Council of Europe member states initiate an Article 46§3 procedure to clarify the Court’s interpretation in Cyprus v. Turkey
/An important implementation development unfolded at the (CoE) Committee of Ministers, which decided last week to consider referring the Cyprus v. Turkey case back to the Court for interpretation of the respondent government’s just satisfaction obligations regarding the property rights of the displaced Greek Cypriots, under Article Article 46§3 of the Convention. The CM Secretariat is instructed to draft an interim resolution on that matter for the June 2027 CM-DH meeting.
The case concerns a large-scale human rights violations committed in the context of the Turkish military operations in the northern part of Cyprus in 1974 and the continued division of Cyprus ever since. In a judgment delivered by the ECtHR Grand Chamber in May 2001, the Court found numerous violations of Articles 2,3,5,6,8,9,10,13 of the Convention and Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol 1 to the Convention on account of, inter alia, missing persons, the continued violation of property rights of displaced persons, and the living conditions of the enclaved Greek Cypriots in the Karpas area.
In 2014, the Court delivered a subsequent judgment establishing the amounts of just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damages suffered by relatives of missing persons and by the enclaved residents of the Karpas area. As for the property rights, the Court in paragraph 63 of the 2014 judgment specified that: the respondent state is bound by the relevant findings of the main judgment and that they should be given full effect, which “could not be consistent [..] with any possible permission, participation, acquiescence or other form of [..] unlawful sale or exploitation of Greek-Cypriot homes and property in the northern part of Cyprus”. This stance appears to be seen differently by the Cypriot and Turkish authorities. In 2005, the latter introduced a compensation mechanism – the Immovable Property Commission (the IPC), which was later assessed by the Court as providing an accessible and effective framework of redress in respect of complaints about interference with the property owned by Greek Cypriots.1 While Turkiye insists that the Court’s positive assessment of the IPC should be seen as the effective implementation of the judgment, Cyprus argues that an interpretation by the Court is needed to clarify the scope of the implementation obligations, as to whether they include, in addition to the introduction of effective remedies, the cessation of ongoing violations, such as expropriations, property transfers and development in the northern part of Cyprus. They also cite the IPC’s ineffectiveness regarding the backlog of claims awaiting decision and payment.
The Committee’s decision to move towards seeking the interpretation of the execution scope appears as an important development not only from the legal perspective, as it would clarify the scope of the respondent state’s obligations in an inter-state case, but it could also contribute to resolving the many-year-protracted deadlock in the implementation process, stalled precisely because of different readings of the Court’s judgment. It may also help to overcome political disagreements, which are currently fueled by conflicting legal interpretations of the judgment. It remains to be seen next year whether the Committee will adopt that approach, and if so, whether it will bring real changes on the ground and redress the victims.