ECHR ruling dismays Greek Cypriots

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that the Immovable Property Commission (IPC) in the north of Cyprus constitutes an effective domestic remedy of Turkey.

According to the decision issued Friday on the application “Demopoulos vs Turkey and 7 others”, Greek Cypriots must first exhaust domestic remedies before resorting to the ECHR in cases regarding violation of their human rights by Turkey, which, since 1974, occupies 37% of Cyprus’ territory.

One of the applicants’ lawyers, Achilleas Demetriades, said that the decision clarifies that the immovable property commission constitutes a domestic remedy of the government of Turkey and not of the state, which was set up in the occupied areas and recognized only by Turkey. Thus Turkey continues to be responsible for the violation of human rights in the Turkish occupied areas of Cyprus.

The immovable property commission, he went on to say, accepts the title deeds of the Republic of Cyprus, since “Turkey accepts that Greek Cypriots are the legal owners” of their land in the Turkish occupied areas.

He said that based on the Court’s decision, Greek Cypriots will first have to resort to the Turkish immovable property commission in the occupied areas of Cyprus, before resorting to the ECHR.

The Cyprus Mail reports that the ruling was greeted with dismay by the government and political parties.

Government spokesman Stefanos Stefanou said the ECHR decision was respected but wrong.

“The ECHR cannot refer a property owner to a remedy that is essentially the product of an illegality,” he said.

Despite the fact that the decision holds Turkey responsible for any violations of Greek Cypriot human rights, the ruling gave rise to a series of problems which would be closely evaluated by the government, he added.

All Greek Cypriot parties were equally bleak regarding Friday’s decision.

House Legal Affairs Committee president and DISY vice president Ionas Nicolaou said the decision would have to be examined “carefully and calmly” and personal initiatives avoided “because maybe one of the reasons which led us here was the large number of cases [1,400] pending before the court”.

Speaking on national radio former Attorney General, Alecos Markides, said the ECHR decision was “very unfavourable” not only because it now obliged Greek Cypriot refugees to apply to the IPC in the occupied areas but because of the messages it sent out.

In its decision, the Court said that it cannot agree that Turkey “should be prohibited from taking into account other considerations, in particular the position of third parties. It cannot be within this Court’s task in interpreting and applying the provisions of the Convention to impose an unconditional obligation on a Government to embark on the forcible eviction and rehousing of potentially large numbers of men, women and children even with the aim of vindicating the rights of victims of violations of the Convention”.

The IPC was set up in 2006 in answer to a ruling by ECHR that Turkey and its subordinate Turkish Cypriot administration were failing to offer an effective local remedy to Greek Cypriots seeking redress for properties they had lost in the north because they did not offer refugees the possibility of returning to their properties.

By November last year there were a reported 81 claims agreed through the property commission, with at least one record payment of over €22 million to two Greek Cypriot refugees.

Nevertheless accounts of agreement for compensation or records of funds having been paid are difficult to come by, with Greek Cypriots reluctant to draw attention to themselves as having made a deal with a body that was not recognised by the government.

The Central Agency for the Equal Distribution of Burden (SITOP), which is an association for property owners of occupied lands, said yesterday it had not yet convened to discuss the decision in order to take a formal position on the matter.

“There will most certainly be a reaction to see how this problem is dealt with,” said SITOP Vice President Lyssandros Flourenzou.

“Up until now we have disagreed with the IPC route but now we will examine the issue and see how to deal with it. As yet we have no official position,” he said.

Nevertheless as an individual and a refugee, Flourenzou said applying to the IPC in the occupied areas was a no-go.

“I don’t believe it’s the right choice. I don’t believe the IPC gives fair or satisfactory solution to the problem. I’ve heard the settlements they offer are humiliating,” he said.

Another refugee who wished to remain unnamed also said in light of the decision she would not be applying to the IPC for compensation or restitution.

“I will wait for a [political] solution [to the Cyprus problem],” she said.

Although a number of refugees are expected to share similar views, it is thought that a large portion of the 1,400 Greek Cypriot applications ruled inadmissible by the ECHR will now redirect their claims to the IPC first. Sources said a number of the eight applicants in the pilot case, on which the ECHR decision had been based, had already been advised to apply to the IPC as soon as possible.

A leaflet entitled ‘Cyprus and Federation’ will finally be circulated with all Greek-language newspapers today.

Government spokesman Stefanos Stefanou said the leaflet was part of the government’s plan to inform the public regarding a bizonal, bicommunal federation solution which all Cyprus presidents had worked towards achieving since 1977.

“It will outline all the basic elements of a federation, its general characteristics, differences between federation, a unitary state and confederation,” he said.

He added that it would also explain bizonality, bicommunality, and political equality, as well as a series of other terms and issues that people hear daily.”

Stefanou said it was a leaflet that referred to the basics so that people could evaluate, judge and filter discussions on the Cyprus problem, as well as positions put forward on the negotiation table.

DISY leader Nicos Anastassiades said yesterday the government’s decision to publish the leaflet was “better late than never”.

“You cannot support a specific policy and allow it to be demonised or for the positions to be twisted,” he said.

Anastassiades said the leaflet would help inform the public instead of allowing wrong impressions fester.

The United Nations and world leaders have long urged successive governments to inform the Cypriot public about what a federation means in practice. Lack of information about the Annan plan in the lead up to the 2004 referendum was also considered a factor in the Greek Cypriot’s side’s overwhelming rejection.

Politis in a front page article says that Turkey has 5 million euros already earlined to solve the property issue through compensation as its plan B to the solution of the Cyprus problem.

The paper also quotes Turkish Foreign Minister, Ahmet Davidoglu as saying that the ECHR decision was "the biggest victory since 1974" and totally eclipses the Titina Loizidou case.

Elsewhere in the paper, Makarios Droushiotis writes that Spain, which currently holds the EU Presidency, is ready to chair a conference on the Cyprus problem and that behind-the-scenes negotiations are taking place for this to take place before the Turkish Cypriot elections in the north. He says Turkey, Greece and the Turkish Cypriots are all positive, only the Greek Cypriots have yet to clarify their position.

The writer says that both the UN and the EU are pushing for the remaining time to be made full use of and that the UN has made clear that they want to withdraw UNFICYP.

As President Christofias said in a speech on Friday, "we Cypriots have for 45 years now gotten used to having been adopted by the UN. We must understand that Cyprus is not the centre (omphalos) of the earth".

The Cyprus Mail’s satirical column Coffeeshop says that another big myth peddled by our ultra-smart, bash-patriotic lawyers and politicians collapsed on Friday when the European Court of Human Rights recognised the pseudo Immovable Property Commission (IPC) in the pseudo-state, namely the myth about the European solution, based on respect of human rights that could be secured through the courts. With their ruling, the ECHR judges unceremoniously chucked all the case files of Greek Cypriots, into the recycling bin and ensured they would not have to deal with the Cyprus property issue ever again. And if anyone did not want to go to the pseudo-commission, he or she could wait for a political settlement of the Cyprob, the ECHR said in its ruling, adding that it could not offer solutions to a problem that should have been resolved politically. It gets worse. The judges also made it clear that property did not have to be returned to the owner – there could be an exchange or he could be compensated – as the passing of 35 years raised many questions about ownership claims etc.

The decision was a fatal blow to the human rights sales pitch loved by our uncompromising, bash-patriotic lawyers, political leaders and Archbishop. What will they now say to the mugs they have been taking for a ride all these years with their hard sell about the European solution based on respect of all human rights? Hopefully this case will put an end to our insane habit of viewing everything as an issue of human rights at the expense of common sense.

The only human right that we do not have a Commissioner to protect is the right to stupidity, as it is freely exercised and respected by everyone. We saw this right being exercised, in all its glory, after the publication of the interview given by Turkish PM Erdogan last weekend. The three Greek Cypriot hacks who reported Erdogan’s views in their respective newspapers became the target of their colleagues (envy may have played a part) and the bash-patriotic politicians. They were accused of being messengers of Erdogan’s propaganda, of being chosen because they would not ask difficult questions, of treating the PM with respect and other such nonsense. In short, they were dangerously lacking in patriotism for becoming accessories to Erdogan’s communications game. In the end they became the story as nothing the PM said could be taken seriously by our hacks.

Phileleftheros’ leading commentator Arsitos Micahelides said it was more important to read what “the Greek Cypriot journalists said about their political success in meeting the Turkish PM than what Erdogan said.” If the unpatriotic hacks had written that the PM was a rude, aggressive, lying, arrogant Turk, holding an AK47 while he spoke, Phil’s commentator would have praised them for their excellent journalistic work. He may even have had time to impart his wisdom on Erdogan’s propaganda.

Turtle lover Yiorkos Perdikis also gave journalistic lessons to the hacks about the way they had presented the interview. He complained on a TV show that it was not reported in “classic format” of question and answer, implying that this was very suspicious. Why had the orthodox style of interview, not been used, the insufferably sel-important Perdikis asked again, as if he had exposed a big scandal.

Simerini columnist and tough guy Costakis Antoniou also went for the hacks, who were “sold fairy tales” by Erdogan. “And our hacks, instead of throwing a shoe at him, like the Iraqi journalist had done, believed him and came to sell the same fairy tales to the Greek Cypriots.” The bit about the shoe was not Costakis’ idea. He had copied it from the previous day’s article written by Turkish Cypriot hack Sener Levent, who regularly throws his shoe at his interviewees, if he decides they are lying.