FIRST SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 38179/97
by Michael P. HAPESHIS, Maria HAPESHI-MICHAELIDOU, Praxoulla HAPESHI‑CAMPBELL and Prodromoulla HAPESHI-EVAGORA
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 10 January 1997 by Michael P. Hapeshis, Maria Hapeshi-Michaelidou, Praxoulla Hapeshi-Campbell and Prodromoulla Hapeshi-Evagora against Turkey and registered on 9 October 1997 under file no. 38179/97;
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 Cypriot and British citizen born in 1959. He is an architect and resides in Nicosia. The second applicant is a Cypriot citizen born in 1942. She is a doctor and resides in Larnaca. The third applicant is a British citizen born in 1947. She is retired and resides in Larnaca. The fourth applicant is a British citizen born in 1944. She is a businesswoman and resides in Larnaca. They are siblings.
The facts of the case, as they have been submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows:
On 13 August 1974, as the Turkish troops were advancing, the applicants’ father left Ayios Avrosios in Kyrenia where he owned the following real property:
a plot of land in Trahonas (registered under No. 579 on page 13/22 of the land registry),
a plot of land with trees in Kapsala (registered under No. 12/7/5/1 on page 13/15 of the land register),
a plot of land with trees in Ylifonera (registered under No. 12/7/4 on page 13/15 of the land register),
another plot of land with trees in Ylifonera (registered under 12/7/3 on page 13/15 of the land register),
a plot of land with trees in Apati (registered under No. 11/6 on page 13/31 of the land register),
a plot of land with trees in Spati (registered under No. 250/3 on page 13/23 of the land register),
a plot of land with trees in Ipati (registered under Nos. 13/4 and 15/3 on page 13/31 of the land register) and
a plot of land with trees in Apati (registered under No. 11 on page 13/31 of the land register).
On 17 August 1974 the applicants’ father tried to visit his property but was arrested by Turkish soldiers. He was released on the same day, since he was a British citizen.
On 19 May 1991 the applicants' father died. According to his will, dated 18 May 1988, the first plot was inherited by the first applicant and the other plots were inherited by the four applicants in equal shares. The applicants registered their titles with the Department of Lands and Surveys of Cyprus. The first applicant tried, via the British consular authorities, to visit this property but did not obtain permission.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complain that their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 is violated. They also complain that they are subjected to discrimination in the enjoyment of the above-mentioned right, inter alia, because of their national origin, culture and religion contrary to Article 14 of the Convention.
PROCEDURE
The application was introduced on 10 January 1997 and registered on 9 October 1997.
On 12 January 1998 the Commission decided to communicate the application to the respondent Government.
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.
THE LAW
The applicants complain that their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 is violated. They also complain that they are subjected to discrimination in the enjoyment of the above-mentioned right, inter alia, because of their national origin, culture and religion contrary to Article 14 of the Convention.
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 protects property. Article 14 of the Convention prohibits discrimination in the enjoyment of Convention rights and freedoms.
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,
DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging the merits of the case.
Michael O’BoyleElisabeth Palm
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy