THIRD SECTION
FINAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 16682/90
by Michael SOLOMONIDES and 28 others
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section) sitting on 18 May 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 26 January 1990 by Michael SOLOMONIDES and 28 others against Turkey and registered on 7 June 1990 under file no. 16682/90;
Having regard to the reports provided for in Rule 49 of the Rules of Court;
Having regard to 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
There are 29 applicant. Most are Cypriot nationals and members of the "Pancyprian Association of Affected and Displaced Persons"; they were permanent residents of Famagusta, in the northern part of Cyprus, where Turkish military forces have been stationed since 1974. Three are companies incorporated under Cypriot law.
Their names are as follows:
1. Antonakis SOLOMONIDES
2. MOTOVIA Ltd
3. & 4. Kostas and Sotiris PANAGE
5. Vasos SOFRONIOU
6. Andreas LOIZOU
7. Kostas Grigoriades
8. Alekos PANTELI
9. N.S. KOUTSOKOUMNIS
10. Yiannis CHARALAMPOUS
11. Kostas KALISPERAS
12. Lambros IASONOS,
13. Georgios ORPHANIDES
14. Kyriakos KOUSOULIS
15. Kostas MAVROUDIS,
16. Savvas VOYIATZIS
17. Paraschos THEOTHOULOU
18. Lambros PAPAYIANNIS
19. Charalampos BAKALOURES
20. Frixos CONSTANTINOU Ltd.
21. Andreas ZODIATES
22. Petros MARKETTAS
23. T. N. GEORGIADES
24. Ioannis HADJINIKOLAS KAMILARES
25. Stavros SYRIMES
26. Prodromos SOLOMOU
27. Pantelis DEMETRI
28. T. VASILEIOU and Sons Ltd and
29. Renos SYMEONIDES.
Before the Court the applicants are represented by Mr Phoebus Clerides, a lawyer practising in Nicosia.
The facts of the case as they have been submitted by the applicants may be summarised as follows:
The individual applicants fled to the south in July 1974. All applicants are owners of substantial properties in Famagusta which has been under Turkish military occupation since 1974.
As a result of the invasion, the Turkish military authorities have occupied and used their homes and properties and have prevented them from having access to and using their houses, from possessing their properties, from exercising their right to respect for their homes, from enjoying their home town of Famagusta and from moving freely to and entering the northern part of Cyprus.
The individual applicants state that they have not been allowed by the Turkish authorities to return to their homes and properties in Famagusta. They are continuously prevented from entering the northern part of Cyprus because of their Greek-Cypriot origin.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants allege that, since the invasion of the northern part of Cyprus in July 1974, Turkey has prevented them on various occasions, because of their religion and national origin, from returning to their homes and properties, from moving freely to and entering the northern part of Cyprus and from exercising their rights to respect for their homes and to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, in breach of Articles 1, 8 and 14 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
PROCEDURE
The application was introduced before the European Commission of Human Rights on 26 January 1990 and registered on 7 June 1990. It was originally brought by 597 applicants.
On 29 August 1994 the Commission decided to reject the applicants' original complaints under Articles 2 and 3 of Protocol No. 4 and to adjourn the examination of the remainder of the application.
On 23 January 1997 the Commission decided to request the Government to submit observations.
On 2 April 1997 the Government requested the Commission to adjourn the proceedings until the Court completed its consideration of the case of Loizidou v. Turkey.
On 18 April 1997 the Commission, having noted that the applicants had not identified the property they allegedly owned in the northern part of Cyprus, decided to request them to provide further information concerning the property in question and, pending receipt of this information, to suspend the request for submission of observations by the Government.
On 2 September 1997 and 2 January 1998 applicants Nos. 5, 23, 29 (two applicants in fact), 44, 46, 51, 62, 132, 134, 153, 160, 185, 207, 235, 271, 294, 312, 318, 319, 345, 374, 394, 417, 430, 490, 498, 510 and 540, out of the original complainants, submitted such information. On 2 January 1998 the applicants' lawyer informed the Commission that he had not been able to establish contact with the remaining applicants and sought leave from the Commission "to withdraw for the time being the application (insofar as it had been introduced by those applicants) without any admission or prejudice as to the rights of the applicants in general and as to their rights to reinstate or file new applications in view of the continuing ... violations of the European Convention and its Protocols by Turkey".
On 2 March 1998 the Commission decided to adjourn its examination of the application insofar as it had introduced by applicants Nos. 5, 23, 29, 44, 46, 51, 62, 132, 134, 153, 160, 185, 207, 235, 271, 294, 312, 318, 319, 345, 374, 394, 417, 430, 490, 498, 510 and 540 and to strike out of the application the other applicants.
At the request of the respondent Government the President of the Commission agreed to extend on 31 March 1998 and 31 May 1998 the time-limit for the submission of the Government’s observations on admissibility and merits. On 29 July 1998, and after the expiry of the above-mentioned time-limit, the Government requested again a three-months extension. 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 applicants complain that, since the invasion of the northern part of Cyprus in July 1974, Turkey has prevented them on various occasions, because of their religion and national origin, from returning to their homes and properties, from moving freely to and entering the northern part of Cyprus and from exercising their rights to respect for their homes and to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, in breach of Articles 1, 8 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 respect human rights. Article 8 ensures respect for private and family life, the home and correspondence. Article 14 prohibits discrimination in the securement of Convention rights and freedoms and 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 REMAINDER OF THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging the merits.
S DolléN. Bratza
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy