10.5.2001

Press release issued by the Registrar

JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CYPRUS v. TURKEY

In a Grand Chamber judgment delivered at Strasbourg on 10 May 2001 in the case of Cyprus v. Turkey (application no. 25781/94), the European Court of Human Rights held, by sixteen votes to one, that the matters complained of by Cyprus in its application entailed Turkey�s responsibility under the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Court held that there had been the following 14 violations of the Convention (see Decision of the Court for details):

• a continuing violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the Convention concerning the failure of the authorities of the respondent State to conduct an effective investigation into the whereabouts and fate of Greek-Cypriot missing persons who disappeared in life-threatening circumstances;

• a continuing violation of Article 5 (right to liberty and security) concerning the failure of the Turkish authorities to conduct an effective investigation into the whereabouts and fate of the Greek-Cypriot missing persons in respect of whom there was an arguable claim that they were in Turkish custody at the time of their disappearance;

• a continuing violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) in that the silence of the Turkish authorities in the face of the real concerns of the relatives attained a level of severity which could only be categorised as inhuman treatment.

• a continuing violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence) concerning the refusal to allow the return of any Greek-Cypriot displaced persons to their homes in northern Cyprus;

• a continuing violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) concerning the fact that Greek-Cypriot owners of property in northern Cyprus were being denied access to and control, use and enjoyment of their property as well as any compensation for the interference with their property rights;

• a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) concerning the failure to provide to Greek Cypriots not residing in northern Cyprus any remedies to contest interferences with their rights under Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

• a violation of Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) in respect of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus, concerning the effects of restrictions on freedom of movement which limited access to places of worship and participation in other aspects of religious life;

• a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) in respect of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus in so far as school-books destined for use in their primary school were subject to excessive measures of censorship;

• a continuing violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus in that their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions was not secured in case of their permanent departure from that territory and in that, in case of death, inheritance rights of relatives living in southern Cyprus were not recognised;

• a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (right to education) in respect of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus in so far as no appropriate secondary-school facilities were available to them;

• a violation of Article 3 in that the Greek Cypriots living in the Karpas area of northern Cyprus had been subjected to discrimination amounting to degrading treatment;

• a violation of Article 8 concerning the right of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus to respect for their private and family life and to respect for their home;

• a violation of Article 13 by reason of the absence, as a matter of practice, of remedies in respect of interferences by the authorities with the rights of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus under Articles 3, 8, 9 and 10 of the Convention and Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No. 1.

• a violation of Article 6 (right to a fair trial) on account of the legislative practice of authorising the trial of civilians by military courts.

The Court further held that there had been no violation concerning a number of complaints, including all those raised under: Article 4 (prohibition of slavery and forced labour), Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association), Articles 14 (prohibition of discrimination), Article 17 (prohibition of abuse of rights) and Article 18 (limitation on use of restrictions on rights) read in conjunction with all those provisions. As regards a number of other allegations, the Court held that it was not necessary to consider the issues raised.

The Court also decided, unanimously, that the question of the possible application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention was not ready for decision.

The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 22 November 1994. Having declared the application admissible on 28 June 1996, the Commission appointed Delegates who took evidence in respect of various matters raised by the application in Strasbourg (27-28 November 1997), Cyprus (21-24 February 1998) and London (22 April 1998). Having concluded that there was no basis on which a friendly settlement could be secured, the Commission, following an oral hearing, adopted a report on 4 June 1999 in which it established the facts and expressed an opinion as to whether the facts disclosed the alleged breaches by Turkey of its obligations under the Convention.

The case was referred to the Court by the Government of the Republic of Cyprus on 30 August 1999 and by the Commission on 11 September 1999. The panel of the Grand Chamber of the Court decided that the case should be examined by the Grand Chamber.

Judgment was given by the Grand Chamber of seventeen judges, composed as follows:

Luzius Wildhaber (Swiss), President,
Elisabeth Palm (Swedish),
Jean-Paul Costa (French),
Luigi Ferrari Bravo (Italian),
Lucius Caflisch (Swiss),
Willi Fuhrmann (Austrian),
Karel Jungwiert (Czech),
Marc Fischbach (Luxemburger),
Bo�tjan Zupan�i� (Slovenian),
Nina Vaji� (Croatian),
John Hedigan (Irish),
Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska (FYROMacedonia),
Tudor Pan��ru (Moldovan),
Egils Levits (Latvian),
Anatoly Kovler (Russian), judges,
Kutlu Tekin Fuad, ad hoc judge in respect of Turkey,
Silvio Marcus-Helmons, ad hoc judge in respect of Cyprus,

and also Michele de Salvia, Registrar.

As to Turkey�s denial of liability under the Convention for the allegations made against it, the Court held, by sixteen votes to one, that the facts complained of in the application fell within the "jurisdiction" of Turkey within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention and therefore entailed the respondent State�s responsibility under the Convention. In reaching this conclusion, the Court noted that such a finding was consistent with its earlier statements in its Loizidou v. Cyprus (merits) judgment [fn]. In that judgment, the Court had noted that Turkey exercised effective overall control of northern Cyprus through its military presence there, with the result that its responsibility under the Convention was engaged for the policies and actions of the "TRNC" authorities. In the instant case, the Court stressed that Turkey�s responsibility under the Convention could not be confined to the acts of its own soldiers and officials operating in northern Cyprus but was also engaged by virtue of the acts of the local administration ("the TRNC"), which survived by virtue of Turkish military and other support.

(a) Greek-Cypriot missing persons and their relatives

The Court further held, by sixteen votes to one, that there had been a continuing violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus in that their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions was not secured in case of their permanent departure from that territory and in that, in case of death, inheritance rights of relatives living in southern Cyprus were not recognised.

The Court also ruled, by sixteen votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus in so far as no appropriate secondary-school facilities were available to them.

In addition, the Court found, by sixteen votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 3 in that the Greek Cypriots living in the Karpas area of northern Cyprus had been subjected to discrimination amounting to degrading treatment. It observed in this connection that the Karpas Greek-Cypriot population was compelled to live in a situation of isolation and that its members were controlled and restricted in their movements and had no prospect of renewing or developing their community. For the Court, the conditions under which the population was condemned to live were debasing and violated the very notion of respect for the human dignity of its members. The discriminatory treatment attained a level of severity which amounted to degrading treatment.

The Court further held, by sixteen votes to one, that, from an overall standpoint, there had been a violation of Article 8 concerning the right of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus to respect for their private and family life and to respect for their home. In this connection the Court noted that the population concerned was subjected to serious restrictions on the exercise of these rights, including monitoring of its members� movements and contacts. The surveillance effected by the authorities even extended to the physical presence of State agents in the homes of Greek Cypriots on the occasion of social or other visits paid by third parties, including family members. Having regard to that conclusion, the Court found, unanimously, that it was not necessary to examine separately the applicant Government�s complaint under Article 8 concerning the effect of the respondent State�s alleged colonisation policy on the demographic and cultural environment of the Greek Cypriots� homes. The Court further found, unanimously, no violation of Article 8 concerning the right to respect for correspondence by reason of an alleged practice of interference with the right of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus to respect for their correspondence.

The Court found, by sixteen votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 13 by reason of the absence, as a matter of practice, of remedies in respect of interferences by the authorities with the rights of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus under Articles 3, 8, 9 and 10 of the Convention and Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No. 1. On the other hand, it held, by eleven votes to six, that no violation of Article 13 had been established by reason of the alleged absence of remedies in respect of interferences by private persons with the rights of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus under Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

The Court held, by sixteen votes to one, that no violation of Article 2 had been established by reason of an alleged practice of denying access to medical services to Greek Cypriots and Maronites living in northern Cyprus and, by the same margin, that there had been no violation of Article 5. Furthermore, by eleven votes to six, it held that no violation of Article 6 had been established in respect of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus by reason of an alleged practice of denying them a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal in the determination of their civil rights and obligations. The Court also held, unanimously, that no violation of Article 11 had been established by reason of an alleged practice of denying Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus the right to freedom of association and that no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 had been established by virtue of an alleged practice of failing to protect the property of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus against interferences by private persons.

The Court decided, unanimously, that it was not necessary to examine whether there had been a violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 3 in respect of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus, having regard to its finding under Article 3 and, by fourteen votes to three, that, having regard to the particular circumstances of this case, it was not necessary to for it to examine whether there had been a breach of Article 14 taken in conjunction with other relevant Articles.

(d) Right of displaced Greek Cypriots to hold elections

The Court held, unanimously, that it was not necessary to examine whether the facts disclosed a violation of the right of displaced Greek Cypriots to hold free elections, as guaranteed by Article 3 of Protocol No. 1.

(e) Rights of Turkish Cypriots, including members of Gypsy community, living in northern Cyprus

Under this heading, the Court, unanimously, declined jurisdiction to examine those aspects of the applicant Government�s complaints under Articles 6, 8, 10 and 11 in respect of political opponents of the regime in the "TRNC" as well as their complaints under Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of the Turkish-Cypriot Gypsy community, which were held by the Commission not to be within the scope of the case as declared admissible.

The Court found, by sixteen votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 6 on account of the legislative practice of authorising the trial of civilians by military courts.

The Court further held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Articles 3, 5, 8, 10 and 11 concerning the rights of Turkish Cypriot opponents of the regime in northern Cyprus by reason of an alleged administrative practice, including an alleged practice of failing to protect their rights under these Articles. By sixteen votes to one, the Court found no violation of Articles 3, 5, 8 and 14 concerning the rights of members of the Turkish-Cypriot Gypsy community by reason of an alleged administrative practice, including an alleged practice of failing to protect this group�s rights under these Articles.

It held, unanimously, that: no violation of Article 10 had been established by reason of an alleged practice of restricting the right of Turkish Cypriots living in northern Cyprus to receive information from the Greek-language press; no violation of Article 11 had been established by reason of an alleged practice of interference with the right to freedom of association or assembly of Turkish Cypriots living in northern Cyprus; no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 had been established by reason of an alleged administrative practice, including an alleged practice of failing to secure enjoyment of their possessions in southern Cyprus to Turkish Cypriots living in northern Cyprus.

By eleven votes to six, the Court found that no violation of Article 13 had been established by reason of an alleged practice of failing to secure effective remedies to Turkish Cypriots living in northern Cyprus.

(f) Alleged violations of Articles 1, 17, 18 and former Article 32 � 4

The Court held unanimously that it was not necessary to examine separately the applicant Government�s complaints under these Articles.

***

The Court�s judgments are accessible on its Internet site (http://www.echr.coe.int).

In typical Orthodox propagandist fashion, we are not told about the suffering of the other side. Furthermore, would any of this have ever happened if the Greeks did not fire the first shot? Instead, Michael Cacoyannis tries to paint the picture that the Turks acted brutally... but even he doesn?t offer much evidence that the Turks murdered the Greeks being held. Sure, this kind of life disruption and displacement of loved ones isn?t pretty, but if Michael Cacoyannis wanted to point the finger at a guilty party, how dare he fully not lay the blame where it squarely belongs?

- having regard to its previous resolutions on the situation in Cyprus and to its resolution of 12 July 1995 on Cyprus' application for membership of the European Union,

A. deeply shocked by the killings that took place in August
   during a peaceful demonstration for the reunification of the
   island, where two Greek Cypriots were killed and several
   wounded, including two UN peacekeepers, by the security forces
   of the Turkish-occupied part of Cyprus,

B. having regard to the so-called counter-demonstrations
   organised by the Turkish authorities with the active
   involvement and participation of elements belonging to the
   Turkish armed forces and the illegal occupying powers,

C. whereas a large contingent of extremist Turkish "Grey Wolves".
   armed with crowbars and spiked clubs, has been brought from
   Turkey in order to instigate a violent escalation of the so-
   called counter-demonstrations, thereby creating the false
   impression that peaceful coexistence  between Greek and
   Turkish Cypriots is impossible,

D. whereas, according to a statement by the Cypriot Government, a
   member of the Denktash regime has been identified as being
   apparently involved in the assassination of the Greek Cypriot
   Solomos Solomou,

E. whereas these tragic events have been denounced
   internationally and condemned by all governments and
   international organisations,

F. having regard to the urgent need for a fair and viable
   solution, based on international law and the UN resolutions on
   Cyprus, and in accordance with established Community Law,

1. Condemns the murders of the two young Greek Cypriots by the
   Turkish Army of occupation and members of the unlawful
   Denktash regime, and expresses its support for the families of
   the two victims,

2. Expresses deep concern at the indiscriminate use of violence
   by the Turkish occupying forces;

3. Condemns the fact that members of the Turkish extremist
   organisation "Grey Wolves" were brought from Turkey to Cyprus
   so that they could enter into conflict with unarmed
   demonstrators and takes the view that this policy is
   endangering peace and security in Cyprus;

4. Calls on Turkey to cooperate by taking all necessary measures
   to identify, arrest and bring to justice all those implicated
   in the murders and the decision to fire on unarmed civilians;

5. Calls on the United Nations to cooperage in seeking those
   responsible for these crimes;

6. Calls on the Council and Commission, as a matter of urgency,
   to intensify their joint action and joint endeavours to
   resolve the Cyprus problem in accordance with paragraph 19 of
   its abovementioned resolution;

7. Welcomes the decision of the Irish Presidency to maintain a
   special EU representative for the Cyprus problem; asks, in
   this respect, the Council to make every effort to coordinate
   the initiatives of the UN, British and US representatives in a
   joint and more effective action and invites the representative
   of the Council Presidency for Cyprus, Ambassador Kester
   Heaslip, to report also to Parliament on his visits to the
   region during the summer;

8. Supports the proposal of the Cyprus government for the
   demilitarisation of the island and asks Turkey to withdraw its
   occupation forces and abide by the UN resolutions on Cyprus;

9. Appeals to the government of Cyprus and the leadership of the
   Turkish-Cypriot community to continue to look for a peaceful
   and just solution to the Cyprus problem, along the lines of
   relevant UN Security Council resolutions;

10. Deplores the numerous incidents in the neutral zone which
    have caused several victims along both sides of the
    demarcation line;

11. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the
    Council, the Commission, the governments of the Member States
    and the governments and parliaments of Cyprus and Turkey and
    the united Nations.

The legality of Turkey?s action was upheld even by the Athens Court of Appeal in March 21, 1979. Unlike Michael Cacoyannis, this court lay the blame where it belonged: ?The true guilty ones were the Greek Officers, who organised the coup and thereby created the conditions for an intervention."

And to currently end,the conflict between the 2 communities was provoked mainly by the British empire.

Turkey changed the Cyprus villages names? Well, you should call it "renaming", because these villages arent born neither Greek or Turkish. Greeks had some villages, Turks had some villages, and in most of the villages they lived together in peace until some hateful Greek comitted mass human murderings. So Dont wait the Turkish villagers call it "....okopulis" because Greeks called the same village that way.

Also, I couldnt understand your point when you wrote some city names like "Malatya", because their names are neither Greek nor Turkish originated. Byzanthines called these cities with their Greek names, and now Turks are calling these cities with their Turkish names.

The UN and EU resolutions arent non-sided proofs. If you really respect to UN resolutions, you can show it by "accepting UN solutions of Annan". Turkish Cypriots showed it bravely with their votes.

All you wrote about is a bunch of non-sense recources from European and Greek sites. Turkey has the right to keep its soldiers in Cyprus, in order to protect Turkish civilians human rights, until their lives are garantied, and Greek threat is finished.

How can you believe that Turkey could only divided Cyprus to own a valuable and strategic point in Eastern Medetarrinnean? Would the huge world powers like US, Russia, and Europe let an economically and politically more inferior country like Turkey to commit it? No. Do yu know why couldnt they use any ambargo, sanction or military power on Turkey? Because they knew how Turkish Cypriots were massacred by Makarios reggime, and they also knew that they couldnt stop Turkey from protecting its own nation.

Did You Know ...

That Cyprus is only 40 miles from the southern coast of Turkey, but 600 miles from mainland Greece?

That Turkish Cypriots have lived in Cyprus for over 400 years?

That Cyprus was never a "Hellenic island," but was in fact a Turkish island for nearly 350 years up until 1914?

That Cyprus became an independent state in 1960, under a Constitution that provided for a bi-communal government with shared and equal political status for both the Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots?

That the parties in Cyprus and the governments of the United Kingdom, Greece, and Turkey ratified a Treaty of Guarantee in 1960 that also provided for the security of Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriots?

That the conflict in Cyprus began in 1963, when the then-president of the republic, Archbishop Makarios III launched an all-out attack on the Turkish Cypriot population, unilaterally dismissed all Turkish Cypriot officials from the government and declared the constitution "dead and buried".

That the inter-communal violence in Cyprus was a veritable ethnic-cleansing campaign and was directed against the Turkish Cypriot community, forcing Turkish Cypriots into ghetto-like enclaves on 3% of the island?

That the violence in Cyprus prompted the introduction of a United Nations peacekeeping force (UNFICYP) in March 1964, which is still in place?

That the U.S. special envoy during the 1963-64 Cypriot crisis, Under Secretary of State George W. Ball, stated in his memoirs that "Makarios' central interest was to block off Turkish intervention so that he and his Greek Cypriots could go on ... massacring Turkish Cypriots"?

That the present division of Cyprus has its origins in that violence culminating in the coup d'etat against Archbishop Makarios and his government on July 15, 1974, which was carried out with the active support of the then-government in Greece?

That entire Turkish Cypriot villages were razed and their inhabitants slaughtered by Greek Cypriots in the days following the coup d'etat?

That, under the Treaty of Guarantee of 1960, these developments required collective or individual intervention by the governments of the United Kingdom, Greece, and Turkey?

That Turkey addressed the issue of intervention with the United Kingdom, but when the U.K. did not take action Turkey was compelled to intervene on its own, on July 20, 1974, to stop the bloodshed and provide for the safety of Turkish Cypriots?

That Turkey's decision to intervene in Cyprus, under Article IV of the Treaty of Guarantee of 1960, was endorsed by a resolution #573 adopted on July 29, 1974 by the Council of Europe's Standing Committee of the Consultative Assembly?

That an "Exchange of Populations Agreement," providing for the voluntary relocation of population groups, was concluded by the official representatives of the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot sides (Messrs. Denkta_ and Clerides) on August 2, 1975, and was implemented by UNFICYP?

That the Turkish intervention in Cyprus effectively ended the ethnic-cleansing and inter-communal violence which, between December 1963 and July 1974, had taken the lives of thousands of Turkish Cypriots?

That the Turkish Cypriot people desire only a new partnership and equal political status between the two sides?

That, despite Greek Cypriot allegations of "intransigence," it is the Turkish Cypriot side that has initiated, accepted, or supported numerous initiatives for a settlement --- in 1972, 1977, 1979, 1985-86, 1992, 1993-94, and at this very moment?

That the parties in Cyprus came close to a settlement in 1992, through the "set of ideas" proposed by the then United Nations Secretary-General, which were in major part approved by the Turkish Cypriots but ultimately rejected by the Greek Cypriots once their membership bid for the European Union began moving forward?

That, 39 years after its Constitutionally-guaranteed political status was unilaterally and illegally revoked, the Turkish Cypriots still suffer under unjust discrimination, in the form of an all-out economic, political and cultural embargo?

That confidence is undermined and progress toward a settlement in Cyprus is compromised by the determination to make Cyprus a Greek-dominated island, by the continuing embargo of Turkish Cypriots, and by threats from Athens to block the European Union enlargement process if "Cyprus" is not admitted?
A Quotation to Ponder
"Both before and after the events of December 1963, the Makarios government continued to advocate the cause of ENOSIS [political union with Greece] and actively pursued the amendment of the Constitution and the related treaties to facilitate this ultimate objective...There is little doubt that much of the violence which the Turkish Cypriots claim led to the total or partial destruction of 103 Turkish villages and the displacement of about a quarter of the total Turkish Cypriot population was either directly inspired or certainly connived at by the Greek Cypriot leadership."

Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, British House of Commons
Unanimous report, June 2, 1987