The applicants are or were: Andreas and his wife Giorghoulla Varnava, who lived in Lymbia; Andreas and his father Loizos Loizides (now deceased), who lived in Nicosia; Philippos Constantinou and his father Demetris Peyiotis, who lived in Nicosia; Demetris Theocharides and his mother Elli Theocharidou (now deceased), who lived in Nicosia; Panicos and his mother Chrysoula Charalambous, who lived in Limassol; Eleftherios and his father Christos Thoma (now deceased), who lived in Strovolos; Savvas and his wife Androula Hadjipanteli, who lived in Nicosia; Savvas and his father Georghios Apostolides, who lived in Strovolos; and, Leontis and his wife Yianoulla Sarma, who lived in Limassol. The applicants were born, respectively, in: 1947, 1949, 1954, 1907, 1954, 1929, 1953, 1914, 1955, 1935, 1951, 1921, 1938, 1938, 1955, 1928, 1947 and 1949.

Witnesses have testified to seeing eight of the missing men in Turkish prisons in 1974; they have been considered missing ever since. A number of the applicant parents also claimed that they had identified their missing sons in photographs published in Greek newspapers showing Greek-Cypriot prisoners of war. The body of the ninth missing man, Savvas Hadjipanteli, was discovered in 2007.

The applicants made the following claims:

Varnava and Sarma

In July and August 1974 Andreas Varnava and Leontis Sarma’s battalions was stationed in the vicinity of Mia Milia to man the Cypriot outposts. On the morning of 14 August 1974, Turkish military forces, supported by tanks and with air cover, launched an attack on the area. Cypriot forces retreated and the surrounding area was captured by the Turkish military forces.

Loizides

In July 1974 Andreas Loizides was serving in a battalion which was moved to the Lapithos area to support Greek Cypriot forces there. The soldiers were split up into various groups and the applicant was in charge of one of those. On 5 August 1974 they were over-powered by Turkish forces and ordered to retreat. Since 6 August 1974 none of the members of his group have seen Mr Loizides.

Constantinos

Mr Constantinos was posted with a section of his battalion to Lapithos. Following a full-scale attack from the Turkish Army on 6 August 1974, the group split up.

Theocharides

At about 04.30 hours on 26 July 1974 Mr Theocharides’ company came under attack from a Turkish paratroops battalion, with 20 tanks, who broke through Greek Cypriot lines, infiltrating the right flank of the applicant’s company. When his company was regrouped, he was missing.

Charalambous

On 24 July 1974 Mr Charalambous came under fire from Turkish soldiers while searching buses in the Koutsoventis Vounos area with two or three other soldiers. He was wounded in the right hand and on the left side of his ribs. After his wounds were cleaned and his gun loaded, he went back. He has not been seen again by his unit.

Thoma

On the morning of 20 July 1974 Eleftherios Thoma was involved in trying to prevent Turkish military forces landing in the area of "Pikro Nero", Kyrenia. At around 12.00 hours on 21 July the Turkish military forces which had landed, supported by tanks and with air cover, attacked Cypriot forces defending the area. The applicant’s battalion was ordered to retreat. After the battalion had been regrouped the applicant was missing.

Hadjipanteli

On 18 August 1974 Mr Hadjipanteli, a bank employee, was taken for questioning by Turkish soldiers. According to the applicants, representatives of the International Red Cross in Cyprus visited Pavlides Garage in the Turkish occupied sector of Nicosia and on 28 August 1974 recorded the names of 20 Greek Cypriots held there, including the applicant.

On 27 August 1974 a group of Turkish Cypriot civilians went to a bank where they emptied two safes and ordered a third to be opened, but they were told that the keys were with the applicant. Subsequently they returned with the keys for that safe, which the applicant always carried with him.

In 2007, in the context of the activity of the United Nations Committee of Missing Persons (CMP), human remains were exhumed from a mass grave near the Turkish Cypriot village of Galatia in the Karpas area. The remains of Mr Hadjipanteli were identified and several bullets were found in the grave. Mr Hadjipanteli’s medical certificate indicated a bullet wound to his skull, a bullet wound in his right arm and a wound on his right thigh.

The Turkish Government disputed that the applicants had been taken into captivity by the Turkish army during the military action in Cyprus in 1974. They considered that all the alleged "missing persons", except for Mr Hadjipanteli, were military personnel who died in action in July-August 1974. The Government noted that the International Red Cross had visited the Pavlides Garage, where Mr Hadjipanteli had allegedly been held, but his name did not appear in the list of Greek Cypriots held.

The Government of Cyprus submitted that the nine men went missing in areas under the control of the Turkish forces.

2. Procedure and composition of the Court

The nine applications were lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 25 January 1990. They were joined by the Commission on 2 July 1991, and declared admissible on 14 April 1998. They were transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1999.

The Cypriot Government submitted observations on the merits of the case.

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

Boštjan Zupančič, (Slovenian), President,
Elisabet Fura-Sandström, (Swedish),
Alvina Gyulumyan, (Armenian),
Egbert Myjer, (Dutch),
David Thór Björgvinsson, (Icelandic),
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, (Monegasque), judges,
Gönül Erönen, (Turkish), ad hoc judge,


and also Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar.

3. Summary of the judgment2

Complaints

The applicants relied on Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 4 (prohibition of forced labour), 5 (right to liberty and security), 6 (right to a fair trial), 8 (right to respect for private and family life), 10 (freedom of expression), 12 (right to marry), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination).

Decision of the Court

Article 2

The Court noted that the fate of the nine missing men, and whether they had been unlawfully killed, was largely unknown. While Mr Hadjipanteli’s remains had been found very recently, the circumstances surrounding his death remained unclarified. The Court recalled that it was established in its Grand Chamber inter-State case Cyprus v. Turkey (application no. 25781/94 of 10 May 2001) that the evidence showed that many people who went missing in 1974 were detained either by Turkish or Turkish-Cypriot forces. Their detention occurred at a time when the conduct of military operations was accompanied by arrests and killings on a large scale which was found to disclose a life-threatening situation. The clear indications of the climate of risk and fear at the time, and of the real dangers to which detainees were exposed, was found to disclose a life-threatening situation. The nine missing men in the applicants’ case disappeared against that same background. The Court noted that the eight combatants were last seen in areas surrounded or about to be overrun by Turkish forces, one of them, Panicos Charalambous, in a wounded condition. Statements from several witnesses attested to seeing Mr Hadjipanteli being taken away by Turkish-Cypriot fighters. Given previous findings and the circumstances of the disappearances at a time and at locations which were, or very shortly thereafter were, under the control of Turkish forces or those acting under their aegis, the Court considered that an obligation arose for Turkey to account for their fate.

While it might be noted that in the context of the individual cases arising out of events in south-east Turkey and the conflict in the Chechen Republic, where there were, at the relevant times, numerous reported instances of forced disappearances, individual applicants had nonetheless been required to give an evidential basis for finding that their relatives were taken into some form of custody by agents of the State, the Court considered that the situation in the applicants’ case was different. A zone of international conflict where two armies were engaged in acts of war was per se life-threatening for those present. Circumstances would frequently be such that the events in question lay wholly, or in large part, within the exclusive knowledge of the military forces in the field, and it would not be realistic to expect applicants to provide more than minimal information placing their relative in the area at risk. International treaties imposed obligations on combatant States as regards the care of wounded, prisoners of war and civilians; Article 2 certainly extended so far as to require States which had ratified the Convention to take reasonable steps to protect the lives of those not, or no longer, engaged in hostilities. Disappearances in such circumstances were therefore protected by Article 2.

The Court recalled its previous finding that, whatever its humanitarian usefulness, the CMP did not provide procedures sufficient to meet the standard of an effective investigation required by Article 2, especially in view of the narrow scope of that body’s investigations.

While it was true that the remains of Savvas Hadjipanteli had recently been discovered, that did not demonstrate that the CMP had been able to take any meaningful investigative steps beyond the belated location and identification of remains. Nor, given the location of Mr Hadjipanteli’s remains in an area under the control of the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus3” after a lapse of some 32 years, had that event displaced the Turkish Government’s accountability for the investigative process during the intervening period.

The Court concluded that there had been a continuing violation of Article 2 concerning the failure of the Turkish authorities to conduct an effective investigation aimed at clarifying the whereabouts and fate of the nine men who went missing in 1974.

Article 3

The Court recalled, in view of the circumstances in which their family members disappeared following a military intervention during which many persons were killed or taken prisoner and where the area was subsequently sealed off and became inaccessible to the relatives, they must undoubtedly have suffered most painful uncertainty and anxiety. Furthermore, their mental anguish did not vanish with the passing of time.

The Court observed that the Turkish authorities had failed to undertake any investigation into the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of the missing persons. In the absence of any information about their fate, the relatives of those who went missing during the events of July and August 1974 were condemned to live in a prolonged state of acute anxiety which could not be said to have been erased with the passage of time. The Court recalled that the military operation resulted in a considerable loss of life, large-scale arrests and detentions and enforced separation of families. The overall context had still to be vivid in the minds of the relatives of persons whose fate has never been accounted for by the authorities. They endured the agony of not knowing whether family members were killed in the conflict or were still in detention or, if detained, had since died. The fact that a very substantial number of Greek Cypriots had to seek refuge in the south coupled with the continuing division of Cyprus had to be considered to constitute very serious obstacles to their quest for information. The provision of such information was the responsibility of the Turkish authorities.

The silence of the Turkish authorities, in the face of the real concerns of the relatives of the nine missing men, attained a level of severity which could only be categorised as inhuman treatment within the meaning of Article 3. The Court therefore concluded that, during the period under consideration, there had been a continuing violation of Article 3.

Article 5

The Court found no violation of Article 5 concerning the alleged detention of the nine missing men as it had not been established that, during the period under consideration in the applicants’ case, they were actually being detained by the Turkish or Turkish Cypriot authorities.

However, there had been a continuing violation of Article 5 because the Turkish authorities had failed to conduct an effective investigation into the whereabouts and fate of the nine men, in respect of whom there was an arguable claim that they had been deprived of their liberty at the time of their disappearance.

Articles 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13 and 14

The Court did not consider it necessary to examine further the applicants’ other complaints.

Ad hoc judge Gönül Erönen expressed a separate opinion, which is annexed to the judgment.

***

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

Complacent attitude to Blair’s Oram's defence

Blair has not visited occupied northern Cyprus in connection with her defence of a British couple who have been ordered to tear down a built on house on property belonging to a Greek Cypriot refugee, British Minister for Europe Douglas Alexander has confirmed.

In his written response to Theresa Villiers MP, Alexander said nor was Blair the guest of the British Consul-General when recently visiting Istanbul in her professional capacity.

The Government warns British citizens, through its online travel advice and in response to enquiries, of the risks purchasers face when buying in northern Cyprus, said Alexander.

Cherie Blair’s decision to defend the Orams has already caused a diplomatic outcry from the Cyprus Press and Government. In April last year EU newcomer Cyprus warned it would use courts in other EU countries to enforce decisions against property investors who had bought property in northern Cyprus that Greek owners had been forced to abandon when Turkey invaded the island. This followed a European Court of Human Rights decision upholding the property rights of one such Greek owner against the Turkish Cypriot occupiers of her property.

It put the number of Greek Cypriots affected at over 200,000 and estimated that between them they hold valid titles to approximately 82 per cent of the privately owned land in the occupied areas. UK property investors have been prominent buyers of properties in northern Cyprus where prices have tended to be cheaper than in the south.

Villiers said that although it was a relief to hear Blair had not visited Turkish occupied Cyprus in relation to the case, she was still dismayed at the complacency of Alexander’s letter. The Government was trying to bring the two sides together in Cyprus, but the Foreign Office did not seem even to be worried about the controversy caused by Blair's involvement in case.

'In defending the Orams, she is flatly contradicting the advice of the Foreign Office by actively supporting those who have gone against this advice and “bought” land owned by refugees’, she said, vowing to campaign for the Government to strengthen its advice to those thinking of purchasing property in occupied northern Cyprus.

Turkey’s Obligation

French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin’s exclusive statements to The Cyprus Weekly may be an indication that France would like to play a more active role in resolving the issue of Cyprus.

Turkey must comply with its Cyprus obligations, says French PM

By Angelos Marcopoulos

Turkey has no option but to meet its obligation in connection with Cyprus and respect human rights it was stressed by French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin and other senior European leaders in exclusive statements to The Cyprus Weekly during a series of political gatherings here.

``This year we shall see how Turkey deals with its obligations,’’ de Villepin said. ``The new year must be an active and useful one because France, and Europe, have to defend their values on human rights and peace in the world,’’ he added.

The French leader was replying to a question whether Turkey would be convinced to meet its own obligations to the EU in the coming year following the fact that the EU, and Cyprus, met all their obligations to it in 2005.

The question referred of course, to the repeated statements from Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and other senior Turkish leaders that Turkey will not apply the EU protocol demanding the opening of Turkish sea and air ports to Cypriot ships and aircraft.

Villepin’s position was made more specific in a subsequent statement to The Cyprus Weekly by the French Foreign Ministry’s spokesman Jean-Baptiste Mattei.

"They (Turkey) undertook commitments and they should respect them...In 2006 there will be a series of (EU) rendez-vous with Turkey on Cyprus,’’ he said.

It was significant that Villepin’s statement came shortly after the European Court of Human Rights issued a series of judgements condemning Turkey for gross violations of human rights, including murders, disappearances, torture, oppression of free speech, etc., which revealed that Ankara continues to show contempt to a CoE’s ministers’ resolution which vainly asks Turkey to cease tolerating grave crimes committed by its security forces.

De Villepin’s stance was fully backed by Rene van der Linden, the Dutch President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and Catherine Colonna, the French Minister for European Affairs.

"I hope that all involved will be wise enough to stick to agreements and meet all revelant expectations,’’ van der Linden told The Cyprus Weekly in response to a question dealing with Erdogan’s statement.

"They (Turkey) certainly "Have to apply’’ the extension of Custom Union to Cyprus was Colonna’s comment.

UN Resolutions must be fully implemented - Chirac

In another important statement for Cyprus this week French President Jacques Chirac said that all UN resolutions must be fully implemented.

Calling for a "new start’’ and the "relaunch of a political Europe, in a multipolar world", Chirac said that "France is determined to act more strongly than ever in order to find solutions to many conflicts".

This should be done "with due respect to law, and the law is not a variable geometry,’’ he said, stressing that "all UN Security Council resolutions must be fully implemented.’’

Giving further backing to Chirac’s words French Foreign Minister Douste Blazy stated that ``France’s ambition in 2006 is for the EU to play a political role in all efforts to settle conflicts.’’

Domestic Remedies

Some Turkish columnists are delighted at the recent ECHR ruling in the case of Ms. Aresti even though Turkey was found guilty of human rights violations. Perhaps these columnists welcomed this decision because they are champions of human rights? Far from it, they welcomed the court’s ruling because they believe it to be a recognition of the legal system in the occupied north. Mr. Birand from the Turkish daily news in his column today stated “Even if it (court’s ruling) doesn’t mean any official recognition of the KKTC (occupied North), it certainly recognizes it as an entity.” Last April, ECHR ruled in this same case that effective domestic remedies were not possible because restitution was not being offered. Now the court is saying that a domestic remedy may be possible only if there is a genuine effective redress. To Mr. Birand, a genuine effective redress means...“This means the Greek Cypriot petitions will be postponed for at least 10 years. Turkey and the KKTC will gain some time, and the threat of paying so much compensation will be removed for a while.” What a humanitarian. Fortunately, that is not what the court's decision means, lets see what the court really says...“Turkey should introduce a remedy, within three months, which secures, in respect of the Convention violations identified in the judgment, genuinely effective redress for the applicant…”The court goes on to say "Such a remedy should be available within three months and redress should occur three months after that." So you see, its not 10 years as Mr. Birand stated. The court is seeking a proper remedy in a couple of months. Before the ECHR ruling, Mr. Talat expected the ruling to recommend that Turkey open internal judiciary means for refugees, that is why he rushed to create a new property compensation bill. Addressing concerns from Turkish nationalists, Mr. Talat said this..."The target of the new property law (adopted by the occupied North) does not aim to solve property problem in Cyprus." Correct, the target of this law is world public opinion. It is nothing more than a show meant to cover up the unprincipled reality that is the aftermath of the Turkish Invasion. The Turks are seeking more time to cement the division of Cyprus as 31 years is not long enough and they will hammer away at the idea that it’s the Greek Cypriots fault for maintaining this division. After all, it is the Greek Cypriots who rejected last year's Annan plan. Mr. Birand in his column today did not mention the “NO” vote once, he mentioned it twice. Well, Turkey succeeded in gaining time...a short period of time. The true test will be if Turkey allows Ms. Aresti access to her property. If not, will the ECHR accept the chump change offered by the Turks as compensation for lost property?

Cyprus Debates ECHR Decision

Cypriot papers today set aside space to debate the recent ECHR Judgment against Turkey and the possible ramifications from the court’s decision. The views were for the most part, positive. Here is what the Cyprus Weekly had to say about the matter.

Turkey guilty

By Alex Efthyvoulos

Turkey was found guilty yet again yesterday by the European Court of Human Rights of violating the rights of Greek Cypriot refugees by denying them the right to return and to regain use of their homes in the occupied north of Cyprus.

The judgement dealt with the application of Famagusta refugee Myra Xenides-Aresti who fled her home at the time of the Turkish invasion in 1974 and has not been allowed to return, or to regain her property ever since.

The Court based its judgement on previous similar cases by Greek Cypriot refugees, like the one by Titina Loizidou.

But in what is regarded as a major development the Court, while reaffirming that Turkey “continued to exercise overall military control over northern Cyprus, added that “the fact that the Greek Cypriots rejected the Annan Plan did not have the legal consequence of bringing to an end the continuing violation of the displaced persons' rights,'' as claimed by Turkey.

The Court reserved sentencing Turkey for these violations giving it six months “to introduce a remedy, which secures genuinely effective redress for the Convention violations identified in the instant judgement.''

Link

But in yet another major development the Court went on to link Turkey's compliance in the Xenides-Aresti case with all the 1,400 other similar applications by Greek Cypriot refugees pending before it.

The Court said it could not ignore the fact that there were already approximately 1,400 property cases pending before it, brought primarily by Greek-Cypriots against Turkey.

The Court considered that Turkey had to introduce a remedy which secured, in respect of the Convention violations identified in the judgment, genuinely effective redress for the applicant as well as in relation to all similar applications pending before the Court, in accordance with the principles for the protection of the rights laid down in Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. “Such a remedy should be available within three months and redress should occur three months after that.''

The Court also rejected Turkey's claim that property rights could be settled through the intercommunal talks. It declared that “the inter-communal talks cannot be invoked in order to legitimate a violation of the Convention.''

Compensation law

The Court also rejected Turkey's claim that the breakaway Turkish Cypriot state should be given the opportunity and the time to consider their compensation law for Greek Cypriot refugees, as well as the claim that a decision by the Rights Court for the payment of compensation to Greek Cypriot refugees “would seriously hamper and prejudice negotiations for an overall political settlement, including the complex property issue which it is hoped will be solved by diplomatic means.''

The Court ruled that Turkey, as the occupying power of north Cyprus, violated two articles of the European Convention of Human Right, Article 8, dealing with the right to respect for the applicant's home, and Article 1, dealing with the protection of property.

In connection with Article 8 the Court noted that since 1974 Xenides-Aresti “has been unable to gain access to, to use and enjoy her home.'' It consequently reaffirmed its earlier judgement in the case of Cyprus v Turkey, “that the complete denial of the right of Greek-Cypriot displaced persons to respect for their homes has no basis in law within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention.''

Dealing with the violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the Convention, which guarantees every person's right to the peaceful enjoyment of their property, by the Court rejected Turkey's claims that property rights should be settled as part of a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem.

“The Court found no reason to depart from the conclusions which it had reached in previous cases, in particular the case Loizidou v. Turkey: As a consequence of the fact that the applicant has been refused access to the land since 1974, she has effectively lost all control over, as well as all possibilities to use and enjoy her property.

The continuous denial of access must therefore be regarded as an interference with her rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 [....] It has not [...] been explained how the need to rehouse displaced Turkish Cypriot refugees in the years following the Turkish intervention in the island in 1974 could justify the complete negation of the applicant’s property rights in the form of a total and continuous denial of access and a purported expropriation without compensation. Nor can the fact that property rights were the subject of inter-communal talks involving both communities in Cyprus provide a justification for this situation under the Convention.''

Accordingly, the Court concluded that there had been and continues to be a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 by virtue of the fact that the applicant is denied access to, control, use and enjoyment of her property and any compensation for the interference with her property rights.

The Court's judgement was reached with the dissenting opinion of one of the seven judges, Turkish judge R. Turmen.

Cyprus Weekly, December 2005

ECHR Finds Turkey Guilty

A judgment has been made by ECHR concerning the case of Mrs. Myra Xenides-Arestis vs. Turkey. The ECHR has confirmed that the title deed of Mrs. Myra Xenides-Arestis is legitimate and her ownership of property has not been affected by Turkish occupation. Below is a press release issued by the Registrar so that you can read what the Court demands and what violations Turkey is guilty of as it relates to this case.

For Information regarding this judgment please visit here.

ECHR Judgment

There will be an important judgment this Thursday by ECHR concerning the case of Mrs. Myra Xenides-Arestis vs. Turkey for the violation of her human rights by preventing her access to her property in the North of Cyprus. The applicant, Mrs. Arestis who was born in Famagusta in 1945 will hopefully be compensated for the loss of her property. Obviously this decision is very important and will be closely monitored by thousands of Cypriots who have launched legal proceedings that are now pending before ECHR.

Ill-gotten assets

If you ever have read articles on Cyprus from certain sites...it’s a sure bet you have come across advertisement on buying property from Northern Cyprus. I recently read an article where I was bombarded with adds to such an extent that I had a hard time reading the article itself. Before you sense financial gain, here is another sure bet...you run the risk of losing all your money exploring such an endeavor. According to official records from the RoC, ownership of private land property in the North belongs by 82% to Greek Cypriots. Heartened by support from the European court of human rights...thousands of Greek Cypriots are launching legal proceedings that are now pending before ECHR. As a result, you may discover that what you really hold is a worthless title deed.