CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 26 septembre 2000

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389FD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:16pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sBA8DCCFC { width:35.45pt; display:inline-block } .sE55CAA3E { width:1.26pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s31BEBB9E { width:7.26pt; display:inline-block } .s9872C2C6 { width:15.43pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s944BDE53 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s8A4FD1F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3985515B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B7573D1 { width:27.74pt; display:inline-block } .sC6F44C8 { width:228.67pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .sD49C56F { width:262.16pt; display:inline-block } FIRST SECTION   DECISION   AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF   Application no. 47884/99 by Skyropiia Yialias Ltd against Turkey     The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 26 September 2000 as a Chamber composed of     Mrs   E. Palm , President ,   Mr   L. Ferrari Bravo ,   Mr   Gaukur Jörundsson ,   Mr   R. Türmen ,   Mr   B. Zupančič ,   Mr   T. Panţîru ,   Mr   R. Maruste , judges , and   Mr   M. O'Boyle, Section Registrar ,     Having regard to the above application introduced on 24 March 1999 and registered on 4 May 1999,     Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant company,     Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS   The applicant company is incorporated under Cypriot law and has its seat at Tymbou. It is owned by Mrs Elena Proestou, a Greek citizen, and Mr Georghios Christoforides, a Greek Cypriot. Its directors are Mrs Elena Proestou, Mr Georghios Christoforides and Mr   Vassos Proestos, a Greek Cypriot. The applicant company is represented before the Court by Mr   A. Demetriades, a lawyer practising in Nicosia.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant company, may be summarised as follows.   The applicant company is the owner of four plots of land at Tymbou, on which a quarry is situated. Before 1974 it had obtained a permit to operate the quarry and use the nearby river Yialias's sand to wash sandstone. It is also the owner of several machines and equipment used at the quarry.   In August 1974, as the Turkish army was advancing, the owners and directors of the applicant company abandoned the quarry, machines and equipment and fled to the area controlled by the Government of the Republic of Cyprus. Since then they have been unable to return and enjoy their property.   The respondent Government have not made any comments on the particular facts of the application.     COMPLAINTS     The applicant company complains, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 14 of the Convention, that its right to peaceful enjoyment of its possessions is violated because of the Greek or Greek Cypriot origin of its shareholders and members of board of directors.     THE LAW   The applicant company complains, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 14 of the Convention, that its right to peaceful enjoyment of its possessions is violated because of the Greek or Greek Cypriot origin of its shareholders and members of board of directors.     Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 provides:   “Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.   The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”   Article 14 of the Convention provides:   “The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.”   The respondent Government submit that, in view of the temporal restriction in Turkey's declaration of the competence of the Court, the complaints fall outside the competence of the Court. They also submit that the acts complained of are not attributable to Turkey and do not come within its jurisdiction, control and responsibility. The Court should reconsider the position it adopted in the Loizidou v. Turkey judgment of 18   December 1996 ( Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI, p. 2216). Finally, the Government submit that the two parties in Cyprus are committed to a “bi-zonal” settlement through negotiations, which have been recently activated. Reciprocal property rights constitute one of the core issues of the negotiations. The Court should ponder upon the consequences of judicial pronouncements that prejudice the negotiations.   In reply, the applicant company relies on the findings of the Court in Loizidou v.   Turkey and a number of other individual applications that were declared admissible recently.   The Court considers that, in accordance with its above-mentioned Loizidou v. Turkey judgment, the alleged violations fall within the temporal competence of the Court and are imputable to Turkey. As a result, the application cannot be rejected as incompatible either ratione temporis or ratione personae .   Having examined the parties' remaining observations, the Court considers that the application raises serious questions of fact and law which are of such complexity that their determination should depend on an examination of the merits. The application cannot, therefore, be regarded as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention, and no other ground for declaring it inadmissible has been established.     For these reasons, the Court, by a majority,   DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE , without prejudging the merits of the case.           Michael O'Boyle   Elisabeth Palm   Registrar   President