CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 10 juin 2025

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } Legal summary June 2025 K.V. Mediterranean Tours Limited v. Türkiye - 41120/17 Judgment 10.6.2025 [Section II] Article 6 Article 6-1 Fair hearing Participation of a religious foundation as a third party in proceedings before the Immovable Property Commission not resulting in unfair proceedings: inadmissible Article 46 Article 46-2 Execution of judgment General measures Respondent State required to continue consistent and long‑term efforts in order to accelerate proceedings before the Immovable Property Commission and to create an effective remedy securing genuine redress in respect of delays   Facts – The applicant company, the owner of a building complex located in northern Cyprus, abandoned its property following the Turkish military operation in 1974. In July 2010 the company applied to the Immovable Property Commission (“IPC”) claiming compensation for the loss of use of its property, together with the applicable statutory interest. It also claimed restitution of the immovable property in question, compensation for non-pecuniary damage, statutory interest and legal costs. The proceedings before the IPC have been pending for almost fifteen years. The current registered owner of the property in question, the Evkaf Administration, an Islamic Foundation, was admitted as a third party to the proceedings. Before the Court, the applicant company complained, among others, that the IPC proceedings had been protracted and ineffective. It also argued that the involvement of the Evkaf Administration in the IPC proceedings had made property restitution impossible, given that Section   7 of the Law for the compensation, exchange and restitution of immovable properties (“Law no.   67/2005”) classified property owned by religious foundations as inalienable; and that by allowing the religious foundation to participate in the proceedings the authorities had effectively and automatically recognised it as the rightful owner of the property. Law – Article   6: Participation of the third party in the IPC proceedings (fair trial) – Section   7 of the Law no.   67/2005 provided that the IPC must issue an invitation to participate in the proceedings before it to persons who, under the legislation of the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” (“TRNC”), have ownership of, or the right to use, the property in respect of which a claim has been made. Where proceedings are pending which may affect third parties, a system needs to be in place enabling those parties to join the proceedings. This is necessary for the proper and fair adjudication of the case on the basis of principles of fairness and equality of arms. The provisions of section   7 of the Law no.   67/2005 had established such a system for the IPC. Thus, it could not be said that this system upset the balance between the interests of the plaintiffs who applied to the IPC and the need to ensure the proper administration of justice. Moreover, these provisions could not be regarded as a procedural bar. The applicant company had failed to convincingly demonstrate how the Evkaf Administration’s involvement had rendered the proceedings unfair. The IPC had retained authority to examine property claims, had not automatically assigned ownership to the religious foundation and the applicant company had had the opportunity to contest the foundation’s ownership claims. The participation of the Evkaf Administration in the IPC proceedings as an interested party had been necessary to comply with the principle of a fair trial. The issue of the third-party intervention had also been examined in depth not only by the IPC but also by the courts. Accordingly, the Court did not see any indication of arbitrariness in the present case. There was no evidence that such involvement had led to the unfairness in the proceedings as a whole. In these circumstances, the applicant company’s allegations under Article   6 were unsubstantiated. Conclusion : inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded). Article   1 of Protocol No.   1: The protracted nature of the proceedings had been mainly due to the passive approach of the IPC and the procrastination of the “TRNC” authorities. In the present case the IPC did not act with coherence, diligence and appropriate expedition in examining the applicant company’s claim. The Court recalled that its finding was limited to the current case and that a claim lodged with the IPC in principle remains a remedy to be pursued by other applicants who wish to invoke their rights under the Convention before the Court. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article   46: The excessive length of proceedings before the IPC was an issue which was not new and had been the subject of well-established case-law. The Court noted the efforts made by the Turkish authorities aimed at bringing the IPC proceedings into compliance with the Convention requirements, and also the statistics demonstrating progress in dealing with Greek Cypriots’ property claims. Nevertheless, the current case clearly showed that consistent and long‑term efforts must continue in order to achieve compliance with the Convention requirements, in particular, as regards acceleration of proceedings (especially the provision of a reply to property claims before the IPC by the relevant “TRNC” authorities) and the creation of a remedy genuinely securing effective redress in respect of delays in the proceedings before the IPC. Article   41: pecuniary damage reserved; EUR   7,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (See Demopoulos and Others v.   Turkey (dec.) [GC], 46113/99 et al., 1 st   March 2010, Legal Summary ; Joannou v.   Turkey, 53240/14, 12   December 2017)   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. To access legal summaries in English or French click here . For non-official translations into other languages click here .