Turkey is obliged to pay 90 ml euros to the Republic of Cyprus for the violation of human rights during and after the 1974 invasion of the island, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled on Monday.
The Court held that Turkey was to pay Cyprus 30 mln euros in respect of the non-pecuniary damage suffered by the relatives of the missing persons, and 60 mln euros in respect of the non-pecuniary damage suffered by the enclaved Greek-Cypriot residents of the Karpas peninsula.
The amounts are to be distributed by the Cypriot Government to the individual victims under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers.
According to an ECHR Press Release, issued Monday, the Grand Chamber judgment in the case of Cyprus v. Turkey is final and was taken by a majority.
The Court also held by a majority that the passage of time since the delivery of the principal judgment, on 10 May 2001, did not preclude it from examining the Cypriot Government’s just satisfaction
claims.
The application had been introduced before the former European Commission of Human Rights in 1994, and was referred to the ECHR by the Government of Cyprus on August 1999 and by the European Commission on September 1999.
The Grand Chamber delivered a judgment on 10 May 2001, finding numerous violations of the Convention by Turkey, arising out of the 1974 Turkish invasion and the activities of the illegal break-away state, that was set up in the island`s Turkish-occupied areas thereafter and which has been condemned by the UN Security Council.
Regarding the issue of just satisfaction, the Court had held unanimously that it was not ready for decision and adjourned its consideration.
On August 2007, the Cypriot Government informed the Court of its intention to submit a request, for the Grand Chamber to resume consideration of the question of just satisfaction.
Moreover, on March 2010, the Cypriot Government submitted to the Court their claims for just satisfaction concerning the missing persons in respect of whom the Court had found a violation of Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) and 5 (right to liberty and security).
On November 2011, the Cypriot Government requested the Court to take certain steps in order to facilitate the execution of that judgment and adopt a “declaratory judgment”.
The Court pointed out that it had found in the principal judgment a continuing violation of Article 1
of Protocol No. 1 by virtue of the fact that Greek-Cypriot owners of property in northern Cyprus were being denied access to and control, use and enjoyment of their property as well as any compensation for the interference with their property rights.
It is added that it was for the Committee of Ministers to ensure compliance by the Turkish government with the findings of the principal judgment, which were binding and which had not yet been complied with.
Such compliance, it is added, was not consistent with any complicity in the unlawful sale or exploitation of Greek Cypriot homes and property in the northern part of Cyprus.
The Court’s decision in the case of Demopoulos and Others v. Turkey, to the effect that cases presented by individuals concerning violation of property complaints were to be rejected for nonexhaustion of domestic remedies, in no sense disposed of the question of Turkey’s compliance with the principal judgment in the present inter-State case, the Court says.
A final version of claims for just satisfaction was submitted by the Cyprus Government on June 2012, concerning the missing persons, while raising claims in respect of the violations committed against the enclaved Greek-Cypriot residents of the Karpas peninsula.
The decision for Turkey to award non-pecuniary damages within three months to the Cyprus government, as a compensation for the relatives of missing persons, and to the residents of the Karpas Peninsula was taken with a 15 to 2 majority.
