FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application nos. 43331/09, 27877/10 and 36144/11
Emmanuel CHAKKAS and others against Cyprus
Nikoletta PETROU and others against Cyprus
and Evangelia CHAKKAS against Cyprus
(see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 20 October 2015 as a Chamber composed of:
Guido Raimondi, President,
Päivi Hirvelä,
George Nicolaou,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Paul Mahoney,
Krzysztof Wojtyczek,
Faris Vehabović, judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on 29 July 2009, 8 April 2010 and 25 May 2011,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
A. The circumstances of the case
1. The common feature of these three applications is that they are brought by Cypriot nationals who complain that the children of women displaced from the north of Cyprus after 1974 were not entitled to refugee cards (and thus the benefits to which the holders of such cards were entitled), whereas the children of displaced men were entitled to such cards. The difference in treatment was removed in 2013, that is, after the introduction of the present applications: see relevant domestic law and practice at paragraph 7 below.
2. The applicants are all either displaced women or the children of displaced women. A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. The applications were lodged on 29 July 2009, 8 April 2010 and 25 May 2011 respectively. The applicants in application nos. 43331/09 and 27877/10 are represented by Mr Loukis G. Loucaides. The applicants in application no. 36144/11 are separately represented by Mr Andreas S. Angelides. Mr Loucaides and Mr Angelides both practise in Nicosia.
3. The legislative provisions which, at the material time, granted refugee cards to the children of displaced men but not the children of displaced women were unsuccessfully challenged before the Supreme Court in Vrountou v. the Republic (appeal no. 3830): see paragraphs 8 and 9 below. The final judgment of the Supreme Court in that case was given on 3 March 2006.
4. Following the Supreme Court’s judgment in Vrountou v. the Republic, Evangelia and Markella Chakkas, the applicants in application no. 36144/11, brought their own challenge to the refugee card scheme, lodging that challenge with the Supreme Court on 7 August 2006. They too alleged that, in according preferential treatment to the children of displaced men over the children of displaced women, the scheme was discriminatory and contrary to Article 14 of the Convention. That challenge was rejected by the Supreme Court at first instance on 19 January 2007 and on appeal to the revisional jurisdiction of the court on 1 December 2010, in each case for the reasons the court had given in its Vrountou v. the Republic judgment.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
1. The refugee aid scheme
5. A scheme of aid for displaced and other affected persons was introduced by the Council of Ministers by decision no. 13.503 of 19 September 1974. Under the scheme, displaced persons were entitled to refugee cards. The holders of such cards were (and still are) eligible for a range of benefits including housing assistance. For the purposes of the scheme the term “displaced” was determined by the Council of Ministers as being any person whose permanent residence is in the occupied areas, or in an inaccessible area or in an area which was evacuated to meet the needs of the National Guard.
6. A circular on the implementation of the scheme was issued by the Director of Care and Rehabilitation of Displaced Persons Service (“SCRDP”) on 10 September 1975. In relevant part it reads:
“(a) When a displaced woman marries a non-displaced man, the husband and children cannot be registered or considered as displaced persons;
(b) When a displaced man marries a non-displaced woman, the non-displaced wife will be registered on the refugee identity card of the husband. The children will be considered as refugees and will be registered on the refugee identity card of their father.”
7. Although the scheme was progressively extended, it was not until the passage of the Census Bureau (Amendment) (No. 2) Law of 2013 (N. 174(I)/2013) that children of displaced women became entitled to refugee cards on the same terms as the children of displaced men.
2. Vrountou v. the Republic
8. The pre-2013 scheme was unsuccessfully challenged before the Supreme Court by Maria Vrountou: Vrountou v. the Republic (appeal no. 3830). Ms Vrountou was the daughter of a displaced woman; she was refused a refugee card on 6 March 2003. Before the Supreme Court she claimed, inter alia, that the decision was in violation of the principle of equality safeguarded by Article 28 of the Constitution of Cyprus and in breach of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No 1. She claimed that the scheme also breached Article 13 of the Convention.
9. That challenge was dismissed at first instance on 12 May 2004 and on appeal by the Supreme Court (revisional jurisdiction) on 3 March 2006, the latter finding that it was unable to extend the application of the scheme to the children of displaced women when the legislature had not done so. Ms Vrountou lodged an application (33631/06) with this Court on 25 July 2006 and the Court gave judgment in her case on 13 October 2015.
COMPLAINTS
10. The applicants in all three applications complained that the difference in treatment between the children of displaced men and the children of displaced women was discriminatory. They thus alleged violations of Article 8 alone or taken in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 alone or taken in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12. They also allege that they were deprived of an effective remedy, in violation of Article 13 alone or taken in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention.
11. Evangelia and Markella Chakkas in their application (no. 36144/11) also alleged that the difference in treatment was inhuman and degrading treatment, contrary to Article 3 of the Convention and that, in failing properly to examine their complaints on the basis of the Convention, on the basis of European Union law and on the basis of relevant international treaties and jurisprudence, the Supreme Court had deprived them of the right to a fair trial, in violation of Article 6 of the Convention.
THE LAW
12. The Court considers that, in accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the applications should be joined, given their similar factual and legal background.
13. Having done so, the Court must first determine whether the applicants in these cases have complied with the admissibility requirements contained in Article 34 and Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. In particular, it is necessary to consider two questions: first, whether those applicants who are displaced women themselves (rather than the children of displaced women) have victim status for the purposes of Article 34 and second, whether the applicants in general have complied with the six-month rule contained in Article 35 § 1.
A. General principles
1. Victim status for the purposes of Article 34
14. In so far as relevant, Article 34 provides as follows:
“The Court may receive applications from any person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals claiming to be the victim of a violation by one of the High Contracting Parties of the rights set forth in the Convention or the Protocols thereto ...”
15. The Court has interpreted Article 34 as meaning that, in order to be able to rely on the substantive provisions of the Convention, two conditions must be met: an applicant must fall into one of the categories of petitioners mentioned in Article 34 of the Convention, and he or she must be able to make out a prima facie case that he or she is the victim of a violation of the Convention. The term “victim” used in Article 34 of the Convention denotes the person directly affected by the act or omission which is in issue (see, as a recent authority, Lolova and Popova v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 68053/10, 20 January 2015).
16. The present applications have been brought by displaced women and the children of displaced women. The central complaint is that the children of displaced women were not entitled to refugee cards. However, those applicants who are themselves displaced women were entitled to refugee cards; only their children were not entitled to those cards. There is nothing to suggest that displaced women were in any way adversely affected by the inability of their children to obtain refugee cards. It follows that those applicants who are displaced women have not made out a prima facie case that they are victims of a violation of the Convention. Accordingly, the complaints made by the applicants who are displaced women are incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.
2. The six-month rule
17. Article 35 § 1 of the Convention stipulates:
“The Court may only deal with the matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally recognised rules of international law, and within a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken.”
18. The rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies referred to in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention obliges those seeking to bring a case against a State to use first the remedies provided by the national legal system, thus allowing States the opportunity to put matters right through their own legal systems before being required to answer for their acts before an international body. In order to comply with the rule, normal recourse should be had by an applicant to remedies which are available and sufficient to afford redress in respect of the breaches alleged; there is no obligation to have recourse to remedies which are inadequate or ineffective.
19. The six-month rule stipulated in Article 35 § 1 is intended to promote security of the law and to ensure that cases raising issues under the Convention are dealt with within a reasonable time. It protects the authorities and other persons concerned from uncertainty for a prolonged period of time. Finally, it ensures that, insofar as possible, matters are examined while they are still fresh, before the passage of time makes it difficult to ascertain the pertinent facts and renders a fair examination of the question at issue almost impossible.
20. In assessing whether an applicant has complied with Article 35 § 1, it is important to recall that the requirements contained in that Article concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies and the six-month period are closely interrelated.
21. Thus where no effective remedy is available to an applicant, the time-limit expires six months after the date of the acts or measures about which he complains, or after the date of knowledge of that act or its effect or prejudice on the applicant.
22. The pursuit of remedies which do not satisfy the requirements of Article 35 § 1 will not be considered by the Court for the purposes of establishing the date of the “final decision” or calculating the starting point for the running of the six-month rule (see, for example, Lang and Hastie v. the United Kingdom (dec.), nos. 19/11 and 36395/11, §§ 24-28, with further references therein).
23. Finally, a remedy will be ineffective inter alia if it offers no reasonable prospects of success. This will include instances where there is recent, negative case-law of the domestic appeal court in cases which are factually or legally similar to the applicant’s case and where there is no likelihood of the appeal court reversing its own recent precedent (see, for instance, Maktouf and Damjanović v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos. 2312/08 and 34179/08, §§ 59 and 60, ECHR 2013 (extracts); Paksas v. Lithuania [GC], no. 34932/04, § 76, ECHR 2011 (extracts); Gas and Dubois v. France (dec.), no. 25951/07, 31 August 2010; Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands, no. 1948/04, §§ 121–123, 11 January 2007).
24. Applying those principles to the remaining applicants in present three cases (that is, those applicants who are the children of displaced women), the Court considers that the Supreme Court’s judgment in Vrountou v. the Republic settled the question as to whether, as a matter of domestic law, the children of displaced women should be given refugee cards on the same terms as the children of displaced men. In concluding that the refugee aid scheme could not be so extended without usurping the function of the legislature, the Supreme Court heard full argument on the question of the compatibility of the scheme with the provisions of the Convention, particularly Article 14. Once the Supreme Court had given judgment on 3 March 2006 there were, therefore, no further effective remedies which could be pursued in Cyprus by the children of displaced women. Therefore, to comply with the six-month rule, any application by the child of a displaced woman should have been lodged with this Court within six months of 3 March 2006.
25. However, the applicants covered by the first and second applications waited until 29 July 2009 and 8 April 2010 respectively before lodging their applications with the Court. They have given no reason for the delay in doing so. Indeed, in their applications they referred to the fact that, in light of Vrountou v. the Republic, they had no effective remedy in Cyprus. Accordingly, these applications, having been lodged well after 3 March 2006, are out of time and must therefore be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
26. For the remaining applicant in the third application, Evangelia Chakkas, the position is no different. Although Ms Chakkas brought her own challenge in the Supreme Court, in light of Vrountou v. the Republic, that challenge was bound to fail. There was no likelihood of the Supreme Court overruling its Vrountou judgment, not least when her submissions before the Supreme Court were substantially the same as those made by Ms Vrountou in her case (see Maktouf and Damjanović and the other cases cited at paragraph 23 above). Accordingly, the complaints made by Ms Chakkas in this application concerning Articles 8, 13 and 14 of the Convention, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12, having been lodged more than six months after 3 March 2006, are also out of time and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
27. To the extent that Ms Chakkas makes complaints not considered by the Supreme Court in Vrountou, namely that the scheme also violated Article 3 of the Convention and that the Supreme Court in her case violated Article 6 of the Convention, the Court considers that these complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. They are manifestly ill-founded and must therefore be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to join the applications;
Declares the applications inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 12 November 2015.
Françoise Elens-PassosGuido Raimondi
RegistrarPresident
Appendix
43331/09 CHAKKAS AND OTHERS v. Cyprus
Date of introduction 29/07/2009
No.
First name LASTNAME
Date of Birth
Nationality
City
Emmanuel CHAKKAS
01/12/1984
Cypriot
Nicosia
Samer AKKAWI
15/04/1991
Cypriot
Nicosia
Tarek AKKAWI
10/07/1989
Cypriot
Nicosia
Eleni DEMETRIOU
07/11/1981
Cypriot
Nicosia
Ifegenia DEMETRIOU
24/09/1955
Cypriot
Nicosia
Sofronis DEMETRIOU
21/08/1979
Cypriot
Nicosia
Christiana GEORGIOU
01/03/1999
Cypriot
Latsia
Pantelitsa GEORGIOU
22/07/1997
Cypriot
Latsia
Socratis IOANNIDES
20/10/1983
Cypriot
Strovolos
Eleni IOANNIDOU
22/04/1979
Cypriot
Strovolos
Sophia IOANNIDOU
10/06/1954
Cypriot
Strovolos
Helena KALIMERI
30/03/1958
Cypriot
Nicosia
Costantinos Raphael KAPARDIS
26/06/1994
Australian, Cypriot
Nicosia
Elena KAPARDIS
29/08/1990
Australian, Cypriot
Nicosia
Maria KRAMBIA-KAPARDIS
17/10/1963
Cypriot
Nicosia
Kalliope LOUTSIOU STEPHANOU
29/03/1955
Cypriot
Nicosia
Chrysostomos MICHAELIDES
10/07/1982
Cypriot
Nicosia
Michalis MICHAELIDES
24/05/1979
Cypriot
Lakatamia
Kleopatra MICHAELIDOU
08/05/1957
Cypriot
Nicosia
Christos MICHALOPOULOS
21/04/1984
Cypriot
Nicosia
Maria MICHALOPOULOU
22/07/1960
Cypriot
Nicosia
Mikaella MICHALOPOULOU
11/04/1987
Cypriot
Nicosia
Nicoletta MICHALOPOULOU
02/01/1989
Cypriot
Nicosia
Alexandros MIKELLIDES
06/03/1986
Cypriot
Nicosia
Andys MIKELLIDES
05/08/1987
Cypriot
Nicosia
Nikolas MIKELLIDES
23/10/1983
Cypriot
Nicosia
Maria MIKELLIDES-KALIMERIS
11/11/1954
Cypriot
Nicosia
Andreas MINAIDES
06/10/1983
Cypriot
Lakatamia
Emilia MINAIDOU
17/03/1980
Cypriot
Lakatamia
Maria MINAIDOU
09/03/1961
Cypriot
Lakatamia
Marianna NICOLAIDES
27/10/1981
Cypriot
Nicosia
Tasia PASHIA NICOLAIDES
23/02/1957
Cypriot
Nicosia
Victoria NICOLAIDES
02/10/1987
Cypriot
Nicosia
Androulla PALAONTA
09/04/1963
Cypriot
Latsia
Dimitris STEPHANOU
01/02/1985
Cypriot
Nicosia
Manolis STEPHANOU
20/10/1983
Cypriot
Nicosia
Persephone STEPHANOU
14/06/1986
Cypriot
Nicosia
27877/10 PETROU AND OTHERS v. Cyprus
Date of introduction 08/04/2010
No.
First name LASTNAME
Date of Birth
Nationality
City
Nikoletta PETROU
14/02/1982
Cypriot
Nicosia
Christina ANASTASIOU
18/05/1944
Cypriot
Nicosia
Margarita ANASTASIOU
06/08/1981
Cypriot
Nicosia
Tassos ANASTASIOU
27/07/1976
Cypriot
Nicosia
Monica ANDREOU
18/07/1978
Cypriot
Nicosia
Petros ANDREOU
19/05/1982
Cypriot
Nicosia
Maria CHARALAMBOUS
28/01/1981
Cypriot
Nicosia
Panagiota ANDREOU CHARALAMBOUS
11/04/1953
Cypriot
Nicosia
Petros CHARALAMBOUS
10/04/1984
Cypriot
Nicosia
Andria CHRISTODOULOU
06/09/1988
Cypriot
Nicosia
Theonitsa CHRISTODOULOU
10/09/1993
Cypriot
Nicosia
Katerina CHRISTOU
16/09/1977
Cypriot
Nicosia
Stephani CHRISTOU
06/01/1986
Cypriot
Nicosia
Chrystalla DEMETRIOU
14/07/1954
Cypriot
Nicosia
Elena DEMETRIOU
20/05/1985
Cypriot
Nicosia
Valentinos DEMETRIOU
10/03/1983
Cypriot
Nicosia
Anthos ELIADES
16/05/1980
Cypriot
Nicosia
Eliana ELIADES
28/04/1976
Cypriot
Nicosia
Froso ELIADES
28/03/1943
Cypriot
Nicosia
Ermolia FIAKA
05/08/1954
Cypriot
Nicosia
Georgios FIAKA
03/12/1978
Cypriot
Nicosia
Maria FIAKA
10/01/1983
Cypriot
Nicosia
Theofanis FIAKA
19/01/1981
Cypriot
Nicosia
Antonis GAVRIELIDES
27/12/1982
Cypriot
Nicosia
Eleni GAVRIELIDOU
03/12/1980
Cypriot
Nicosia
Katerina GAVRIELIDOU
08/03/1952
Cypriot
Nicosia
Constantinos GEORGIADES
05/02/1985
Cypriot
Nicosia
Anna Marina GREGORIOU
01/03/1994
Cypriot
Psimolophou
Filippos GREGORIOU
14/04/1988
Cypriot
Psimolophou
Kyriacos GREGORIOU
17/07/1986
Cypriot
Psimolophou
Mariandri GREGORIOU
25/09/1959
Cypriot
Psimolophou
Rodoulla GREGORIOU
28/03/1990
Cypriot
Psimolophou
Chrystalla HADJIKLEANTHOUS
01/03/1985
Cypriot
Nicosia
Georgios HADJIKLEANTHOUS
10/05/1981
Cypriot
Nicosia
Sotira HADJIKLEANTHOUS
05/11/1952
Cypriot
Nicosia
Nelli KATSIAMI
12/12/1951
Cypriot
Nicosia
Alexis KYRIAKIDES
29/01/1983
Cypriot
Nicosia
Nicholas KYRIAKIDES
05/05/1979
Cypriot
Nicosia
Phanos KYRIAKIDES
21/10/1980
Cypriot
Nicosia
Maria BARPA KYRIAKIDOU
09/06/1945
Cypriot
Nicosia
Stelios KYTHREOTIS
19/10/1990
Cypriot
Larnaca
Maria KYTHREOTOU
04/04/1950
Cypriot
Larnaca
Androulla LEANDROU
15/10/1946
Cypriot
Nicosia
Chrystalla LEANDROU
21/07/1969
Cypriot
Anayia
Angela NICOLAOU
23/12/1964
Cypriot
Nicosia
Michalis NICOLAOU
06/12/1988
Cypriot
Nicosia
Rafaela NICOLAOU
11/08/1998
Cypriot
Nicosia
Victoria NICOLAOU
24/12/1987
Cypriot
Nicosia
Maria OMIROU
04/11/1980
Cypriot
Limassol
Michalis OMIROU
31/01/1978
Cypriot
Limassol
Kyriakos PANAYIDES
17/11/1980
Cypriot
Nicosia
Effie PANAYIDOU
07/07/1983
Cypriot
Nicosia
Maria PANAYIDOU
15/08/1958
Cypriot
Nicosia
Mikaella PANAYIDOU
19/09/1992
Cypriot
Nicosia
Pantelitsa PANAYIDOU
19/08/1979
Cypriot
Nicosia
Constantina PANAYIOTOU
11/06/1986
Cypriot
Nicosia
Panayiotis PANAYIOTOU
18/07/1983
Cypriot
Nicosia
Tasoula PANTELI CHRISTOULOU
10/10/1957
Cypriot
Nicosia
Afroditi PAPADIMITRIOU
19/09/1986
Cypriot
Nicosia
Androula PAPADIMITRIOU
11/11/1980
Cypriot
Nicosia
Maria PAPADIMITRIOU
09/04/1979
Cypriot
Nicosia
Theodora PAPADIMITRIOU
16/07/1956
Cypriot
Nicosia
Eleni OMIROU PAPAGRIGORIOU
05/07/1949
Cypriot
Limassol
Nicoletta PAPAMICHAEL
21/01/1982
Cypriot
Nicosia
Yiannis PAPAMICHAEL
06/02/1978
Cypriot
Nicosia
Maro PAPAMICHAEL CHAMBOURIDOU
18/07/1951
Cypriot
Nicosia
Vasiliki PAPAXANTHOU ANDREOU
02/08/1952
Cypriot
Nicosia
Antonis PAVLOU
19/05/1993
Cypriot
Nicosia
Menelaos PAVLOU
24/01/1988
Cypriot
Nicosia
Vasilis PAVLOU
07/06/1985
Cypriot
Nicosia
Maria PAVLOU TRYPHONOS
13/05/1961
Cypriot
Nicosia
Chrystalla Kyprianou PELASELA
13/09/1955
Cypriot
Nicosia
Charalambos PELASELAS
11/06/1980
Cypriot
Nicosia
Kypros PELASELAS
04/04/1983
Cypriot
Nicosia
Anastasia PETROU
02/06/1953
Cypriot
Nicosia
Andreas PETROU
15/09/1993
Cypriot
Nicosia
Elena PETROU
20/03/1995
Cypriot
Nicosia
Maria XYDA PETROU
09/03/1961
Cypriot
Nicosia
Petros PETROU
26/12/1977
Cypriot
Nicosia
Maria PIERIDOU CHRISTOU
09/09/1951
Cypriot
Nicosia
Maria PITSILLOU
01/02/1957
Cypriot
Nicosia
Panagiotis SEVASTIDES
16/11/1983
Cypriot
Nicosia
Eleni SEVASTIDOU
13/10/1958
Cypriot
Nicosia
Kyriaki SEVASTIDOU
22/11/1980
Cypriot
Nicosia
Alexandros SOFRONIOU
25/07/1980
Cypriot
Nicosia
Andreas SOFRONIOU
15/12/1984
Cypriot
Nicosia
Constantina SOFRONIOU
23/02/1957
Cypriot
Nicosia
Christine Andrea SYMEONIDES
30/11/1984
Canadian, Cypriot
Nicosia
Kleanthis SYMEONIDES
14/03/1994
Canadian, Cypriot
Nicosia
Stephen Constantine SYMEONIDES
28/02/1989
Canadian, Cypriot
Nicosia
Constantinos -Andreas SYMEONIDOU
02/12/1990
Canadian, Cypriot
Nicosia
Eleni SYMEONIDOU
15/07/1959
Canadian, Cypriot
Nicosia
Christodoulos TYRIMOU
22/05/1978
Cypriot
Limassol
Georgios TYRIMOU
26/06/1976
Cypriot
Limassol
Kyriaki TYRIMOU SAVVA
14/11/1948
Cypriot
Limassol
Marios TYRIMOU
21/09/1982
Cypriot
Limassol
Androula TYRIMOU
21/09/1982
Cypriot
Limassol
36144/11 CHAKKAS v. Cyprus
Date of introduction 25/05/2011
No.
First name LASTNAME
Date of Birth
Nationality
City
Evangelia CHAKKAS
16/08/1987
Cypriot
Nicosia
Markella ISAIA CHAKKA
21/01/1958
Cypriot
Nicosia
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy