Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T14:35:53.219Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Demopoulos & Others v. Turkey (Admissibility)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Alexia Solomou
Alexia Solomou*
Affiliation:
International Court of Justice
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
International Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 104 , Issue 4 , October 2010 , pp. 628 - 636
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Demopoulos v. Turkey, App. Nos. 46113/99, 3843/02,13751/02,13466/03, 14163/04,10200/04,19993/ 04, & 21819/04, Admissibility (Eur. Ct. H.R. Mar. 1,2010). The judgments and decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, as well as its basic texts, are available at <http://www.echr.coe.int/echr/>.

2 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Nov. 4, 1950, ETS No. 5, 213 UNTS 222.

3 The Web site of the Immovable Property Commission is at http://www.northcyprusipc.org.

4 Citing, e.g., Folgero v. Norway, App. No. 15472/02, Merits & Just Satisfaction, para. 100 (Eur. Ct. H.R. 2007); Salduz v. Turkey, App. No. 36391/02, Merits & Just Satisfaction, para. 51 (Eur. Ct. H.R. 2008).

5 Article 35(1) provides: “The Court may only deal with the matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally recognised rules of international law, and within a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken.”

6 Cyprus v. Turkey, Merits, 2001-IV Eur. Ct. H.R., paras.101-02 (reported by Frank Hoffmeister at 96 AJIL 445 (2002)).

7 Xenides-Arestis v. Turkey, App. No. 46347/99, Merits & Just Satisfaction (Eur. Ct. H.R. 2005).

8 Article 1 provides, in relevant part: “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.”

9 Case No. 3/2006 (TRNC Const. Ct. 2006) (discussed at paras. 38-39).

10 Quoting (from “effects” on) Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) Notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion, 1971 ICJ Rep. 16, para. 125 (June 21).

11 See also Cyprus v. Turkey, para. 96 (relying on the “Namibia principle”).

12 E.g., J.A. Pye (Oxford) Ltd v. United Kingdom, Merits & Just Satisfaction, 2007-X Eur. Ct. H.R.

13 Papamichalopoulos v. Greece (Article 50), Just Satisfaction, 330-B (Ser. A) at 34 (1995) (Art. 50); Iatridis v. Greece, Just Satisfaction, 2000-X Eur. Ct. H.R.

14 The Court used the “manifestly unreasonable” standard, typically used in length-of-proceedings cases. See, e.g., Cocchiarella v. Italy, Merits & Just Satisfaction, 2006-V Eur. Ct. H.R. 140; Scordino v. Italy (No. 1), Merits & Just Satisfaction, 2006-V Eur. Ct. H.R., paras. 214, 272.

15 Akdivar v. Turkey, Merits & Just Satisfaction, 1996-IV Eur. Ct. H.R., para. 65; Handyside v. United Kingdom, Merits, 24 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) at para. 48 (1976).

16 For another example, see Sadik v. Greece, Preliminary Objections, 1996-V Eur. Ct. H.R., para. 30.

17 High Level Conference on the Future of the European Court of Human Rights, Interlaken Declaration, PP 6, Art. 2 (Feb. 19, 2010), at http://www.echr.coe.int/ECHR/EN/Header/The+Court/Reform+of+the+Court/nterlaken+conference/.

18 Bernard, Robertson, Exhaustion of Local Remedies in International Human Rights Litigation: The Burden of Proof Reconsidered , 39 Int’l & Comp. L.Q. 191, 196 (1990)Google Scholar.

19 According to the Council of Europe’s Reform of the European Court of Human Rights, “some 100,000 cases” were pending before the Court as of January 1, 2010. See http://www.coe.int/t/dc/files/themes/protocolel4bis/defauit_EN.asp.

20 Akdivar v. Turkey, paras. 65-76 (citing Ireland v. United Kingdom, Merits & Just Satisfaction, 25 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) at para. 159 (1978)); Aksoy v. Turkey, Merits & Just Satisfaction, 1996-VI Eur. Ct. H.R., paras. 51-53.

21 Id., para. 69; Aksoy v. Turkey, para. 53.

22 Loizidou v. Turkey, Merits & Just Satisfaction, 1996-VF Eur. Ct. H.R., para. 18. Article 159(1)(b) provides that “all immovable properties . . . found abandoned on 13 February 1975 . . . shall be the property of the TRNC.”

23 Loizidou v. Turkey, Merits & Just Satisfaction, para. 44.

24 When Loizidou was decided the Court’s docket was smaller: ninety-three pending cases were transmitted to the Grand Chamber when Protocol 11 entered into force in 1998. Council of Europe, Survey of Forty Years of Activity 1959–1998, at 126-27, available at http://www.echr.coe.int/ECHR/EN/Header/Reports+and+Statistics/Reports/Annual+surveys+of+activity/. The current docket of the Court exceeds 100,000 cases, see supra note 19.

25 Cyprus v. Turkey, Merits, 2001-IV Eur. Ct. H.R., para. 89.

26 Id., para. 98.

27 Xenides-Arestis, App. No. 46347/99, Just Satisfaction, para. 37 (Eur. Ct. H.R. 2006).

28 For relevant TRNC law and practice, see paras. 34-38.

29 Cases of departure from the standard, strict rule include Charzynski v. Poland, Admissibility, 2005-V Eur. Ct. H.R., and Michalak v. Poland, App. No. 24549/03, Admissibility (Eur. Ct. H.R. 2005).

30 Xenides-Arestis v. Turkey, App. No. 46347/99, Merits & Just Satisfaction (Eur. Ct. H.R. 2005).

31 Luzius, Wildhaber, Pilot Judgments in Cases of Structural or Systemic Problems on the National Level, in The european Court of Human Rights Overwhelmed by Applications: Problems and Possible Solutions 73 (Rüdiger, Wolfrum & Ulrike, Deutsch eds., 2009)Google Scholar.

32 Xenides-Arestis v. Turkey, Just Satisfaction, para. 37.

33 Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) Notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion, 1971 ICJ REP. 16, para. 125 (June 21).

34 Citing Cyprus v. Turkey, para. 96.

35 This criterion resonates with the separate opinion of Judge, Dillard in Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) Notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970) Google Scholar, who used (at paragraphs 166-67) criteria such as the “interests of the contracting parties” and “the welfare of the inhabitants” to reach his decision.

36 S.C. Res. 541 (Nov. 18, 1983); S.C. Res. 550 (May 11, 1984).

37 Loizidou v. Turkey, Merits & Just Satisfaction, 1996-VI Eur. Ct. H.R., Diss. Op. Jambrek, J., para. 7.

38 Id., Diss. Op. Pettiti, J.

39 Id., Diss. Op. Jambrek, J., para. 7.

40 Also followed in Cyprus v. Turkey, paras. 89-102.

41 Beate Rudolf, Case Report: Loizidou v. Turkey (Merits), 91 AJIL 532, 537 (1997).

42 Xenides-Arestis v. Turkey, Just Satisfaction, para. 37.

43 Christine, Gray, Judicial Remedies in International Law 11—21 (1987)Google Scholar.

44 The theoretical underpinnings of this argument can be found in Jeremy Waldron, Superseding Historic Injustice, 103 ETHICS 4, 20 (1992).

45 Protocol 14 to the Convention, which entered into force in 2010, sets in place a constitutional vision for the Court. See, for example, Article 12 (which amends Article 35(3) of the Convention as follows):

The Court shall declare inadmissible any individual application submitted under Article 34 if it considers that:

  • a.

    a. the application is incompatible with the provisions of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, manifestly ill-founded, or an abuse of the right of individual application; or

  • b.

    b. the applicant has not suffered a significant disadvantage, unless respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto requires an examination of the application on the merits and provided that no case may be rejected on this ground which has not been duly considered by a domestic tribunal.

46 Marie-Bénédicte, Dembour, “Finishing Off” Cases: The Radical Solution to the Problem of the Expanding ECtHR Caseload , Eur. Hum. Rts. L. Rev. 604, 621 (2002)Google Scholar.

47 Committee of Experts for the Improvement of Procedures for the Protection of Human Rights, Report of the Evaluation Group to Examine Possible Means of Guaranteeing the Effectiveness of the European Court of Human Rights, para. 98, Doc. EG Court(2001)l (2001), at https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jspiid=226195&Lang=fr.

48 Loizidou v. Turkey, Preliminary Objections, 310 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) at para. 75 (1995) (reported by Juliane Kokott and Beate Rudolf at 90 AJIL 98 (1996)); see also Cyprus v. Turkey, para. 78.

49 Hatzigeorgiou v. Turkey, App. No. 56446/00, Admissibility (Eur. Ct. H.R. 2010).

50 Information available at http://www.northcyprusipc.org.