The government has until September 22 to submit its observations on Turkey`s positions regarding an application filed to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) by a Greek Cypriot complaining about the long delay of the “immovable property commission”(IPC), operating in the northern Turkish occupied areas of Cyprus, in examining her application.

In statements to CNA, lawyer Achilleas Demetriades clarified that ECHR is called upon to decide on the effectiveness of “commission” in the light of its ten-year operation. He noted that with the application to ECHR the “commission`s effectiveness is actually put under the microscope of the European Court.”

Demetriades explained that the Greek Cypriot filed an application to the “immovable property commission” in 2008 and in 2014 appealed to the ECHR protesting about the delay in the examination of her application.

He noted that in “Dimopoulos” case, the ECHR decided, as a matter of principle, that the treatment offered by Turkey with the establishment of the “Immovable Property Commission” was adequate, adding that in this case the Court is called upon to decide whether this treatment is actually effective.

Demetriades said that apart from the issue of the delay observed in examining applications by the “commission”, a number of other issues are being raised with the appeal to the ECHR which show the ineffectiveness of the “commission” such as the delay in the payment of compensation adjudicated by the “commission” to the Greek Cypriots.

He referred in particular to the case involving a two year delay in paying 2.5 million euros to a Greek Cypriot as compensation for his property, which is under Turkish occupation, adding that this case is an example of such ineffectiveness.

He said that the “commission” cannot be considered an effective domestic remedy because “there are 30 cases before the ECHR – which will be examined the Committee of Ministers on 22/9 – for which 50 million euros have been adjudicated and which Turkey refuses to pay.”

Another issue raised with the appeal to the ECHR is that applications relating to the fenced off city of Famagusta (Varosha) also under occupation and to the areas used by the Turkish army, when the remedy sought is restoration, are not forwarded for examination.

He said that the “commission`s ineffectiveness is also evidenced by the fact that in these ten years of its operation, it managed to process only 700 applications out of 6,000 cases that are pending before it.”

Demetriades also said that the application calls on the Court to send a team on a fact- finding mission to determine the effectiveness of the “commission.”

Referring to the procedure, he said that the Turkish Government has already submitted its comments on the application of the Greek Cypriot which have already been communicated both to the applicant and the Cypriot Government.

He pointed out that the Cypriot government has until 22 September to give its own answers which will then be communicated to the applicant and the Turkish Government in order to submit their final comments.
He concluded by saying that said it is up to the Court to decide whether it will issue a decision or set a date for a hearing on the case.

The Republic of Cyprus, an EU full member state since 2004, has been divided since 1974 when Turkish troops invaded and since then occupy 37% of the island`s territory.

Shortly after the Turkish invasion, some 170,000 Greek Cypriots were involuntarily displaced from their habitual homes and properties. Most were expelled by the occupation forces, while others fled to the safety of the government controlled areas, having witnessed the brutality of the occupation forces.

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that the “immovable properties commission”, which was set up in the Turkish occupied areas of Cyprus, constitutes an effective domestic remedy as far as addressing property claims by Greek Cypriots.

According to the decision of the Court’s Grand Chamber, issued in 2010, Greek Cypriots must first exhaust domestic remedies before resorting to the ECHR in cases regarding violation of their rights by Turkey.