THIRD SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 37996/02
by Andreas NICOLAOU
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 3 July 2003 as a Chamber composed of
MrG. Ress, President,
MrI. Cabral Barreto,
MrL. Caflisch,
MrR. Türmen,
MrB. Zupančič,
MrsH.S. Greve,
MrK. Traja, judges,
and Mr V. Berger, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 October 2002,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Andreas Nicolaou, is a Cypriot national of Greek-Cypriot origin. He was born in 1941 and lives in Nicosia. He is represented before the Court by Mr M. Kyprianou, a lawyer practising in Nicosia.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant owns a house in Kithrea. He became registered owner of this property on 29 January 1999 after inheriting it from his mother. This house was the applicant’s home. He also claims to be the owner of a coop that contained chickens, goats and a pig.
He states that since July 1974 he has been prevented by the Turkish armed forces from having access to, using and enjoying his home and property.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complains of a violation of Article 8 of the Convention. He states that in 1974 the Turkish armes forces evicted him from his home in northern Cyprus and that ever since they have prevented him from having access to and use of it.
2. Furthermore he complains of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. He states that since 1974 the Turkish armed forces have prevented him from having access to and use of his property and from exercising his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his property and possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
3. He also complains that he is not free to move in Cyprus and return to his home in Kithrea contrary to Article 2 of Protocol No. 4.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complains under Articles 8 of the Convention and 1 of Protocol No. 1. In particular he complains of a continuing violation of his rights to respect for his home and to peaceful enjoyment of his property under Articles 8 of the Convention and 1 of Protocol No. 1, which read as follows:
Article 8 of the Convention
“1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”
The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of these complaints, and that it is necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.
2. The applicant complains of a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention with regard to his right to freedom of movement. The relevant provision read as follows:
“1. Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.
2. Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.
3. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are in accordance with law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the maintenance of ordre public, for the prevention of crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
4. The rights set forth in paragraph 1 may also be subject, in particular areas, to restrictions imposed in accordance with law and justified by the public interest in a democratic society.”
The Court observes that the respondent Government have not ratified this instrument. It follows that these complaints remain outside the Court’s jurisdiction ratione personae. They are thus incompatible with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaints concerning Articles 8 of the Convention and 1 of Protocol No. 1;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Vincent BergerGeorg Ress
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy