THIRD SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 16161/90
by Antonakis SOLOMINIDES and others
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 26 January 1990 by Antonakis SOLOMINIDES and Others against Turkey and registered on 14 February 1990 under file no. 16161/90;
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
The first applicant is a Cypriot national born in 1934 and residing at Nicosia. He is the Director of the private trading companies "A. Solomonidis Ltd", and "Solomonidis & Kozolidis Ltd", which are the second and third applicants respectively.
The second and third applicants are incorporated under Cypriot law and registered in Nicosia.
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 applicants state that they are the joint owners of 99 plots of land in the Districts of Kyrenia, Famagusta and Nicosia, in northern Cyprus.
As a result of the 1974 Turkish invasion they have been deprived of their property rights, their property being located in the area which is under the occupation and the overall control of the Turkish military authorities. The latter have prevented them from having access to and the use and possesson of their property. They are continuously prevented from entering the northern part of Cyprus because of their Greek-Cypriot origin.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants allege that the facts, as stated above, disclose violations of Articles 1, 8 and 14 of the Convention, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Articles 2 and 3 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention.
PROCEDURE
The application was introduced on 26 January 1990 and registered on 14 February 1990.
On 29 November 1993, the European Commission of Human Rights decided to communicate the complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention 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 by 4 April 1997, and, in the light of the above-mentioned judgment, on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention.
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 of 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. 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 allege violations of Articles 1, 8 and 14 of the Convention, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Articles 2 and 3 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention.
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 the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 guarantees property rights. Articles 2 and 3 of Protocol No. 4 secure freedom of movement within the territory of a State and prohibits the expulsion of nationals, respectively.
1.As regards Article 8 of the Convention, the Court notes that the applicants complain of a violation of their right to respect for their “homes”, without even alleging that they had anything more than plots of land in northern Cyprus. The Court further recalls that the Commission has found that a company would not normally have a private life which would fall within the protection of Article 8 or with which there may be an interference (Commission’s Report of 7 March 1991 in the case of Open Door and Dublin Well Women v. Ireland, Series A n° 246-A, p. 61, § 64).
It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention.
2.As regards Articles 2 and 3 of Protocol No. 4, the applicants complain that they are not free to move and chose their residence in Cyprus and that they have been expelled from the territory of the State of which they are nationals.
The Court notes that Turkey is not a Party to Protocol No. 4 to the Convention.
It follows that this part of the application is incompatible (ratione materiae) with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention.
3.As regards the remainder of the complaints, 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 complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention.
The Court considers that this complaint 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, / by a majority,
DECLARES ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging the merits, the applicants’ complaints under Article 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention;
DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.
S. DolléN. Bratza
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy