Indicator history

Aziz v. The Republic of Cyprus

By far the most well known and relevant conviction of Cyprus on the basis of ECHR article 14 is the case of Ibrahim Aziz v. Cyprus http://www.echr.coe.int/Eng/Press/2004/June/ChamberJudgmentAzizvCyprus220604.htm

In 2001 Aziz, a Turkish Cypriot residing in the south applied to be registered on the electoral roll in order to vote in the forthcoming elections. His request was refused on the ground that under the Cyprus Constitution (article 63) Turkish-Cypriots could not be registered in the Greek-Cypriot electoral roll. Indeed, the Constitution did provide for separate electoral lists for Greek-Cypriots and for Turkish-Cypriots, but this was suspended in 1963. Following the rejection of his application, the complainant appealed to the Supreme Court, relying on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights and arguing that, following the dissolution of the Communal Chambers in 1963, the Republic failed to set up two separate electoral lists to protect the electoral rights of members of both communities. The Cyprus Supreme Court rejected his application, holding that the applicable legislation did not provide for Turkish-Cypriots living in the south to be included in the Greek-Cypriot electoral list and that the Cyprus Courts had no power to reform the Constitution. Following this rejection, the complainant applied to the European Court of Human Rights who ruled in favour of the complainant. The Court found that Cyprus was in violation of Article 3, Protocol 1 of the ECHR for denying the complainant “the very essence of the applicant’s right to vote”; and of Article 14 of the same Convention, as the difference in treatment complained of was a result of the complainant’s ethnic origin and such difference could not be justified on reasonable and objective grounds. In 2006 the law was amended to provide for the Turkish Cypriots’ right to vote under certain conditions.

Sofi v Cyprus

The applicability of article 14 of the ECHR on the issue of Turkish Cypriot properties located in the Republic- controlled south of Cyprus will inevitably be considered by the ECtHR very soon now, as more and more Turkish Cypriot property owners are applying to the ECtHR for having been denied access to their properties by the Cypriot government. On the basis of a law enacted in 1991 (Law on the Administration of Turkish Cypriot Properties in the Republic and Other Related Matters N.139/1991) the administration of all Turkish Cypriots in the south are vested in the Minister of the Interior as "Custodian" until resolution of the Cyprus problem. This institution effectively deprives all Turkish Cypriots of their property located in the south until resolution of the Cyprus problem, save for some exceptions. In 2010 the ECtHR considered the application of Sofi who owned property in Larnaca from which she fled in 1963, when hostilities broke out between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots. The applicant and her family sought refuge from the hostilities in an enclave populated by Turkish Cypriots. In 2003 the applicant applied to the Ministry of Interior seeking recovery of possession of her house, informing the Ministry that she intended to move back to her house in Larnaca. The Ministry replied that the relevant properties had been vested in the Custodian of Turkish-Cypriot properties and that a family of displaced persons of Greek-Cypriot origin from the northern part of Cyprus was living in them. The applicant applied to the ECtHR complaining that she was denied access to and enjoyment of her immovable property in Cyprus, which disclosed inter alia a violation of Article 14 in that she had been discriminated against as a Turkish Cypriot. Before the Court delivering its judgement, the Cypriot government submitted an offer for a friendly settlement, which was accepted by the applicant. The offer involved satisfaction of the applicant’s claim for vacant possession of her property from January 2009, compensation for loss of use at €427,150.36, compensation for non-pecuniary loss at €59,801.06 and legal costs at €50,000. The ECtHR accepted the friendly settlement, “satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights” [Application no. 18163/04 by Nezire Ahmet Adnan SOFI against Cyprus http://cmisk Kazali et al v. Cyprus p.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=862144&portal=hbkm&source=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649].

Kazali et al v. Cyprus (still pending)

In the group application of Kazali et al v. Cyprus which is currently pending before the ECtHR, a total of 27 Turkish Cypriot property owners are suing the Cypriot government for denial of access to their properties, alleging violation of article 14 (http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=852064&portal=hbkm&source=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649).

Therefore, what the Cypriot government tried to avoid by reaching a friendly settlement with Sofi (above), i.e. the legal precedent that would shake the foundations of the ‘Custodian’, it may eventually have to face in this application. If this application succeeds, which appears very likely, the economic burden of having to compensate the applicants as well as many other Turkish Cypriot property owners who will apply after them, may well become difficult for the Cypriot government to bear in the midst of the economic crisis.