CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 1 juin 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; 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 } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDD165512 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF3B96856 { width:11.87pt; display:inline-block } .s51F2D829 { width:208.44pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 55819/00 by SKOULLOS Family against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 1 June 2010 as a Chamber composed of:   Nicolas Bratza, President,   Lech Garlicki,   Giovanni Bonello,   Ljiljana Mijović,   David Thór Björgvinsson,   Ledi Bianku,   Işıl Karakaş, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 January 2000, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants are named as being 300 members of the Skoullos family. The application form and letter of authority signed by three of the applicants identified Dr Michael Pissas, a lawyer practising in Nicosia, as their representative. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. The applicants shared the land of their ancestors, some 270 plots or 7,500 hectares of barely cultivable land at the Aya Napia village, in the Famagusta district, Cyprus. After the Turkish invasion in 1974, the Turkish army and others took over their land and used it to build hotels and night clubs due to the excellent location of the applicants' land on the coastline. Without giving any details, they referred to taking legal proceedings in the courts where they were told that their lands were under military occupation and the evidence of their titles in the District Land Registry in occupied Famagusta. Their attempts to secure important documents via the Public Relations Office of the UNIFCYP were unavailing. COMPLAINTS The applicants complained that they had been prevented by the Turkish authorities from having access to the documents of title necessary to prove their legal rights and obtain the return of their lands which have been transferred illegally to other persons, companies and Government authorities. They invoke Article 8 of the Convention. PROCEDURE AND LAW By letters dated 6 May 2002, 18 March, 25 April and 22 July 2003, and 8 July 2004, the Registry requested, or reminded, the applicants' representative to provide the Court with a precise list of the applicants and their relevant details as required by the official application form. It was also pointed out that the applicants had not provided, as requested, any information as to the declaration/registration of their claimed properties. No response was received to the last two letters. The Court notes therefore that the exact number and identities of the applicants in this application have not been clarified. It also notes that there is nothing to indicate that the applicants have taken the appropriate procedural steps concerning their property claims by applying to the District Office of Land and Surveys of Famagusta, situated in Larnaca to have their properties declared/registered. In these circumstances, the Court finds that this application fails to conform with the formalities required by Rule 47(1)(a) and (h) of the Rules of Court. The identity and standing of the individuals claiming to be victims of violations of the Convention not being established, and their complaints not being accompanied by the relevant supporting documents, this application falls to be rejected pursuant to Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Declares the application inadmissible.   Fatoş Aracı   Nicolas Bratza Deputy Registrar   President