Endless compensation proceedings and property protection
JUDGMENT
Joannou v. Turkey 12.12.2017 (no. 53240/14)
SUMMARY
Excessive length of proceedings concerning Greek Cypriot property compensation for Northern Cyprus property. Infringement of property rights.
PROVISION
Artcle 1 of the First Additional Protocol
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The case concerned a complaint about the excessive length of proceedings to obtain compensation for property located in northern Cyprus. The proceedings commenced in 2008 and are still pending.
The applicant, Adriani Joannou, is a British and Cypriot national who was born in 1953 and lives in Enfield (United Kingdom). In 1997 she received five plots of land in the village of Koma Tou Yialou, located in the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyrus” (the “TRNC”), as a gift from her aunt who had owned it prior to the Turkish military intervention in 1974.
In May 2008 Ms Joannou, through her Turkish Cypriot lawyers, filed a claim with the Immovable Property Commission for compensation amounting to 1,800,000 British pounds (approximately 2,285,000 euros). The commission had been set up in 2005 following the introduction of new legislation (Law no. 67/2005) on the compensation, exchange or restitution of immovable property to which owners no longer had access in the “TRNC”.
Two years later, the “TRNC” authorities submitted an opinion to the commission on Ms Joannou’s claim, finding that she had failed to prove that she was the legal heir to the property and that her claim was excessive.
A number of preliminary hearings ensued before the commission over the next seven years, which have been repeatedly adjourned, essentially because the “TRNC” authorities made requests for Ms Joannou to provide additional documents concerning her property claim. These included requests: in June 2010, for a document showing that she used a Turkish Cypriot house in the South;in April 2013, for additional certificates proving her and her aunt’s identity; and, in October 2013, for clarification of the different spellings of the names of Ms Joannou’s mother and aunt, the marital status and succession of her aunt as well as the status of liabilities related to the property.
Further hearings were adjourned in 2016 after Ms Joannou’s lawyers withdrew from the case. Most recently that happened in March 2017 because the “TRNC” representatives argued that she could not be considered as a legal heir to the property as her aunt had given it to her while she was still alive.
Relying in particular on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), Ms Joannou complained, inter alia, that the proceedings before the commission concerning compensation for her property had been protracted and ineffective.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT
Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Just satisfaction: EUR 7,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 6,325 (costs and expenses)(echrcaselaw.com editing).
