CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 31 juillet 2003

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s48F8B750 { font-size:8pt; display:none } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sA3022B31 { margin-left:10.52pt; padding-left:17.83pt; font-family:serif } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3964C3A3 { width:1.36pt; display:inline-block } .s901C2590 { width:56.7pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS [Note1]     414   31.7.2003   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS IN THE CASES OF EUGENIA MICHAELIDOU AND MICHAEL TYMVIOS V. TURKEY AND DEMADES v. TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing judgments [1] in the cases of Eugenia Michaelidou Developments Ltd and Michael Tymvios v. Turkey (application no.   16163/90) and Demades v. Turkey (no. 16219/90). In both cases the Court held   by six votes to one that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights; and unanimously that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention concerning pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage was not ready for decision.   By six votes to one, the Court awarded Mr Tymvios 8,480 euros (EUR) and Mr Demades EUR   2,875 for costs and expenses.   In the case of Eugenia Michaelidou Developments Ltd and Michael Tymvios the Court also   unanimously declared inadmissible the complaints under Articles 2 (freedom of movement) and 3 (prohibition of expulsion of nationals) of Protocol No. 4 because Turkey has not ratified that Protocol; dismissed by six votes to one the remainder of the Government’s preliminary objections; and held unanimously that it was not necessary to examine the applicant’s complaints under Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, or under Article 1 (obligation to respect human rights) or Article 8 (right to respect for home) of the Convention.   In the case of Demades the Court also   dismissed by six votes to one the Government’s preliminary objections; held by six votes to one that there had been a violation of Article   8 (right to respect for home); and held unanimously that it was not necessary to examine the applicant’s complaint under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   (The judgments are available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   Eugenia Michaelidou Developments Ltd and Michael Tymvios   The first applicant is a private company incorporated under Cypriot law and registered in Nicosia on 3 July 1986. The second applicant is a Cypriot national of Greek-Cypriot origin, born in 1948 and living in Nicosia. He is the director of the first applicant and its main shareholder. In April 1988 Eugenia Michaelidou Developments Ltd was given property consisting of 51 plots of land in the village of Tymvou in the northern district of Nicosia in the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus”. From 3 April 1996 Mr Tymvios became the sole owner of that property.   Demades   The applicant, John (Ioannis) Demades, is a Cypriot national of Greek-Cypriot origin, born in 1929 and living in Nicosia. He stated that he was the registered owner of land located on the sea front in the district of Kyrenia in northern Cyprus and of a two-storey house which he built on it. He submitted that the house was fully furnished and equipped and that it was used by him and his family on a regular basis, not only for weekend and holiday purposes but also as a home.   On 30 June 2003 the “Parliament of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” enacted the “Law on Compensation for Immovable Properties Located within the Boundaries of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus”, which came into force on the same day.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application s [Note2] were lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 26   January and 24 January 1990 respectively and transmitted to the Court on 1   November 1998. They were declared admissible on 8 June and 24 August 1999 respectively.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of 7 judges, composed as follows: [Note3]   Georg Ress (German), President , Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portuguese), Lucius Caflisch [2] (Swiss), Boštjan Zupančič (Slovenian), Hanne Sophie Greve (Norwegian), Kristaq Traja (Albanian), judges , Feyyaz Gölcüklü (Turkish), ad hoc judge , and also Vincent Berger , Section Registrar .       3.     Summary of the judgments [3]   Complaints   Eugenia Michaelidou Developments Ltd and Michael Tymvios complained, under Articles 1, 8 and 14 of the Convention, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Articles 2 and 3 of Protocol no.   4, that the Turkish authorities were preventing them from having access to, and use and enjoyment of, their property in northern Cyprus.   Mr Demades stated that since 1974 he had been prevented by the Turkish armed forces from having access to, using and enjoying possession of his property or developing it. In addition, he claimed that there was evidence that his home was currently occupied by officers and/or other members of the Turkish armed forces. He relied on Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention and on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   Decision of the Court   Preliminary objections   All the Turkish Government’s preliminary objections were rejected. In respect of the objection relating to the applicants’ alleged lack of victim status, the Court noted that, while Eugenia Michaelidou Developments Ltd had been the registered owner of the property in question between April 1988 and April 1996, Mr Tymvios had had total control of that company ever since its incorporation in 1986. Then, from 3 April 1996 ownership of the property had been assigned to him. Both applicants were so closely identified with each other that it would be artificial to regard each as an applicant in its/his own right. On that basis, the Court would consider the alleged violations from the standpoint of Mr Tymvios alone and there was no doubt that he could be considered a “victim” for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention. Mr Demades was still the registered owner of the property at issue in his case and there was similarly no doubt that he could be regarded as a “victim”.   The objection that the applicants had not exhausted domestic remedies because they had not applied for compensation under the “Law on Compensation for Immovable Properties Located within the Boundaries of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” had not been raised at the admissibility stage and could not therefore be taken into account now.   Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention   The Court saw no reason to depart from the conclusions it had reached in the Loizidou v. Turkey (application no. 15318/89) and Cyprus v. Turkey (no. 25781/94) cases. Accordingly, it concluded that there had been and continued to be a violation of this provision: the applicants were denied access to and control, use and enjoyment of their property and had not been compensated for the interference with their property rights.   Article 8 of the Convention   The Court noted that Mr Demades ’s house in Kyrenia was fully furnished and equipped and that he and his family made regular use of it. In its relevant case-law, the Court has adopted an extensive interpretation of the notion of “home”. It considered that in the circumstances of this case Mr Demades ’s house fell within that notion. It also observed that the present case differed from the Loizidou case since, unlike Mrs   Loizidou, the applicant actually had a home in Kyrenia, albeit a secondary one.   Noting that since 1974 Mr Demades had been unable to use that home, the Court reiterated its conclusion in Cyprus v. Turkey that the complete denial of Greek-Cypriot displaced persons to respect for their homes in northern Cyprus amounted to a continuing violation of Article 8. It saw no grounds for departing from its reasoning and findings in that case.   Judge Gölcüklü expressed dissenting opinions, which are annexed to the judgments.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Joanna Reynell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court. [1] .     Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, 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] .     Judge elected in respect of Liechtenstein. [3] .     This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. [Note1]   Press release for individual judgments . To be saved in PowerDocs as follows: (1) Document Name: case name [+   date] + language (e.g. Sliven 31012003E or C.T. v. Finland 31012003E ), (2)   Document type: PR, (3) Group: PRESS, (4)   Subject: JCH or JGC . When you have completed your document, run the “CleanUpMyDocumentToBePublished” macro to remove all comments or remove them manually. [Note2]   For transitional-period cases before the Commission on 1 November 1998. [Note3]   For Mr Caflisch, add the following footnote: “Elected as the judge in respect of Liechtenstein.”