Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T18:04:59.998Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The European Court of Human Rights: Demopoulos v. Turkey

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Rhodri C. Williams
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 Legal Documents
Information
International Legal Materials , Volume 49 , Issue 3 , June 2010 , pp. 816 - 849
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

Endnotes

* This text was reproduced and reformatted from the text available at the European Court of Human Rights website (visited May 26, 2010) http://www.echr.coe.int/ECHR/EN/Header/Case-Law/HUDOC/HUDOC+database/.

1 Demopoulos v. Turkey, App. Nos. 46113/99, 3843/02, 13751/02, 13466/03, 10200/04, 14163/04, 19993/04, 21819/04 (Eur. Ct. H.R. 2010). The eight applications were originally brought by eighteen applicants, but one of the applicants died in 2005. Id. ¶ 1.

2 Cyprus: Prospects Remain Dim of Political Resolution to Change Situation of IDPs, Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre, June 30, 2009, at 3 Google Scholar, available at http://www.internal-displacement.org/8025708F004BE3B1/%28 httpInfoFiles%29/895698DB41320385C12575E50045EB89/$file/Cyprus_Overview_Jun09.pdf.

3 Id. at 4 (explaining that 162,000 Greek Cypriots, along with 48,000 Turkish Cypriots, were displaced in the direct aftermath of the 1974 invasion).

4 Ayla, Gürel & Kudret, Özersay, Peace Res. Inst. Oslo Google Scholar [PRIO], Report: The Politics of Property in Cyprus 15 (2006)Google Scholar, available at http://www.prio.no/upload/Cyprus%20Property%20Report%202%20Trimmed%20%28corrected%29.pdf.

5 Id. at 13-14.

6 Id. at 20-21.

7 Id. at 17.

8 Loizidou v. Turkey, App. No. 40/1993/435/514 (Eur. Ct. H.R. 1996).

9 Id. ¶¶ 56-57.

10 Id. ¶ 44.

11 Id. ¶¶ 63-64.

12 Cyprus v. Turkey, App. No. 25781/94 (Eur. Ct. H.R. 2001).

13 Id. ¶ 80.

14 Id. ¶¶ 187-89.

15 Id. ¶¶ 172-75.

16 Id. ¶ 102; cf. Demopoulos, supra note 1, ¶ 72 (noting that this requirement was not applied to property claims at the time, because the TRNC authorities had still considered the property rights of Greek Cypriot claimants legally extinguished).

17 Demades v. Turkey, App. No. 16219/90 (Eur. Ct. H.R. 2003).

18 Gürel & Özersay, supra note 4, at 30-31 (noting that the fact that the subsequent accession of the Republic of Cyprus to the European Union was not made conditional on the achievement of a settlement reduced the Greek Cypriot incentive to make compromises).

19 Xenides-Arestis v. Turkey, App. No. 46347/99, Admissibility, at 44-45 (Eur. Ct. H.R. 2005).

20 Xenides-Arestis v. Turkey, App. No. 46347/99, Merits, ¶¶ 40, 50 (Eur. Ct. H.R. 2005).

21 Xenides-Arestis v. Turkey, App. No. 46347/99, Just Satisfaction, ¶¶ 10-12 (Eur. Ct. H.R. 2006).

22 Id. ¶ 37.

23 Demopoulos, supra note 1, ¶ 103.

24 Id. ¶ 127.

25 Id. ¶ 128.

26 Id. ¶ 133.

27 The Pilot-Judgment Procedure: Information Note Issued by the Registrar, Eur. Ct. H.R., 2009 Google Scholar, ¶ 1, available at http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/DF4E8456-77B3-4E67-8944-B908143A7E2C/0/Information_Note_on_the_PJP_for_Website.pdf.

28 Demopoulos, supra note 1, ¶¶ 57, 61, 63.

29 Id. ¶ 81.

30 Id. ¶ 69.

31 Id. ¶¶ 83-84.

32 Id. ¶ 85.

33 Id. ¶ 87.

34 Id. ¶¶ 96, 97 (establishing that this holding is justified both by the need to avoid a legal vacuum in northern Cyprus pending a political solution, and the need to ensure that the Court is no longer thrust into the role of first instance arbiter of Greek Cypriot property claims).

35 Id. ¶ 101.

36 Id. ¶¶ 35-37 (providing that the procedures and remedies set out in the IPC’s organic law are reproduced in some detail in the section of the decision describing ‘‘relevant domestic law and practice’’).

37 Id. ¶ 10.

38 Id. ¶¶ 59, 106.

39 Id. ¶ 52.

40 Id. ¶ 111.

41 Id.

42 Id. ¶ 112.

43 Id. ¶ 114.

44 Id. ¶¶ 115-17.

45 Id. ¶¶ 118-19.

46 Id. ¶ 120.

47 Id. ¶¶ 121-23.

48 Id. ¶ 124.

49 Id. ¶¶ 125-26.

50 Id. ¶ 127.

51 Id. ¶¶ 133; see id. ¶¶ 135-38 (dismissing one application based solely on Article 8 without a parallel property claim under Article 1 of the First Protocol, based on a finding that the applicant’s links with the alleged home were too attenuated to merit consideration).

52 Id. ¶ 108.

1 Unit of area used in the Ottoman Empire and still used, in various standardized versions, in many countries which were formerly part of the Ottoman Empire. It was defined as “forty standard paces in length and breadth”, but varied considerably from place to place. It is considered to be the equivalent of about a quarter of an acre.