FIRST SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 18404/91
by Loucas NICOLA
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 31 May 1991 by Loucas Nicola against Turkey and registered on 24 June 1991 under file no. 18404/91;
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 applicant is a Cypriot citizen born in 1904 and residing in Nicosia. Before the Court he is represented by Mr Lefkos Clerides, a lawyer practicing in Nicosia.
The facts of the case as they have been stated by the applicant can be summarised as follows:
Until 1974 the applicant lived with his family in a house which belonged to him at Trypimeni, a village in the District of Famagusta (house plot No. 165). In July 1974 he had to leave Famagusta and flee to the area still controlled by the Cypriot Government.
Since1974 the applicant has been unable to return to his home and property in the northern part of Cyprus. In particular, on 9 December 1990 the applicant took part in a car convoy organised by persons from three villages in Kyrenia and from Trypimeni who intended to return to their homes in the north peacefully. The participants in the convoy had notified the commander of the United Nations forces in Cyprus of their intention to return home. They drove to the buffer zone checkpoint on the main road which links Nicosia and Famagusta. There they stopped and asked the United Nations forces officer on duty to be allowed to return to their homes, property and villages. They requested him to transmit to the Turkish military authorities their demand to return to their homes. The United Nations forces officer announced to the applicant and the other participants in the convoy that the Turkish military authorities had rejected their request to drive through the checkpoint and enter the northern part of Cyprus.
The applicant’s house in Trypimeni is used by the Turkish army.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant alleges a violation of Articles 8, 13 and 14 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
PROCEDURE
The application was introduced on 31 May 1991 and registered on 24 June 1991.
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 3 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 applicant complains of a violation of Articles 1, 8, 13 and 14 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
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 13 of the Convention guarantees the right to an effective remedy. Article 14 of the Convention prohibits discrimination in the enjoyment of Convention rights and freedoms. Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 protects property.
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