CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 9 février 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7714A00D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s40269D5B { width:34.93pt; display:inline-block } .sDAF16287 { width:162.63pt; display:inline-block } .sF2E32F9B { width:36.61pt; display:inline-block } .s5F32E900 { width:208.31pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 36115/03 by ANGOULOS ESTATE LTD against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 9   February 2010 as a Chamber composed of:   Nicolas Bratza, President ,   Giovanni Bonello,   David Thór Björgvinsson,   Ján Šikuta,   Päivi Hirvelä,   Ledi Bianku,   Işıl Karakaş, judges , and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 November 2003, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Angoulos Estate Ltd, is a limited company registered in Cyprus. Its directors are two Cypriot nationals, Mr Michalakis G. Ionides and Mr Christakis G. Ionides. The latter is also the secretary of the company. The applicant was represented before the Court by Mr D. Akter, a lawyer practising in Kyrenia. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant was the owner of three houses and of several plots of land located in the Districts of Kyrenia and Morphou (Northern Cyprus); it had planned to construct a golf hotel complex and a beach hotel complex on some of these plots. However, this project could not be completed by reason of the 1974 Turkish invasion of the northern part of the island. Since then, the applicant had been deprived of any possibility of having access to and of enjoying its properties. COMPLAINTS The applicant considered that the Turkish invasion and the subsequent denial of access to its immovable properties had violated Articles 1, 8 and 14 of the Convention as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Articles 2 and 3 of Protocol No. 4. THE LAW In a letter of 17 November 2009 the directors of the applicant company informed the Court “that a friendly settlement agreement ha[d] been reached in ... application no. 36115/03” and requested that the case be struck out of the list of cases “since the matter ha[d] been resolved”. They attached a decision issued on 18   September 2009 by the Immovable Property Commission (the “IPC”) established by the authorities of the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” (the “TRNC”). Insofar as relevant, this decision reads as follows: “The Commission, in its meeting where all parties were present, has decided, unanimously, upon the mutual agreement between the parties, that the respondent Ministry pays 9,347,000 [British Pounds] to the applicant for the immovable properties cited in the application.” The applicant company accepted that upon execution of the above-mentioned decision the damage it had suffered with respect to the relevant immovable properties would be fully recovered and undertook not to claim any rights regarding the said properties or to pursue any application before the Court or apply for just satisfaction under Article 41 of the Convention. It transferred all its rights and title deeds to the Ministry of Interior of the “TRNC”. The Court takes note of the agreement reached between the applicant company and the “TRNC” authorities and its wish to withdraw the application “since the matter ha[d] been resolved”. In these circumstances, it considers that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention).   Accordingly, the case should be struck out of the list. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   Lawrence Early   Nicolas Bratza   Registrar   President