CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 avril 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sFFD057F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .sBC92E636 { width:88.68%; border-collapse:collapse } .sB2D717CA { width:8.74%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sFAD640B9 { width:25.96%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2AAD7AC0 { width:17.42%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s789C3349 { width:26.12%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sAA0B9CB5 { width:21.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7E79DAF4 { width:8.74%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sED864CF { width:25.96%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1324E5F5 { width:17.42%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s61E14E73 { width:26.12%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s41C5CDEA { width:21.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } Published on 29 April 2024   THIRD SECTION Application no. 55238/20 Yusuf ZIA and Others against Cyprus lodged on 7 December 2020 communicated on 8 April 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged interference with the peaceful enjoyment of ten Turkish-Cypriot owned properties situated in the areas under the effective control of the Republic of Cyprus. Between 1974 and 1991, the properties were allegedly subjects of temporary requisition orders, which were consecutively renewed. Law 139/1991 placed the properties under the custody of the Custodian of Turkish-Cypriot owned properties (Minister of Interior of the Republic of Cyprus). The two registered owners of the said properties passed away in 1985 and 1986 and the applicants are some of the heirs of the estate. They are also the administrators of the estate and in that capacity they applied to the domestic courts unsuccessfully (αρ.   1342/2007) seeking an order for the return of the properties as well as pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages for the interferences to the properties. On 10 June 2020 the Supreme Court upheld the first instance decision dismissing the claims of the applicants regarding violations of their property or other human rights (αρ. 79/2015). The Supreme Court considered, inter alia, that the applicants as administrators did not have locus standi to pursue remedies regarding allegations of the property rights of the owners of the estate. The applicants complain under Article   1   of Protocol No. 1 that they are being denied peaceful enjoyment of their possessions and/or damages for interference with the properties alleging, inter alia, that the reasoning of the Supreme Court was unforeseeable and arbitrary. Relying on Article 13 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention they complain that because of the interpretation of the domestic courts they did not have an effective remedy available to them. They also complain under Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that they have been discriminated against on grounds of their ethnicity and/or residence. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Does the Court have competence ratione temporis for the entirety of the period complained of by the applicants under Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1 to the Convention (see, for example, Vassiliou and Others v. Cyprus , no.   58699/15, § 57 and §§ 77-78, 31 August 2021 ; Varnava and Others v.   Turkey [GC], nos. 16064/90 and 8 others, §§ 130-133, ECHR   2009)?   Reference is made to the allegation of the applicants that the interference they complain about is of a continuous nature constituted of two different legal regimes: the requisition orders issued between 1974 and 1991 and the Custodianship regime introduced via Law 139/1991.   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ peaceful enjoyment of their possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention?   If so, has the alleged interference been in the public interest and in accordance with the provisions provided by law within the meaning of Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Lekić v. Slovenia [GC], no.   36480/07, § 95, 11 December 2018; Lelas v. Croatia , no. 55555/08, §§   76-78, 20 May 2010)?   Reference is made to the allegation of the applicants that the reasoning of the domestic courts in relation to their locus standi as administrators of the estate as not reasonably foreseeable and arbitrary.   Was the interference reasonably proportionate to the aim sought to be realised or did it impose an excessive individual burden on the applicants (see   Béláné Nagy v. Hungary [GC], no. 53080/13, §§112-118, 13   December 2016;   Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan [GC], no. 40167/06, § 227, ECHR 2015 ;   Broniowski v. Poland [GC], no. 31443/96, §§ 150-151 ECHR 2004-V; Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden , 23 September 1982, §   69, Series A no. 52)?   3.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective remedy under Article 13 of the Convention in respect of their complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention?   4.     Have the applicants suffered discrimination contrary to Article   14   of the Convention?   In particular, have the applicants been subjected to a difference in treatment in the enjoyment of their rights under Article 1 of Protocol No.   1?   If so, did that difference in treatment pursue a legitimate aim and did it have a reasonable justification?   5.     The applicants are invited to submit a copy of the following additional information: - the written arguments of the parties in civil action no. 1342/2007, - the minutes of the proceedings in civil action no. 1342/2007, and - the minutes of the oral hearing before the Supreme Court in civil appeal no. 79/2015.         APPENDIX Application no. 55238/20 No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Yusuf ZIA 1928 Cypriot Nicosia 2. Uktu Hayat GALETTI 1982 Cypriot Nicosia 3. Asim TURGUT 1949 Cypriot Magusa 4. Ismail TURGUT 1957 Cypriot CYP