FIRST SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 16163/90
by EUGENIA MICHAELIDOU DEVELOPMENTS LTD and Michael TYMVIOS
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section) sitting on 8 June 1999 as a Chamber composed of
MrsE. Palm, President,
MrL. Ferrari Bravo,
MrGaukur Jörundsson,
MrB. Zupančič,
MrT. Pantiru,
MrR. Maruste, Judges,
MrF. Gölcüklü, Judge ad hoc,
withMrM. O’Boyle, Section Registrar;
Having regard to Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 26 January 1990 by Eugenia Michaelidou Developments Ltd and Michael Tymvios against Turkey and registered on 14 February 1990 under file no. 16163/90;
Having regard to the reports provided for in Rule 49 of the Rules of Court;
Having regard to the fact that the Government’s observations were not submitted within the time-limit;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The first applicant is a private company, incorporated under Cypriot law and registered in Nicosia. The second applicant, a Cypriot national, is the director and major shareholder of the company. Before the Court they are represented by Mr Phoebus Clerides, a lawyer practicing in Nicosia.
The facts of the case, as they have been submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows:
The applicant company is the owner of plots of land in Tymvio, a town in the northern District of Nicosia. Since 1974 it has been deprived of its property rights, the plots in question being located in the northern part of Cyprus. The Turkish authorities have prevented the company and its director from using and possessing the property. The second applicant is continuously prevented from entering the northern part of Cyprus because of his Greek-Cypriot origin.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants allege that the facts stated above constitute violations of Articles 1, 8 and 14 of the Convention, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Articles 2 and 3 of Protocol No. 4.
PROCEDURE
The application was introduced on 26 January 1990 and registered on 14 February 1990.
On 16 October 1991 the Commission decided to adjourn the examination of the admissibility of the application pending further developments in applications Nos. 15299/89 15300/89 and 15318/89 Chrysostomos, Papachrysostomou and Loizidou v. Turkey.
On 29 November 1993 the Commission, having adopted its reports on the merits of the Chrysostomos, Papachrysostomou and Loizidou v. Turkey cases, decided to communicate the application to the respondent Government.
On 16 March 1994 the Government requested the Commission to adjourn the examination of the application until the delivery of the Court’s judgment in the Loizidou v. Turkey case. On 9 April 1994 the Commission decided to grant the Government’s request.
On 8 April 1995 the Commission, having noted that the judgment delivered by the Court on 23 March 1995 in Loizidou v. Turkey concerned a number of preliminary objections raised by the respondent Government but not the merits of the case, decided to adjourn the examination of the application pending delivery of the Court’s judgment on the merits of the Loizidou v. Turkey case.
On 23 January 1997, following the Court’s judgment of 18 December 1996 on the merits of the Loizidou v. Turkey case, the Commission decided to invite the Government to submit their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application.
On 2 April 1997 the Government requested the Commission to adjourn the examination of the application until the Court completed its examination of the Loizidou v. Turkey case.
On 18 April 1997 the Commission decided to suspend its request for the submission of observations until 5 September 1997. On 13 September 1997 the Commission invited the Government to submit their observations.
On 4 December 1997, 7 February 1998, 8 April 1998 and 18 May 1998 the Government applied for extensions of the time-limit for the submission of their observations. All four requests were granted.
On 1 November 1998, by operation of Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, the case fell to be examined by the Court in accordance with the provisions of that Protocol.
On 30 November 1998 the respondent Government asked for a supplementary time-limit for the submission of their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application. The President of the First Section decided not to grant this request which had been submitted after the expiry of the time-limit fixed for the submission of the Government’s observations.
THE LAW
The applicants complain of a violation of Articles 1, 8 and 14 of the Convention, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Articles 2 and 3 of Protocol No. 4.
Article 1 of the Convention creates a general obligation upon High Contracting Parties to secure the rights guaranteed in the Convention. Article 8 guarantees the right to respect for home. Article 14 of the Convention prohibits discrimination in the enjoyment of Convention rights and freedoms. Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 protects property. Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 guarantees freedom of movement. Article 3 of Protocol No. 4 guarantees the right to enter the territory of the state of which one is a national.
The Court notes that the respondent Government have not provided any observations on the admissibility of the case, although they have been given ample opportunity to do so. It must, therefore, be assumed that they do not contest the admissibility of the application.
The Court considers that the application raises serious questions of fact and law which are of such complexity that their determination should depend on an examination on the merits. It cannot, therefore, be considered manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention.
No other ground for declaring the application inadmissible has been established.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, / by a majority,
DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging the merits of the case.
Michael O’BoyleElisabeth Palm
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy