THIRD SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 18361/91
by Michalis MICHAEL
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section) sitting on 24 August 1999 as a Chamber composed of
SirNicolas Bratza, President,
MrJ.-P. Costa,
MrsF. Tulkens,
MrW. Fuhrmann,
MrK. Jungwiert,
MrK. Traja, Judges,
MrF. Gölcüklü, ad hoc Judge,
withMrsS. Dollé, 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 7 June 1991 by Michalis Michael against Turkey and registered on 14 June 1991 under file no. 18361/91;
Having regard to the reports provided for in Rule 49 of the Rules of Court;
Having regard the fact that no observations have been submitted by the respondent Government within the time-limit fixed for that purpose;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is a Cypriot national born in 1957 and living in Nicosia. Before the Court he is represented by Mr Kypros Chrysostomides, a lawyer practising in Nicosia.
The facts of the case, as they have been submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows:
The applicant states that he is the owner of a fully furnished house in the District of Kyrenia. As a result of the 1974 Turkish invasion he has been deprived of his property rights, his property being located in the area which is under the occupation and the overall control of the Turkish military authorities. The latter have prevented him from having access to and the use or possession of his house and property. He is continuously prevented from entering the northern part of Cyprus because of his Greek-Cypriot origin.
On 9 December 1990 the applicant made one further attempt to return to his home and property in Kyrenia and Ayios Amvrosios by participating in a convoy of cars of fellow refugees of the same district who intended to return home during a peaceful march towards their villages. The applicant and his fellow refugees, who had notified their intention to the Commander of the United Nations forces in Cyprus, stopped at the check point on the “buffer zone”, on the main road which links Nicosia with Ayios Amvrosios and Kyrenia. There, the applicant and other refugees asked the United Nations Force officer on duty to be allowed to return to their homes, property and villages. They requested the same officer to transfer to the Turkish military authorities their demand to return to their homes. The officer announced to the applicant and his fellow refugees that the Turkish military authorities had rejected their request to drive through the check point and enter the Turkish controlled part of Cyprus.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant alleges a violation of Article 8 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. He states that since the Turkish invasion of the northern part of Cyprus in July 1974 and since 29 January 1987, when Turkey accepted the competence of the European Commission of Human Rights to examine individual petitions against it, Turkey prevented him from exercising his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his home and possessions. He submits, in particular, that on 9 December 1990 he was prevented from returning to his home and property.
PROCEDURE
The application was introduced on 7 June 1991 and registered on 14 June 1991.
On 29 November 1993 the European Commission of Human Rights decided to communicate the complaints under Articles 8 of the Convention and 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the respondent Government and invited them to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the application before 18 March 1994.
On 16 March 1994 the Government requested the Commission to adjourn the proceedings until the Court completed its consideration of the case of Loizidou v. Turkey. On 9 April 1994 the Commission granted the request.
Following the Court's judgment in the case of Loizidou (Eur. Court HR, Loizidou judgment of 18 December 1996 (merits), Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI), the Commission examined, on 23 January 1997, the state of proceedings in the present application. It decided to invite the respondent Government to submit supplementary observations in the light of the above-mentioned judgment by 4 April 1997.
On 18 April 1997 the Commission decided to suspend the request for the submission of supplementary observations by the Government until 5 September 1997. On 13 September 1997 it laid down a new time-limit for that purpose until 8 December 1997. At the request of the Government, the President of the Commission agreed to four extensions of that time-limit until 7 July 1998. On 30 November 1998, and after the expiry of the above-mentioned time-limit, the Government again requested a further extension. On 21 December 1998 the Government were informed that no further extension could be granted. No observations were submitted.
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 applicant complains that since the Turkish invasion of the northern part of Cyprus in July 1974 and since 29 January 1987, when Turkey accepted the competence of the European Commission of Human Rights to examine individual petitions against it, Turkey prevented him from exercising his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his home and possessions. He submits, in particular, that on 9 December 1990 he was prevented from returning to his home and property. He alleges that Turkey has violated Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
Article 8 of the Convention ensures respect for private and family life, home and correspondence. Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 guarantees property rights.
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 of 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.
S DolléN. Bratza
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy