AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 18270/91
by Ahmet Cavit AN and Others
against Cyprus
The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private
on 8 October 1991, the following members being present:
MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President
J.A. FROWEIN
S. TRECHSEL
F. ERMACORA
G. SPERDUTI
G. JÖRUNDSSON
A. WEITZEL
J.-C. SOYER
H.G. SCHERMERS
H. DANELIUS
Mrs. G. H. THUNE
Sir Basil HALL
Mr. F. MARTINEZ RUIZ
Mrs. J. LIDDY
MM. L. LOUCAIDES
J.-C. GEUS
M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
B. MARXER
Mr. H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 13 May 1991
by Ahmet Cavit AN and Others against Cyprus and registered
on 21 May 1991 under file No. 18270/91;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the
Rules of Procedure of the Commission;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The facts submitted by the applicants may be summarised as
follows.
1. Particular circumstances of the present case
The first applicant, Mr. Ahmet Cavit An, a Cypriot citizen
born in 1950, is a paediatrician residing in Nicosia. The second
applicant, Miss Sefica Beren, a Cypriot citizen born in 1960, is a
printer residing in Nicosia. The third applicant, Mr. Nevzat Adil, a
Cypriot citizen born in 1948, is a journalist residing in Kyrenia.
The fourth applicant, Mr. Soner Engin, a Cypriot citizen born in 1951,
is a former government official residing in Nicosia. The fifth
applicant, Mr. Hasan Erçakica, a Cypriot citizen born in 1957, is a
newspaper editor residing in Kyrenia.
The applicants are represented by Mr. Ergin Ulunay, a lawyer
practising in Nicosia.
The applicants are the Turkish Cypriot members of a movement
for an independent and federal Cyprus, an unregistered association of
Turkish and Greek Cypriots. The movement has a Turkish Cypriot
co-ordinating committee in the North and a Greek Cypriot co-ordinating
committee in the South of Cyprus. In general, the Turkish Cypriot
authorities do not permit the Turkish Cypriot members of the movement
to visit the buffer zone or Southern Cyprus and to return to the
North. Only occasionally and on an arbitrary basis are such permits
granted. Thus, out of 52 requests for permission to visit the
buffer zone or Southern Cyprus only 14 were granted during the last
17 months.
The present application is confined to the restrictions on
the applicant's freedom of movement during the last six months before
the introduction of the application.
2. Relevant domestic law and practice
The applicants submit that in Northern Cyprus there is no law
regulating the restrictions which may reasonably be imposed, in a
democratic society, on the freedom of movement within Cyprus. The
relevant decree of 11 July 1986 is unconstitutional.
In order to get permission for crossing over to the
buffer zone, the applicants usually submit to the competent Turkish
Cypriot authority a written application, giving reasons, but they
never receive a written reply or written permit. Occasionally, when
permission is granted for crossing over, the authority sends a
circular to the police stationed at the control point at the Ledra
Palace Gate, Nicosia, containing a list of individuals permitted to
cross over to the South and to return to the North. Where an
application for a permit is rejected - which is usually the case -
no written reply is issued; the police at the control point simply do
not permit the passage as they have not received the necessary
circular.
Protests against this state of affairs and discussions with
the Turkish Cypriot authorities have been to no avail.
The applicants further observe that the entry-exit point at
the Ledra Palace Gate is within "the first Degree Militarily
Prohibited Region". Therefore the military authorities "have a say in
granting the permits for crossing over. ... The Turkish Cypriot
Military, Security and Police Authorities are in practice under the
command of Cyprus-Turkish Peace Keeping Force of Turkey which is
stationed in Northern Cyprus."
The possibility of getting local redress in Northern Cyprus is
uncertain because the Turkish Cypriot courts are likely to treat the
freedom of movement from Northern to Southern Cyprus or vice versa as
a political matter not judicially reviewable and therefore will
decline to assume jurisdiction. Even if the local Turkish Cypriot
courts assume jurisdiction, their decision will not be binding on the
military authorities of Turkey.
COMPLAINT
The applicants invoke the freedom of movement guaranteed in
Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention.
THE LAW
Article 1 (Art. 1) of the Convention provides that the High
Contracting Parties shall secure "to everyone within their
jurisdiction" the rights and freedoms defined in Section 1. The
Commission has considered whether, in the light of the situation which
has been prevailing in the north of Cyprus since 1974, the Republic of
Cyprus can be held responsible for the acts of the Turkish Cypriot
authorities complained of in the present application.
The Commission has previously observed that "the European
Convention on Human Rights continues to apply to the whole of the
territory of the Republic of Cyprus" and that the recognition by
Turkey of the Turkish Cypriot administration in the north of Cyprus as
"Turkish Federated State of Cyprus" does not affect "the continuing
existence of the Republic of Cyprus as a single State and High
Contracting Party to the Convention" (No. 8007/77, Cyprus v. Turkey,
Dec. 10.7.78, D.R. 13, p. 85 at pp. 149-150).
At the same time, however, the Commission has also found that
the Government of the Republic of Cyprus "have since 1974 been
prevented from exercising their jurisdiction in the north of the
island. This restriction on the actual exercise of jurisdiction ...
is due to the presence of Turkish armed forces" (ibid.).
The Commission now finds that the authority of the respondent
Government is in fact still limited to the southern part of Cyprus.
It follows that the Republic of Cyprus cannot be held responsible
under Article 1 (Art. 1) of the Convention for the acts of Turkish
Cypriot authorities in the north of Cyprus of which the present
applicants complain.
The Commission concludes that the application is incompatible
with the provisions of the Convention.
In view of its above conclusion the Commission does not find
it necessary to examine the subsidiary question whether the
application is also incompatible with the Convention on the ground
that Cyprus - a High Contracting Party to Protocol No. 4 to the
Convention, the instrument invoked in the present case - has not yet
recognised the right of individual petition under Article 6 para. 2 of
Protocol No. 4 (P4-6-2).
For these reasons, the Commission unanimously
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.
Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission
(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy