CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 22 avril 2008

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sD62A0CC7 { width:15.9pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s1EDF3BA6 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   287 22.4.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar     Three Turkish judgments concerning loss of property rights in Northern Cyprus   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing three Chamber judgments [1] – available only in English – concerning applicants who have been unable to access or use their property in the northern part of Cyprus as a result of the 1974 Turkish invasion.   Demades v. Turkey (application no. 16219/90)                              Article 41 (just satisfaction) By six votes to one, the Court has awarded the applicant’s heirs 785,000 euros (EUR) for pecuniary damage, EUR 45,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 5,000 for costs and expenses.   Demetriou v. Turkey (no.   16158/90)               Struck out The Court has struck out the application on the grounds that the applicant no longer wished to pursue her case and that other cases were pending before the Court which raised similar issues. Friendly settlement Article 41 Eugenia Michaelidou Developments Ltd and Michael Tymvios v.   Turkey (no. 16163/90) A friendly settlement has been agreed in which the applicant has been awarded one million United States dollars for any pecuniary, non-pecuniary damage, costs and expenses. The agreement also provides for the exchange of property insofar as the exchange decision can be executed within the control and power of the authorities of the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” (“TRNC”); the transfer would have to be executed in the Republic of Cyprus, which is outside Turkey’s jurisdiction.   Summary of the judgments [2]   All the applicants claimed that they were prevented by Turkish armed forces from having access to their property, using and enjoying possession of it or developing it, relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights. In Demades and Demetriou the applicants also relied on Article   8 (right to respect for home) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention.   Demades The applicant was John Demades, a Cypriot national of Greek-Cypriot origin (now deceased) who was born in 1929 and lived in Nicosia. His application is being pursued by his heirs; his wife and two children. He owned a fully-furnished, two-storey house with open views of the coast and a plot of land on the sea front in the district of Kyrenia in northern Cyprus, in an area which had been undergoing intensive residential and tourist development. He submitted that the house was used by his family, not only for weekend and holiday purposes, but as a home.   On 31   July 2003 the European Court found continuing violations of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 and Article 8 in its principal Chamber judgment in the case.   As it had already decided on the merits of the case in that judgment, the Court today ruled that the applicant was not now required to apply for compensation to the commission set up under the “Law on Compensation for Immovable Properties Located within the Boundaries of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” to deal with compensation claims.   The Court reiterated that displaced Greek Cypriots, like the applicant, could not be deemed to have lost title to their property and that the compensation to be awarded by the European Court was confined to losses emanating from the denial of access and loss of control, use and enjoyment of property. Having regard to the materials provided by the parties, the Court took as a starting point the applicant’s figures for the valuation of the property in 1974 rather than the assessment put forward by the “TRNC Ministry of the Interior” and awarded the applicant EUR 785,000 for pecuniary damage.   Concerning non-pecuniary damage, the Court considered that an award should be made in respect of the anguish and feelings of helplessness and frustration which the applicant must have experienced over the years in not being able to use his property as he saw fit and to enjoy his home and awarded EUR 45,000.   Although the Court did not doubt that the costs and expenses claimed (equivalent to EUR 6,300) were actually incurred, it considered that the total sum claimed was excessive and awarded EUR 5,000.   Demetriou The applicant, Afroula Via Demetriou, is a Cypriot national who was born in 1920. She owned a fully-furnished house in Kyrenia, which she used as a second home.   Eugenia Michaelidou Developments Ltd and Michael Tymvios The applicants are Eugenia Michaelidou Developments Ltd, a Cypriot-registered private company, registered in Nicosia in 1986, and Michael Tymvios, a Cypriot national who was born in 1948 and lives in Nicosia. He is the director and major shareholder of the applicant company. For the purposes of the application, Mr Tymvios was regarded as the applicant. On 3 April 1988 the company became the co-owner of 51 plots of land by way of gift in the village of Tymvou, in the northern district of Nicosia.   On 31 July 2003, in its principal Chamber judgment in the case, the Court found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 91) Sania Ivedi (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 59 45)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.