Loizidou v. Turkey

Last updated
Loizidou v. Turkey
Decided 18 December 1996
Full case name Loizidou v. Turkey
Case40/1993/435/514
Chamber Grand Chamber
Language of proceedings English
Nationality of parties Cypriot
Turkish
Ruling
Violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights
President
Rolv Ryssdal
Judges
Case opinions
MajorityRyssdal, joined by Walsh, Spielmann, Martens, Palm, Pekkanen, Loizou, Morenilla, Wildhaber, Bonnici, Lõhmus
ConcurrenceWildhaber, joined by Ryssdal
DissentBernhardt, joined by Lopes Rocha
DissentBaka
DissentJambrek
DissentPetitti
DissentGölcüklü

Loizidou v. Turkey is a landmark legal case regarding the rights of refugees wishing to return to their former homes and properties. [1]

Contents

The European Court of Human Rights ruled that Titina Loizidou, and consequently all other refugees, have the right to return to their former properties. The ECHR ruled that Turkey had violated Loizidou's human rights under Article I of Protocol I of the European Convention on Human Rights, [2] [3] that she should be allowed to return to her home and that Turkey should pay damages to her. Turkey initially ignored this ruling. [4]

On 22 July 1989 a Cypriot national Loizidou filed an application against Turkey to the European Court of Human Rights, represented by Greek-Cypriot lawyer Achilleas Demetriades. Loizidou had been forced out of her home during Turkey's invasion of Cyprus in 1974 along with around 200,000 other Greek-Cypriots. During more than 20 years, she made a number of attempts to return to her home in Kyrenia but was denied entry into the Turkish occupied part of Cyprus by the Turkish army.

Her application resulted in three judgments by the European Court of Human Rights (Strasbourg) which held Turkey responsible for human rights violations in the northern part of Cyprus, which is under overall control of the Turkish armed forces.

The U.S. Department of State commented on this case as follows:

In 1996 the European Court of Human Rights ruled 11 to 6 that Turkey committed a continuing violation of the rights of a Greek Cypriot woman by preventing her from going to her property located in north Cyprus. The ruling reaffirmed the validity of property deeds issued prior to 1974. The Court also found in this case that "it was obvious from the large number of troops engaged in active duties in northern Cyprus that the Turkish army exercised effective overall control there. In the circumstances of the case, this entailed Turkey's responsibility for the policies and actions of the 'TRNC'". In July the Court ordered Turkey to pay the woman approximately $915,000 in damages and costs by October 28. Initially Turkey declined to pay the damages awarded. [5] The Turkish Government stated that it cannot implement the Court's decision, which it contends is a political decision, and argued that the land in question is not Turkish but is part of the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus". The Council of Europe (COE) during 1999 continued to call on the Turkish Government to comply with the Court's decision. In October the COE Committee of Ministers' Deputies voted to deplore Turkey's lack of compliance. A number of similar cases have been filed with the ECHR.

The court also stated expressly that the damages awarded were not compensation for the property per se, but only for the denial of the ownership and use of the property, and that Loizidou retains full legal ownership of her property.

In 2003 Turkey paid Loizidou the compensation amounts (of over $1 million) ruled by the European Court of Human Rights. [6]

Precedent

The case serves as important precedent for judgments in international courts of law regarding the Cyprus dispute. [7] [8] [9] [10] Similar cases have been brought to the ECHR are awaiting judgement and two have been concluded in a similar fashion:

The Loizidou case was also cited in the 2001 judgment on the interstate case Cyprus v. Turkey .

See also

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.

The right of return is a principle in international law which guarantees everyone's right of voluntary return to, or re-entry to, their country of origin or of citizenship. The right of return is part of the broader human rights concept freedom of movement and is also related to the legal concept of nationality. While many states afford their citizens the right of abode, the right of return is not restricted to citizenship or nationality in the formal sense. It allows stateless persons and for those born outside their country to return for the first time, so long as they have maintained a "genuine and effective link".

Enclaved Greek Cypriots are the Greek Cypriots who have remained in enclaved villages in Northern Cyprus after the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974.

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.

Cypriot refugees are the Cypriot nationals or Cyprus residents who had their main residence in an area forcibly evacuated during the Cyprus conflict. The government of Cyprus also recognizes as refugees the descendants of the original refugees in the male line regardless of place of birth.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Outline of Northern Cyprus</span> Overview of and topical guide to Northern Cyprus

The following outline is provided as an overview of and topical guide to Northern Cyprus:

Apostolides v Orams is a landmark legal case decided in the European Court of Justice on 28 April 2009. It concerned the right for Greek Cypriot refugees to reclaim land in northern Cyprus, displaced after the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974. The case determined that although Cyprus does not exercise effective control in northern Cyprus, cases decided in its courts are applicable through European Union law.

Cyprus v. Turkey (IV) (2001) 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.

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.

Lobby for Cyprus is a non-party-political human rights NGO that is based in London in the United Kingdom. Lobby for Cyprus campaigns for the reunification of Cyprus and for the human rights of Cypriots.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judiciary of Northern Cyprus</span>

The Judiciary of Northern Cyprus is the system of courts which interprets and applies the law in Northern Cyprus. Judicial independence is safeguarded by the Constitution of the country.

<i>Chiragov and Others v. Armenia</i> International human rights case

Chiragov v. Armenia was an international human rights case regarding the rights to property of Azeri nationals in the Nagorno-Karabakh region of former Soviet Azerbaijan. The judgment of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights on the case originated in an application against the Republic of Armenia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by six Azerbaijani nationals on 6 April 2005. The applicants alleged, in particular, that they were prevented from returning to the district of Lachin in territory occupied by the respondent Government, that they were thus unable to enjoy their property and homes located there, and that they had not received any compensation for their losses.

M.C. and Others v Italy is a case decided by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on 3 September 2013 in which Article 1 of Protocol 1 (A1P1) was engaged due to the applicants not being afforded annual uprating which the court deemed damage to their property of a disproportionate character in the form of an exorbitant charge. The Strasbourg ruling sets an important precedent for higher monthly compensation payments to be paid to the 60,000 or so victims of contaminated blood transfusions in Italy. The effect of this ruling increased payments to the applicants by 40%.

Bayev and Others v. Russia was a case brought to the European Court of Human Rights by three Russian activists—Nikolay Bayev, Aleksei Aleksandrovich Kiselev, and Nikolay Alekseyev—alleging that the Russian gay propaganda law infringed on their freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. On 20 June 2017, the court ruled that the applicants' freedom of expression had been compromised. The only dissent was from Dmitry Dedov, the judge elected with respect to Russia.

<i>Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan</i>

Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan was an international human rights case regarding the rights of Armenian refugees displaced from former Soviet Azerbaijan because of the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh. The judgment of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights on the case originated in an application against the Republic of Azerbaijan lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by Minas Sargsyan on 11 August 2006. He was forced to flee his home in the village of Gulistan in Shahumyan region of former Soviet Azerbaijan, together with his family, because of the Azerbaijani bombardments of the village and was not allowed to return and unable to get any compensation from the Azerbaijani authorities. Even though the applicant died in 2009, as did his widow, Lena Sargsyan, in 2014, his children, Vladimir and Tsovinar Sargsyan, represented him in court to continue the proceedings.

References

  1. ↑ Vasilios S. Spyridakis, "Loizidou v. Turkey and the Future of Property Compensation for Refugees in Cyprus and Beyond," Journal of Modern Hellenism no. 25-26 (2008-2009), pp. 129-156.
  2. ↑ Loizidou and Cyprus (intervening) v Turkey, App No 15318/89, §64, ECHR 1996-VI
  3. ↑ First Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Council of Europe) 213 UNTS 262, UKTS 46 (1954), ETS No 9, UN Reg No I-2889, Cmd 9221, Art.1
  4. ↑ "H54-1 - Loizidou against Turkey, Judgments of 18 December 1996 and 28 July 1998 Application of Article 54 of the ECHR". Council of Europe - Human Rights Meeting. 8–9 September 1999. Retrieved 17 April 2011.
  5. ↑ "Turkey declines to pay damages to Greek Cypriot woman". BBC News . October 28, 1998. Retrieved 2007-01-31.
  6. ↑ "Turkey compensates Cyprus refugee". BBC News . 2 December 2003. Retrieved 2007-01-31.
  7. ↑ "Turkey has finally paid Mrs. Titina Loizidou". Moreover, the ruling of European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in the case of Loizidou v. Turkey (1998) has set a legal precedent for the payment of reparations by Turkey to the Republic of Cyprus and the victims of its policy of destruction and ethnic cleansing.
  8. ↑ "European Court of Human Rights finds Turkey Guilty". Archived from the original on 30 November 2017. Markides noted that the decision sets a "precedent" and can be characterised as a "landmark in the history of law".
  9. ↑ "Property Wars in Cyprus" (PDF). The case has served as a precedent for dozens of cases that have been concluded in a similar fashion.
  10. ↑ "Loizidou v Turkey". This is a landmark case, the first of its kind in Cyprus and has set the precedent for similar actions to be brought against the Turkish government.
  11. ↑ "Case of Demades vs Turkey" (.doc). HUDOC. European Court of Human Rights HUDOC Portal. 22 April 2008. Retrieved 2010-01-03.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.