Cyprus v Turkey

Last updated

Cyprus v. Turkey (IV) (2001) (No. 25781/94) is a case raised by Cyprus against Turkey in 1994 and decided on merits by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in 2001. It concerns the situation existing in Northern Cyprus after 1974 Turkish invasion of Cyprus and the de facto separation of the Mediterranean island.

Contents

Judgment

On the accountability, the Court held, by sixteen votes to one, referring to its Loizidou v. Turkey judgment, that the facts, which were complained of, fell within the jurisdiction of Turkey and therefore entailed Turkey's responsibility.

On the merits, the Court held with differing divisions of votes (in most cases either unanimously or by 16 votes to 1):

Deciding on possible awarding compensation was postponed and the judgment on this issue was adopted on 12 May 2014, ordering Turkey to pay €90,000,000 to Cyprus. [1]

Separate opinions

Judges Palm (Sweden), Costa (France), Jungwiert (Czech Republic), Pantiru (Moldova), Levits (Latvia), Kovler (Russia), Fuad (Turkey) and Marcus-Helmons (Cyprus) expressed partly dissenting opinions to the judgment on the merits.

15 judges have expressed five concurring or dissenting opinions on the judgment on just satisfaction.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">European Convention on Human Rights</span> International treaty to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe

The European Convention on Human Rights is an international convention to protect human rights and political freedoms in Europe. Drafted in 1950 by the then newly formed Council of Europe, the convention entered into force on 3 September 1953. All Council of Europe member states are party to the convention and new members are expected to ratify the convention at the earliest opportunity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">European Court of Human Rights</span> Supranational court established by the Council of Europe

The European Court of Human Rights, also known as the Strasbourg Court, is an international court of the Council of Europe which interprets the European Convention on Human Rights. The court hears applications alleging that a contracting state has breached one or more of the human rights enumerated in the convention or its optional protocols to which a member state is a party. The European Convention on Human Rights is also referred to by the initials "ECHR". The court is based in Strasbourg, France.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Inter-American Court of Human Rights</span> Autonomous judicial institution

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights is an international court based in San José, Costa Rica. Together with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, it was formed by the American Convention on Human Rights, a human rights treaty ratified by members of the Organization of American States (OAS).

Loizidou v. Turkey is a landmark legal case regarding the rights of refugees wishing to return to their former homes and properties.

This article covers the civilian casualties and displacements that occurred between 1963 and 1975 – from the outbreak of the intercommunal fighting until the end of displacements following the Turkish invasion of Cyprus.

Dudgeon v the United Kingdom (1981) was a European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) case, which held that Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 which criminalised male homosexual acts in England, Wales and Northern Ireland violated the European Convention on Human Rights.

A dissenting opinion is an opinion in a legal case in certain legal systems written by one or more judges expressing disagreement with the majority opinion of the court which gives rise to its judgment.

Human rights in Cyprus are protected by the constitution of the Republic of Cyprus.

Section 171 of the Criminal Code of Cyprus was a section of the Cyprus Criminal Code, which was enacted in 1929, that criminalized homosexual acts between consenting male adults. Until 1998, the section read:

"Any person who (a) has carnal knowledge of any person against the order of nature, or (b) permits a male person to have carnal knowledge of him against the order of nature is guilty of a felony and is liable to imprisonment for five years".

Slivenko v. Latvia (48321/99) was a case argued before the European Court of Human Rights and decided in 2003.

Handyside v United Kingdom (5493/72) was a case decided by the European Court of Human Rights in 1976. Its conclusion contains the famous phrase that:

Freedom of expression ... is applicable not only to 'information' or 'ideas' that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population.

<i>Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina</i>

Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina was a case decided by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in December 2009, in the first judgment finding a violation of Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights taken in conjunction with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 thereof, with regard to the arrangements of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina in respect of the House of Peoples of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 with regard to the constitutional arrangements on the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic was a case decided by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) concerning discrimination of Romani children in the education system of the Czech Republic. It was the first case of racial segregation in education to be considered by the ECtHR. As of 2021 the case is still pending at the Committee of Ministers and has not been resolved by the Czech authorities.

Vogt v. Germany (1996) 21 EHRR 205, (17851/91) was a case decided by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in 1995. The case concerned a Mrs. Vogt who was suspended from her teaching job at a public secondary school because of her past membership in the German Communist Party. The ECHR ruled that this application of Berufsverbot violated provisions in the European Convention on Human Rights relating to freedom of expression and freedom of association.

Oršuš and Others v. Croatia (15766/03) was a case heard before the European Court of Human Rights, concerning activities of Roma-only classes in some schools of Croatia, which were held legal by the Constitutional Court of Croatia in 2007 by a decision no. U-III-3138/2002.

Kokkinakis v. Greece is a landmark case of the European Court of Human Rights, decided in 1993 and concerning compatibility of certain sanctions for proselytism with Articles 7 and 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It ruled by a vote of six-to-three that a Jehovah's Witness man's freedom to manifest his religion, protected by Article 9, had been violated by the Greek government. One of the judges wrote that this case was "of particular importance" because it was "the first real case concerning freedom of religion to have come before the European Court since it was set up" in 1959.

Human rights in Northern Cyprus are protected by the constitution of Northern Cyprus. However, there have been reports of violations of the human rights of minorities, democratic freedom, freedom from discrimination, freedom from torture, freedom of movement, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, right to education, right to life, right to property, and the rights of displaced persons. The rights of Greek Cypriots displaced by the 1974 Turkish invasion of Cyprus, notably their rights to property and right of return, is one of the focal points of ongoing negotiations for the solution of the Cyprus question.

Perinçek v. Switzerland is a 2013 judgment of the European Court of Human Rights concerning public statements by Doğu Perinçek, a nationalist political activist and member of the Talat Pasha Committee, who was convicted by a Swiss court for publicly denying the Armenian genocide.

<i>Saribekyan and Balyan v. Azerbaijan</i>

Saribekyan and Balyan v. Azerbaijan was an international human rights case filed by the parents of Manvel Saribekyan - an Armenian national from the Ttujur village in the Gegharkunik province of Armenia, who died while in captivity in Azerbaijan in 2010. The judgment of the European Court of Human Rights on the case originated in an application against the Republic of Azerbaijan lodged with the Court under the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms on 10 June 2011.

References