CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 8 octobre 1991

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                            AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                         Application No. 18270/91                       by Ahmet Cavit AN and Others                       against Cyprus             The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 8 October 1991, the following members being present:                 MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President                   J.A. FROWEIN                   S. TRECHSEL                   F. ERMACORA                   G. SPERDUTI                   G. JÖRUNDSSON                   A. WEITZEL                   J.-C. SOYER                   H.G. SCHERMERS                   H. DANELIUS              Mrs.   G. H. THUNE              Sir   Basil HALL              Mr.   F. MARTINEZ RUIZ              Mrs.   J. LIDDY              MM.   L. LOUCAIDES                   J.-C. GEUS                   M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                   B. MARXER                Mr.   H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission           Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;           Having regard to the application introduced on 13 May 1991 by Ahmet Cavit AN and Others against Cyprus and registered on 21 May 1991 under file No. 18270/91;           Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;           Having deliberated;           Decides as follows:   THE FACTS           The facts submitted by the applicants may be summarised as follows.   1.       Particular circumstances of the present case           The first applicant, Mr.   Ahmet Cavit An, a Cypriot citizen born in 1950, is a paediatrician residing in Nicosia.   The second applicant, Miss Sefica Beren, a Cypriot citizen born in 1960, is a printer residing in Nicosia.   The third applicant, Mr.   Nevzat Adil, a Cypriot citizen born in 1948, is a journalist residing in Kyrenia. The fourth applicant, Mr.   Soner Engin, a Cypriot citizen born in 1951, is a former government official residing in Nicosia.   The fifth applicant, Mr.   Hasan Erçakica, a Cypriot citizen born in 1957, is a newspaper editor residing in Kyrenia.           The applicants are represented by Mr.   Ergin Ulunay, a lawyer practising in Nicosia.           The applicants are the Turkish Cypriot members of a movement for an independent and federal Cyprus, an unregistered association of Turkish and Greek Cypriots.   The movement has a Turkish Cypriot co-ordinating committee in the North and a Greek Cypriot co-ordinating committee in the South of Cyprus.   In general, the Turkish Cypriot authorities do not permit the Turkish Cypriot members of the movement to visit the buffer zone or Southern Cyprus and to return to the North.   Only occasionally and on an arbitrary basis are such permits granted.   Thus, out of 52 requests for permission to visit the buffer zone or Southern Cyprus only 14 were granted during the last 17 months.           The present application is confined to the restrictions on the applicant's freedom of movement during the last six months before the introduction of the application.   2.       Relevant domestic law and practice           The applicants submit that in Northern Cyprus there is no law regulating the restrictions which may reasonably be imposed, in a democratic society, on the freedom of movement within Cyprus.    The relevant decree of 11 July 1986 is unconstitutional.           In order to get permission for crossing over to the buffer zone, the applicants usually submit to the competent Turkish Cypriot authority a written application, giving reasons, but they never receive a written reply or written permit.   Occasionally, when permission is granted for crossing over, the authority sends a circular to the police stationed at the control point at the Ledra Palace Gate, Nicosia, containing a list of individuals permitted to cross over to the South and to return to the North.   Where an application for a permit is rejected - which is usually the case - no written reply is issued; the police at the control point simply do not permit the passage as they have not received the necessary circular.           Protests against this state of affairs and discussions with the Turkish Cypriot authorities have been to no avail.         The applicants further observe that the entry-exit point at the Ledra Palace Gate is within "the first Degree Militarily Prohibited Region".   Therefore the military authorities "have a say in granting the permits for crossing over. ...   The Turkish Cypriot Military, Security and Police Authorities are in practice under the command of Cyprus-Turkish Peace Keeping Force of Turkey which is stationed in Northern Cyprus."           The possibility of getting local redress in Northern Cyprus is uncertain because the Turkish Cypriot courts are likely to treat the freedom of movement from Northern to Southern Cyprus or vice versa as a political matter not judicially reviewable and therefore will decline to assume jurisdiction.   Even if the local Turkish Cypriot courts assume jurisdiction, their decision will not be binding on the military authorities of Turkey.     COMPLAINT           The applicants invoke the freedom of movement guaranteed in Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention.     THE LAW           Article 1 (Art. 1) of the Convention provides that the High Contracting Parties shall secure "to everyone within their jurisdiction" the rights and freedoms defined in Section 1.   The Commission has considered whether, in the light of the situation which has been prevailing in the north of Cyprus since 1974, the Republic of Cyprus can be held responsible for the acts of the Turkish Cypriot authorities complained of in the present application.           The Commission has previously observed that "the European Convention on Human Rights continues to apply to the whole of the territory of the Republic of Cyprus" and that the recognition by Turkey of the Turkish Cypriot administration in the north of Cyprus as "Turkish Federated State of Cyprus" does not affect "the continuing existence of the Republic of Cyprus as a single State and High Contracting Party to the Convention" (No. 8007/77, Cyprus v.   Turkey, Dec. 10.7.78, D.R. 13, p. 85 at pp. 149-150).           At the same time, however, the Commission has also found that the Government of the Republic of Cyprus "have since 1974 been prevented from exercising their jurisdiction in the north of the island.   This restriction on the actual exercise of jurisdiction ... is due to the presence of Turkish armed forces" (ibid.).           The Commission now finds that the authority of the respondent Government is in fact still limited to the southern part of Cyprus. It follows that the Republic of Cyprus cannot be held responsible under Article 1 (Art. 1) of the Convention for the acts of Turkish Cypriot authorities in the north of Cyprus of which the present applicants complain.           The Commission concludes that the application is incompatible with the provisions of the Convention.           In view of its above conclusion the Commission does not find it necessary to examine the subsidiary question whether the application is also incompatible with the Convention on the ground that Cyprus - a High Contracting Party to Protocol No. 4 to the Convention, the instrument invoked in the present case - has not yet recognised the right of individual petition under Article 6 para. 2 of Protocol No. 4 (P4-6-2).             For these reasons, the Commission unanimously             DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.     Secretary to the Commission                President of the Commission          (H.C. KRÜGER)                                (C.A. NØRGAARD)