LOIZIDOU v.

TURKEY

FACTS: Titina Loizidou (applicant) grew up in Kyrenia in Northern Cyprus. She is a Cypriot
national, and a Cypriot citizen. She married and moved to Nicosia with husband. Loizidou
claims that she is the legal owner of plots of land nos. 4609, 4610, 4618, 4619, 4748, 4884, 5002,
5004, 5386 and 5390 in Kyrenia, and she claims when the Turkish army occupied the Northern
Cyprus she has been prevented and also is still prevented by Turkish forces to gain access her
properties.

Thereafter, Loizidou joined a march which organized by a group of Greek Cypriot women under
the name of “Women Walk Home” movement in the village of Lymbia (village near the Turkish
village of Akincial, the place which is the occupied area of Northern Cyprus). The action is a
claim to the legal rights of the citizens (who has dismissed from their lands) to come back to
their homelands. The plan is to cross the neutral zone and the Turkish borders. When the group
members reached the determined area uphill, they were held by Turkish soldiers and did not let
them move further. Some of the group members, including Loizidou were arrested by Turkish
Cypriot policemen, and brought to Nicosia. After having been detained for more than ten hours,
she was released to the United Nation (UN) officials and returned to the Greek Cypriot territory.

SECGEN of UN: Described demonstration as considerable tension occurred over the well-
publicized plans of Greek Cypriot women’s group to organize large demonstration with intention
of crossing Turkish forces cease-fire line. Accordingly, UNFICYP asked the Government to take
effective action to prevent any demonstrators from entering the buffer-zone, bearing in mind that
such entry would lead to a situation that might be difficult to control.

Turkish Military Presence in Northern Cyprus:

Turkish armed forces of more than 30,000 personnel are stationed throughout the whole of the
occupied area of Northern Cyprus. The Turkish forces and all civilians entering military areas
are subject to Turkish military courts.

Article 159 (1) (b) of the "TRNC" Constitution: "All immovable properties, buildings and
installations which were found abandoned on 13 February 1975 when the Turkish Federated
State of Cyprus was proclaimed or which were considered by law as abandoned or ownerless
after the above-mentioned date, or which should have been in the possession or control of the
public even though their ownership had not yet been determined ... and ... situated within the
boundaries of the TRNC on 15 November 1983, shall be the property of the TRNC
notwithstanding the fact that they are not so registered in the books of the Land Registry Office;
and the Land Registry Office shall be amended accordingly."

The international response to the establishment of the "TRNC"

United Nations Security Council: Considers the declaration ... as legally invalid and calls for its
withdrawal; Condemns all secessionist actions, including the purported exchange of
ambassadors between Turkey and the Turkish Cypriot leadership, declares them illegal and
invalid and calls for their immediate withdrawal;
Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe: continued to regard the Government of the
Republic of Cyprus as the sole legitimate Government of Cyprus and called for the respect of the
sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and unity of the Republic of Cyprus
Commonwealth Heads of Government: condemned the declaration by the Turkish Cypriot
authorities

Turkish Minister for Foreign Affairs deposited the following declaration with the Secretary
General of the Council of Europe: The Government of the Republic of Turkey acting in
accordance with Article 46 (art. 46) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, hereby recognises as compulsory ipso facto and without
special agreement the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights in all matters
concerning the interpretation and application of the Convention which relate to the exercise of
jurisdiction within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention (art. 1), performed within the
boundaries of the national territory of the Republic of Turkey, and provided further that such
matters have previously been examined by the Commission within the power conferred upon it
by Turkey.

This declaration was renewed for three years in substantially same terms.

Loizidou lodged her application complained that her arrest and detention; She further
complained that the refusal of access to her property constituted a continuing violation.
Commission declared the applicant’s complaints admissible in so far as they raised issues under
Articles 3, 5 and 8 (art. 3, art. 5, art. 8) in respect of her arrest and detention and Article 8 and
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (art. 8, P1-1) concerning continuing violations of her right of access
to property alleged to have occurred subsequent to 29 January 1987. Her complaint under the
latter two provisions (art. 8, P1-1) of a continuing violation of her property rights before 29
January 1987 was declared inadmissible.

FINAL SUBMISSIONS TO COURT

APPLICANT
1. that the respondent State is responsible for the continuing violations of Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1 (P1-1);
2. that the respondent State is responsible for the continuing violations of Article 8 (art. 8);
3. that the respondent State is under a duty to provide just satisfaction in accordance with the
provisions of Article 50 of the Convention (art. 50); and
4. that the respondent State is under a duty to permit the applicant to exercise her rights, in
accordance with the findings of violations of the Protocol and Convention, freely in the future.
CYPRIOT GOVERNMENT
1. the Court has jurisdiction ratione temporis to deal with the applicant’s case because Turkey’s
declaration under Article 46 of the Convention (art. 46) did not clearly exclude competence in
respect of violations examined by the Commission after the Turkish declaration of 22 January
1990. Turkey is thus liable for the continuing violations complained of by the applicant in the
period since 28 January 1987;
2. in any event Turkey is liable for those violations continuing in the period since 22 January
1990 and which have been examined by the Commission;
3. there is a permanent state of affairs, still continuing, in the Turkish-occupied area, which is in
violation of the applicant’s rights under Article 8 of the Convention (art. 8) and Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 (P1-1)

TURKISH GOVERNMENT:
1. the applicant was irreversibly deprived of her property situated in northern Cyprus by an act of
the "Government of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus", on 7 May 1985, at the latest;
2. the act referred to under (1) above does not constitute an act of "jurisdiction" by Turkey within
the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention (art. 1);
3. Turkey has not violated the rights of the applicant under Article 8 of the Convention (art. 8).

The applicant and the Cypriot Government maintained that ever since the Turkish occupation of
northern Cyprus the applicant had been denied access to her property and had, consequently, lost
all control over it. In their submission this constituted a continued and unjustified interference
with her right to the peaceful enjoyment of property

The wording of the Article 46 declaration

the Cypriot Government submitted that Turkey’s Article 46 (art. 46) declaration was
ambiguously worded. The absence of a comma in the final sentence after the word "facts", where
it occurs for the second time, made it unclear whether the words "which have occurred
subsequent to the date of deposit" qualified "facts" (when first used) or "judgments"

The Court sees no merit in this argument. In its view the reading of the present text in the manner
contended by the Cypriot Government would render the last sentence of the declaration almost
unintelligible. It considers that the intention of the Turkish Government to exclude from the
Court’s jurisdiction all matters raised in respect of facts which occurred prior to the date of
deposit of the Article 46 (art. 46) declaration is sufficiently evident from the words used in the
last sentence and can be reasonably inferred from them.

Futher arguments:
The Turkish Government, for their part, contended that the process of the "taking" of property in
northern Cyprus started in 1974 and ripened into an irreversible expropriation by virtue of
Article 159 (1) (b) of the "TRNC" Constitution

The applicant contended that the continuous denial of access to her property in northern Cyprus
and the ensuing loss of all control over it are imputable to the Turkish Government and constitute
a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1): she contents her entiltle ment to peaceful
enjoument of possiessions and no one shall be deprived ot it except if public interest requires.

1. The Imputabiliy Issue

The applicant insisted that the present case was exceptional in that the authorities alleged to have
interfered with the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions are not those of the sole
legitimate Government of the territory in which the property is situated. According to
international law, in the applicant’s submission, the State which is recognised as accountable in
respect of a particular territory remained accountable even if the territory is administered by a
local administration. Mrs Loizidou maintained that the creation of the "TRNC" was legally
invalid and no State, except Turkey, or international organisation has recognised it. According to
the Cypriot Government, Turkey is in effective military and political control of northern Cyprus.
It cannot escape from its duties under international law by pretending to hand over the
administration of northern Cyprus to an unlawful "puppet" regime.

the Court recalls in the first place that in its above-mentioned Loizidou judgment, it stressed that
under its established case-law the concept of "jurisdiction" under Article 1 of the Convention
(art. 1) is not restricted to the national territory of the Contracting States. Accordingly, the
responsibility of Contracting States can be involved by acts and omissions of their authorities
which produce effects outside their own territory. the responsibility of a Contracting Party could
also arise when as a consequence of military action - whether lawful or unlawful - it exercises
effective control of an area outside its national territory. The obligation to secure, in such an
area, the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention, derives from the fact of such control
whether it be exercised directly, through its armed forces, or through a subordinate local
administration

However, throughout the proceedings the Turkish Government have denied State responsibility
for the matters complained of, maintaining that its armed forces are acting exclusively in
conjunction with and on behalf of the allegedly independent and autonomous "TRNC"
authorities.

The Commission found that the applicant has been and continues to be denied access to the
northern part of Cyprus as a result of the presence of Turkish forces in Cyprus which exercise an
overall control in the border area. Turkey actually exercises detailed control over the policies and
actions of the authorities of the "TRNC". It is obvious from the large number of troops engaged
in active duties in northern Cyprus that her army exercises effective overall control over that part
of the island. It suffices to recall in this context its finding that the international community
considers that the Republic of Cyprus is the sole legitimate Government of the island and has
consistently refused to accept the legitimacy of the "TRNC" as a State within the meaning of
international law. It follows from the above considerations that the continuous denial of the
applicant’s access to her property in northern Cyprus and the ensuing loss of all control over the
property is a matter which falls within Turkey’s "jurisdiction" within the meaning of Article 1
(art. 1) and is thus imputable to Turkey.

SUMMARY OF SUMMARY: Turkey daw may kasalanan kasi sila yung may constitution na
nanakop and nag take over ng land ng Cypriot Government. And in acknowledge naman nila ang
pangunguha ng mga lupain. YOU ALSO NEED TO RECITE THE CONSIDETASTION OF
INTERNATIONAL BODIES. Kasi di nila tinanggap ang declaration ng pananakop and illegal
void na stated above. Hence, yung deniel nga sa propery, nagresult sa pagkawala ng control ng
petitioner. Ang dapat daw sisihin ay si Turkey hahaha! Sila may jurisdiction dahil sa acts nila
kahit hindi sa Turkey ang land.

2. Interference with Property Rights (Nandito yung refugees)

The applicant and the Cypriot Government emphasised that, contrary to the Commission’s
interpretation, the complaint is not limited to access to property but is much wider and concerns
a factual situation: because of the continuous denial of access the applicant had effectively lost
all control over, as well as all possibilities to use, to sell, to bequeath, to mortgage, to develop
and to enjoy her land. This situation, they contended, could be assimilated to a de facto
expropriation within the meaning of the Court’s case-law. They denied that there had been a
formal expropriation, but added that if and in so far as there had been attempts at formal
expropriation the relevant enactments should be disregarded as being incompatible with
international law.

For the Turkish Government and the Commission the case only concerns access to property, and
the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions does not include as a corollary a right to
freedom of movement.

The Court first observes from the Commission’s decision on admissibility that the applicant’s
complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) was not limited to the question of physical
access to her property. Her complaint, as set out in the application form to the Commission, was
that Turkey, by refusing her access to property "has gradually, over the last sixteen years,
affected the right of the applicant as a property owner and in particular her right to a peaceful
enjoyment of her possessions, thus constituting a continuing violation of Article 1 (P1-1)"

However, as a consequence of the fact that the applicant has been refused access to the land since
1974, she has effectively lost all control over, as well as all possibilities to use and enjoy, her
property. The continuous denial of access must therefore be regarded as an interference
with her rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).

Such an interference cannot, in the exceptional circumstances of the present case to which the
applicant and the Cypriot Government have referred be regarded as either a deprivation of
property or a control of use within the meaning of the first and second paragraphs of Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 (P1-1-1, P1-1-2). However, it clearly falls within the meaning of the first sentence
of that provision (P1-1) as an interference with the peaceful enjoyment of possessions. In this
respect the Court observes that hindrance can amount to a violation of the Convention just like a
legal impediment.

Apart from a passing reference to the doctrine of necessity as a justification for the acts of the
"TRNC" and to the fact that property rights were the subject of intercommunal talks, the
Turkish Government have not sought to make submissions justifying the above
interference with the applicant’s property rights which is imputable to Turkey.

It has not, however, been explained how the need to rehouse displaced Turkish Cypriot
refugees in the years following the Turkish intervention in the island in 1974 could justify
the complete negation of the applicant’s property rights in the form of a total and
continuous denial of access and a purported expropriation without compensation.

SUMMARY OF SUMMARY: Hindi daw po well explained ng Turkey yung pag take over or
parang pananakop nung lands. Walang justification. Pero hindi talaga well tackled ang refuge sa
case na itu.  So idaan nalang sa feelings bakit sila nagging refugee, kasi nga umalis sila dun
saplace dahil sa ginagawa ng Turkey. Diba nike-claim na kasi nila yung land nila. This is the
reason siguro bakit kakaiba yung case na ito and binigyan ng importance. Pero di masyadong
matter yung Refugeeness Huhu.

Nor can the fact that property rights were the subject of intercommunal talks involving
both communities in Cyprus provide a justification for this situation under the Convention.
In such circumstances, the Court concludes that there has been and continues to be a
breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).

AS TO VIOLATON OF ARTICLE 8 ON CONVENTION: The applicant also alleged an

unjustified interference with the right to respect for her home.

In this respect she underlined that she had grown up in Kyrenia. However, she had planned to
live in one of the flats whose construction had begun at the time of the Turkish occupation of
northern Cyprus in 1974.
The Court observes that the applicant did not have her home on the land in question. In its
opinion it would strain the meaning of the notion "home" in Article 8 (art. 8) to extend it to
comprise property on which it is planned to build a house for residential purposes.

AS TO DAMAGES:
In her memorial the applicant outlined the following claims under this head: (a) compensation
for pecuniary damage - loss of income from the land since January 1987: 531,900 Cyprus
pounds; (b) compensation for non-pecuniary damage - punitive damages to the same amount as
claimed for pecuniary damage; (c) to be allowed to exercise her rights under Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) freely in the future; and (d) a non-specified amount in respect of costs and
expenses.

In their memorial the Turkish Government have not commented on the issues thus raised.
Neither have these issues been discussed by those appearing before the Court at its hearing on
the merits.

Under these circumstances the Court, taking into account the exceptional nature of the case,
considers that the question of the application of Article 50 (art. 50) is not ready for decision. The
question must accordingly be reserved and the further procedure fixed with due regard to the
possibility of agreement being reached between the Turkish Government and the applicant.