CASE OF JOANNOU v. TURKEY

Conclusions
Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria
(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies
Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – Protection of property (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – Positive obligations
Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 – Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)
Pecuniary damage – claim dismissed (Article 41 – Pecuniary damage
Just satisfaction)
Non-pecuniary damage – award (Article 41 – Non-pecuniary damage
Just satisfaction)

SECOND SECTION

CASE OF JOANNOU v. TURKEY

(Application no. 53240/14)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

12 December 2017

This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 ? 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Joannou v. Turkey,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Robert Spano, President,
Julia Laffranque,
Ledi Bianku,
I??l Karaka?,
Paul Lemmens,
Valeriu Gri?co,
Jon Fridrik Kj?lbro, judges,
and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 14 November 2017,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 53240/14) against the Republic of Turkey lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (?the Convention?) by a British and Cypriot national, OMISSIS (?the applicant?), on 28 October 2014.
2. The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by OMISSIS, a lawyer practising in Nicosia. The Turkish Government (?the Government?) were represented by their Agent.
3. The applicant alleged, in particular, a lack of effectiveness of the proceedings she had instituted before the Immovable Property Commission (?IPC) seeking compensation in respect of real property located in the ?Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus? (the ?TRNC?). She relied on Articles 6, 13 and 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
4. On 19 November 2015 the above complaint was communicated to the Government and the remainder of the application was declared inadmissible pursuant to Rule 54 ? 3 of the Rules of Court.
5. The British Government and the Cypriot Government were informed of the proceedings. The British Government did not avail themselves of the right to intervene in the proceedings under Article 36 ? 1 of the Convention and Rule 44 ? 1 (b) of the Rules of Court. In a letter of 28 January 2016 the Cypriot Government indicated that they wished to exercise their right to intervene in the proceedings in accordance with Article 36 ? 1 of the Convention and Rule 44 ? 1 (b). However, at a later stage of the proceedings, in a letter of 21 October 2016, the Cypriot Government informed the Court that they had decided not to submit any written comments in the procedure.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
6. The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Enfield (United Kingdom).
A. Background to the case
7. The complaints raised in this application arise out of the Turkish military intervention in northern Cyprus in July and August 1974. The general context of the property issues arising in this connection is set out in the cases of Cyprus v. Turkey ([GC], no. 25781/94, ?? 13-16 and 28-33, ECHR 2001 IV), and Demopoulos and Others v. Turkey (dec.) ([GC], nos. 46113/99 and 7 others, ?? 4-16, ECHR 2010).
8. In 1997 the applicant was gifted five plots of land, or shares in them, by her aunt, who died in 1998. In 2008 she was also gifted an additional share of one of the plots of land by her mother. According to the certificates of ownership provided by the Department of Lands and Surveys of the Republic of Cyprus, the applicant is the sole owner of four plots of land and owns a 9/16 share of the fifth plot.
9. The land lies in the village Koma Tou Yialou (Kumyali) in the ?TRNC?. The total area of the land is some 18 d?n?m.
10. In 2007 the applicant instructed a law firm in Nicosia, which duly obtained a valuation report on the land from a Turkish Cypriot chartered surveyor. The valuation report of 3 December 2007 assessed each of the five plots of land and provided valuations for them, which ranged from 500 pounds sterling (GBP) per d?n?m to GBP 10,000 per d?n?m.
11. In October 2011 the applicant obtained a further valuation report by a chartered surveyor from the Republic of Cyprus. This report valued the five plots of land, including the economic loss and interest (all calculated for the period between 1974 and 2011), at 2,690,962 euros (EUR) in total.
12. In February 2017 the applicant obtained a new valuation report from the Land Registration Office of the Republic of Cyprus which assessed the value of the property in question, including economic loss and interest accrued since 1997 (when the applicant became owner of the property) to December 2016, at EUR 2,088,366 in total.
B. The proceedings before the IPC
13. In May 2008 the applicant, through her Turkish Cypriot representatives, filed a claim with the IPC under Law no. 67/2005 (see paragraphs 41-43 below) ? supported by an affidavit ? claiming restitution of her property and/or compensation at the property?s current market value and damages for loss of use of the land in question. The total compensation sought was GBP 100,000 per d?n?m (GBP 1,800,000 or approximately EUR 2,285,000).
14. In her affidavit the applicant attested that the property in question had been transferred to her after 1974 by her aunt, who had owned it since before 1974. The affidavit also attested that there were no mortgages, liabilities or restrictions on the property in question, that the applicant lived in South Cyprus in a house owned by a Turkish Cypriot, and that she was paying rent to the Republic of Cyprus. The file also contained the applicant?s identity documents (British passport and Cypriot identity card), certificates from the Republic of Cyprus Land Registry and Surveys Department concerning the ownership and legal status of the applicant?s plots of land (indicating no mortgages, liabilities or other restrictions), and a document issued by the relevant Cypriot authority showing that the applicant lived in a house owned by a Turkish Cypriot and had been billed 270 Cypriot pounds (CYP) by way of rent for the period 1 April 2003 to 30 June 2004.
15. The applicant?s claim was communicated to the ?TRNC? Attorney General as provided under Law no. 67/2005 and the relevant IPC Rules (see paragraph 43 below).
16. On 5 May 2010, the Attorney General?s Office submitted an opinion to the IPC in reply to the applicant?s claim. It relied on an affidavit by the ?TRNC? Director of the Land Registry and Surveys Department, who explained that their records showed that one of the registered owners of the property in question was Chrystollou Nicola Stavrinou (the applicant?s aunt), that Maria Nicola Stavrinou (the applicant?s mother) was the owner of part of one of the plots of land, and that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that she was the legal heir of the two registered owners. He also considered that the applicant?s compensation claim was excessive and unfounded.
17. A directions hearing before the IPC took place on 25 May 2010. The applicant?s representative stated that they had received the Attorney General?s opinion only on the day of the hearing and thus asked for an adjournment in order to prepare their case. The Attorney General?s representative did not object and the hearing was adjourned until 1 June 2010.
18. At a directions hearing on 1 June 2010 the applicant?s representative undertook to obtain a valuation report and a document showing that the plots of land had been transferred to the applicant by way of donation. The Attorney General?s representative requested that documents showing that the applicant was the legal heir of Chriystolleuo Nicola Stavrou [sic.] should be provided, as well as proof of the amount of rent she was paying for the Turkish Cypriot house where she lived in the South, or alternatively the lease agreement by which the house had been allocated to her. The Attorney General?s representative also undertook to submit a search document from the ?TRNC? Land Registry and Surveys Department, and indicated that he reserved his right to submit and request further documents. The hearing was adjourned so that the parties could obtain the relevant documents.
19. On 3 June 2010 the Attorney General submitted the search document of the ?TRNC? Land Registry and Surveys Department relating to the plots included in the applicant?s claim.
20. On 6 June 2012, through her representative, the applicant asked permission to amend her initial claim. She submitted that she had in the meantime become the sole owner of the plot of which she had previously owned a 5/6 share and that in October 2011 she had obtained a valuation report indicating that the value of her properties was EUR 2,690,962 (see paragraph 8 above).
21. At a preliminary hearing on 18 June 2012, after the Attorney General?s representative stated that he had no objections with regard to the amendment of the applicant?s claim; the President of the IPC accepted the amendment and instructed the applicant to submit her amended claim and the Attorney General?s Office to submit an opinion in that regard.
22. On 6 July 2012 the applicant complied with the order and amended her claim, seeking compensation in accordance with the new findings and developments concerning her property title.
23. On 20 November 2012 the applicant submitted the documents requested by the Attorney General?s representative on 1 June 2010 (see paragraph 18 above). In particular, the applicant submitted certificates issued by the head of the local community (mukhtar) explaining that there were inconsistencies in the spelling of the applicant?s aunt?s name in different documents. The mukhtar explained that the latter had held Cypriot identity document no. 327090 and had been variously known as: Christallou Nikola Stavrinou, Chriystallou Nicola Stavrinon, Christallou Nicola Stavrinou, Christalla Nikola and Chrystallou Nicola, but these were one and the same person. The mukhtar further certified that she had never married and that before her death she had gifted her immovable property to her sister?s daughter, the applicant (Andriani Ioannou, holder of a Cypriot identity card). In support of the mukhtar?s certificates, the applicant submitted her aunt?s identity documents (including a Cypriot identity document). The applicant also submitted documents showing the transfer of title from her aunt to her in respect of the plots of land in question. She also submitted documents showing that she had been allocated a Turkish Cypriot house in the South and had paid CYP 342 by way of rent for the period 1 June 2000 to 31 December 2001 and CYP 270 for the period 1 April 2003 to 30 June 2004.
24. A preliminary hearing before the IPC scheduled for 10 January 2013 was adjourned due to the absence of the Attorney General?s representative, who could not attend the hearing for family reasons.
25. At a preliminary hearing on 25 January 2013 the ?TRNC? authorities were represented by the Attorney General?s representative and the under secretary of the Housing Affairs Department. They asked the applicant to submit the birth certificates of her aunt and her mother and a title deed for the property which she now owned in its entirety. The hearing was adjourned to enable the applicant to obtain the documents in question.
26. On 19 February 2013 the applicant submitted the requested documents, which also included documents confirming that her aunt had never been married.
27. At a preliminary hearing on 25 April 2013 the ?TRNC? representatives asked the applicant to submit certificates from the mukhtar showing that the names Andriani Joannou, Andriani Ioannou and Andriani Georgiou Antoniou all referred to the applicant, and further certificates showing that her aunt had been variously known as Chrystollou Nicola Stavrinou, Chrystolleuo Nicola Stavriou, Chrystolleui Nicolou Stavriou, Nikola Hristallu (Nicola Hrystallou), Hristalla Nicola and Hrystallou Nicola (Nikola), and that her mother had been variously known as Maria Nicola Stavrinou, Maria Stavrinou, Maria Georgiou and Maria Georgios, and that their antecedent Nikolas Stavrinou (Nicolas Stavrinou), had also been known as Nicola Stavrinou and Nicola Stavrinu. The hearing was adjourned to permit the applicant to obtain the requested documents.
28. On 9 May 2013 the applicant submitted certificates from the mukhtar showing that the aforementioned different names referred to the same individuals, namely the applicant, her mother, her aunt and their antecedent, respectively. The mukhtar?s certificates also identified these individuals on the basis of their identity card numbers. A certificate dated 8 May 2013 indicated that the applicant?s mother was variously known as Maria Nicola (Nicolas, Nikola, Nikolas) Stavrinou and her aunt as Chrystolleui Nicolou Stavriou.
29. At a preliminary hearing on 24 October 2013, at which the applicant was also present, the ?TRNC? representatives argued that the mukhtar?s certificates were incomplete and that the names Maria Nicola (Nicolas, Nikola, Nikolas) Stavrinou, for the applicant?s mother, and Chrystolleui Nicolou Stavriou, for the applicant?s aunt, should be added. The representative further argued that an official document should be submitted showing that the applicant?s aunt had not married and did not have any other heirs. He also requested a document showing that there were no liabilities attaching to the property in question. Upon production of these documents, the Attorney General?s representative would be prepared to settle the case by paying GBP 60,000 to the applicant.
30. In reply, the applicant?s representative stated that they would obtain the requested documents. However, he pointed out that they had already produced documents showing that the applicant?s aunt had never married and this was anyway apparent from the fact that she had never changed her last name. The applicant?s representative also pointed out that the applicant?s aunt had transferred the property in question to the applicant while she was still alive. He asked for an adjournment in order to consider the Attorney General?s settlement offer.
31. On 16 January 2014 the applicant?s representative asked that a hearing be held before the IPC.
32. A further examination of the case before the IPC took place on 1 March 2016. The President and members of the IPC questioned the applicant?s representative with regard to the instructions he had received from the applicant concerning the case. As the applicant was not present and could not be reached at that time to give clear instructions concerning the case, the hearing was adjourned.
33. On 9 March 2016 the applicant?s Turkish Cypriot representatives informed her representative in the Republic of Cyprus that the fact that an application had been lodged with the Court had caused them upset. They also stated that they would not represent the applicant in further proceedings.
34. A hearing before the IPC was held on 28 June 2016. The applicant?s Turkish Cypriot representative explained that she had informed the applicant of her wish to withdraw from the case. However, she was unable to provide an official document to that effect and the hearing was therefore adjourned in order for the representative to complete the formalities for withdrawal.
35. On 19 August 2016 the applicant took over the files from her Turkish Cypriot representatives.
36. At a hearing on 28 September 2016 the IPC accepted the applicant?s Turkish Cypriot representatives? withdrawal from the case and decided that the applicant should be contacted directly during the future course of the proceedings. Another hearing was scheduled for 12 October 2016.
37. On 15 October 2016 the applicant informed the IPC that she had not received the summons to the hearing of 12 October 2016 until 13 October 2016.
38. A further meeting for the examination of the case, at which the applicant was personally present, was held on 2 March 2017. The ?TRNC? representatives argued that the applicant should provide further documents showing the exact dates of birth of her mother and her aunt as well as the respective death certificates. Furthermore, they argued that the applicant could not be considered to be a legal heir of her aunt for the purpose of Law no. 67/2005 as she had obtained the property at issue from her aunt while the latter was still alive. The applicant contended that these arguments were being raised for the first time now and she therefore asked for a formal hearing to be opened in her case. The President of the IPC instructed the applicant that the opinions expressed by the ?TRNC? representatives did not represent the official position of the IPC and that the matter would be decided after the examination of all the circumstances of the case. The proceedings before the IPC are still pending.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
A. Relevant domestic law
1. Constitution of the ?TRNC? of 7 May 1985
39. Article 159 ? 1 (b) and (c), in so far as relevant, provide as follows:
?(b) 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 (c) … 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.?
40. Article 159 ? 4 reads as follows:
?In the event of any person coming forward and claiming legitimate rights in connection with the immovable properties included in sub-paragraphs (b) and (c) of ? 1 above [concerning, inter alia, all immovable properties, buildings and installations which were found abandoned on 13 February 1975], the necessary procedure and conditions to be complied with by such persons for proving their rights and the basis on which compensation shall be paid to them, shall be regulated by law.?
2. Law for the compensation, exchange and restitution of immovable properties which are within the scope of sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph 1 of Article 159 of the Constitution, as amended by Laws nos. 59/2006 and 85/2007 (?Law no. 67/2005?)
41. The relevant provisions of Law no. 67/2005 are set out in the case of Demopoulos and Others v. Turkey (cited above, ?? 35-37).
42. Section 22 of Law no. 67/2005 provides that Rules for the better implementation of the provisions of that Law may be prepared by the IPC, approved by the ?TRNC? Council of Ministers and published in the Official Gazette.
43. In 2006 the IPC adopted its Rules (the English version available at http://www.tamk.gov.ct.tr) which, in the relevant part, provide:
Rule 3
Form of Application
?(8) The Ministry in the TRNC responsible for Housing Affairs and/or the Attorney General representing the Ministry and/or a natural or legal person who under the legislation of the TRNC is in possession of or holds the ownership of property shall within 30 working days file with the secretariat a defence or opinion prepared in accordance with Form 2 attached to these Rules and serve a certified copy thereof on the address of the applicant.
(9) The defence or opinion given by the Ministry in the TRNC responsible for Housing Affairs and/or the Attorney General representing the Ministry and/or a natural or legal person who under the legislation of the TRNC is in possession of or holds the ownership of property in accordance with the legislation in force in the TRNC shall consist of the summary of the facts in issue. If deemed necessary, the Ministry in the TRNC responsible for Housing Affairs and/or the Attorney General representing the Ministry and/or a natural or legal person who under the legislation of the TRNC is in possession of or holds the ownership of property shall attach to the defence or opinion an affidavit by persons who have knowledge on the matter.?
Rule 6
Friendly settlement agreement on the satisfaction of the applicant
?(1) The Ministry responsible for Housing Affairs shall execute the decision of the Commission relating to restitution, exchange, compensation in lieu of the immovable property, compensation for non-pecuniary damages due to loss of the right to respect for home and compensation for loss of use. In execution of such decision, the Ministry responsible for Housing Affairs shall prepare a draft friendly settlement agreement in accordance with Form 3 and serve it to the applicant who has demonstrated his legitimate rights together with an invitation letter.
(2) The invitation letter shall state that the applicant who has demonstrated his legitimate rights should either personally or through a representative come to sign the draft friendly settlement agreement within one month. Otherwise, the draft friendly settlement agreement will be deemed rejected and he shall have the right to apply to the High Administrative Court.
(3) Should the applicant who has demonstrated his legitimate rights either personally or through his representative accept the draft friendly settlement agreement, this draft shall be signed by the Minister responsible for Housing Affairs and by him or his representative.
(4) Should the friendly settlement agreement be rejected, or when it is deemed rejected according to sub-section (2) of this section, a disagreement document shall be served on the interested parties.
(5) In case a dispute is not resolved through a friendly settlement, the right of the interested parties to appeal to courts shall be preserved.?
Rule 7
The functioning and meetings of the Commission
?(1) Following the submission of the defence or opinion of the Ministry in the TRNC responsible for Housing Affairs and/or the Attorney General representing the Ministry and/or a natural or legal person who under the legislation of the TRNC is in possession of or holds the ownership of property in accordance with these Rules, the parties will be convened on a specified date for a meeting concerning the giving of directions regarding the application in the Chairman?s office or any other place he may determine which is convenient for the parties. The Chairman may, following the hearing of the views of the parties, give the necessary directions regarding further detail, the discovery or examination of further documents, the manner in which testimony will be heard, whether or not a site investigation shall be carried out, the persons who should be required to be present during the presentation and on other matters deemed appropriate.
The proceedings that would be attended by the foreign members shall be in English. In all other cases, it will be in Turkish. However, upon the request of the applicant, an interpreter shall be provided.
(2) The proceedings of the Commission shall be based on the documents. All material relating to the applications shall be translated into English for foreign members. Provided that if deemed appropriate the Commission may hear the views and arguments of the parties and take the oral or sworn testimony of the witnesses they may wish to call. The proceedings of the Commission shall be held at its own premises provided that if necessary the Commission may also use the existing courtrooms or chambers to be allocated to the Commission with the approval of the President of the Supreme Court.
The Commission, when it deems necessary, may delegate the task of on-site exploration of the immovable property and preparation of an exploration report by a group of three members.
(3) The Commission may at any stage of the proceedings on its own motion call any person to give evidence or produce any document for the purpose of reaching a fair decision. No such testimony will be given without prior notice to the parties. The parties? rights to express their views on the matter of calling such witnesses shall be reserved. The proceedings of the Commission, other than those on the documents, shall be in public. However, the rights of the applicant to request confidential proceedings should be preserved and upon request all proceedings shall be in camera.
(4) The Commission shall take its decisions with the simple majority of those present during sittings with a quorum of the 2/3 of the total number of its members. For the purposes of this section, the Chairman and the Deputy Chairman are each to be counted as one member of the Commission. Those dissenting or in the minority may write their views and opinions separately. Such separate views and opinions shall be part of the decision. At the meetings the voting shall be in public. Those present at the meetings shall not be entitled to cast any abstention vote. In case of equality of votes, the matter voted upon shall be deemed to have been rejected. The decision of the Commission shall be signed by the Chairman and another member and shall be conveyed to the parties or served on their address for service after having been sealed by the seal of the Commission.
(5) The Commission shall, after hearing all the views and claims of the parties, announce its reasoned decision within three months. However, depending on its work load and the unique character of the application, the writing of the reasoned decision may be extended up to six months.?
B. Relevant practice
44. The relevant case-law of the ?TRNC? Constitutional Court is summarised in the Demopoulos and Others case (cited above, ?? 38-39).
45. According to the English translation of the ?TRNC? Supreme Court?s judgment in case no. 129/2015, in which it dealt with issues relating to the nature of the awards made by the IPC and their enforcement, the ?TRNC? Supreme Court referred to section 14 of Law no. 67/2005, which provides that the decisions of the IPC have binding effect and are of an executory nature similar to judgments of the judiciary, and such decisions must be implemented without delay upon service thereof on the authorities concerned. The ?TRNC? Supreme Court pointed out, however, that it was not entirely apparent from the relevant law how the awards should be executed. In this connection it referred to Rule 6 of the IPC Rules (see paragraph 43 above) and explained that, in order to make the awards executable, actions designed to implement execution of the IPC?s awards, as required under Rule 6, must be taken by the relevant Ministry. Accordingly, only an award finalised in this manner could be said to be legally executable in a manner similar to a judicial decision.
C. Cases before the IPC
46. According to the currently available statistical information (the IPC?s Monthly Bulletin no. 96, 13 November 2017; available at http://www.tamk.gov.ct.tr) a total of 6,369 applications have so far been lodged with the IPC. The IPC has finalised 1035 cases, of which twenty-five were concluded following a hearing of the case and a decision by the IPC and 1012 by means of friendly settlement. In the vast majority of finalised cases (845) compensation has been awarded, amounting in total to the sum of GBP 238,779.386, whereas in other cases other forms of redress have been ordered or the claims were rejected.
47. The applicant pointed to 144 cases pending before the IPC in which her representative, Mr A. Demetriades ? who was representing other applicants in those cases ? had complained before the IPC that the ?TRNC? Attorney General had failed to submit initial observations in reply to the lodged applications within a reasonable period of time. The periods of time that had elapsed before the Attorney General?s submission of initial observations ranged from three months to five years.
III. RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL MATERIAL
A. United Nations
48. The United Nations? activities aimed at resolving the property issues in northern Cyprus arising out of the Turkish military intervention have been summarised in Demopoulos and Others (cited above, ?? 7-16).
49. A number of further political initiatives have been taken at UN level, particularly within the framework of the mission of the Secretary General?s Special Adviser for Cyprus. The United Nations Security Council welcomed these initiatives in its Resolution 2263 (2016) of 28 January 2016 (S/RES/2263 (2016)) and called upon the parties to put further efforts into reaching convergence on the core issues in dispute.
B. Council of Europe
50. In the context of the execution of the Court?s judgment in the Inter State case of Cyprus v. Turkey (cited above), the Committee of Ministers is currently examining the general measures of execution required with respect to various issues identified in that judgment, including those relating to the immovable property of displaced Greek Cypriots that is located in the ?TRNC? .
51. With respect to these measures, the following findings were made at the Committee of Ministers meeting in March 2017:
?…
Following the judgment of 22/12/2005 in the Xenides-Arestis case, an ?Immovable Property Commission? was set up in the northern part of Cyprus under ?Law No. 67/2005 on the compensation, exchange or restitution of immovable property?. In its inadmissibility decision in Demopoulos and others, delivered on 5 March 2010, the Grand Chamber found that Law No. 67/2005, which set up the Immovable Property Commission in the northern part of Cyprus, ?provides an accessible and effective framework of redress in respect of complaints about interference with the property owned by Greek Cypriots? (? 127 of that decision).
In the judgment Cyprus v. Turkey (just satisfaction), delivered on 12 May 2014, the Court found that Turkey had not yet complied with the conclusion of the main judgment according to which there had been a violation of the property rights of displaced persons as they had been denied access to and control, use and enjoyment of their property as well as any compensation for the interference with their property rights. The Court said that ?the compliance? with this conclusion ?could not be consistent with any possible permission, participation, acquiescence or otherwise complicity in any unlawful sale or exploitation of Greek Cypriot homes and property in the northern part of Cyprus?.
The Court also said that ?the Court?s decision in the case of Demopoulos and Others to the effect that cases presented by individuals concerning violation of property complaints were to be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, cannot be considered, on its own, to dispose of the question of Turkey?s compliance with section III of the operative provisions of the principal judgment in the inter-State case? (see ? 63 of the judgment on just satisfaction of 12 May 2014).
b) Examination of the Committee of Ministers at its 1259th meeting (June 2016)
On 30 May 2016, the delegation of Cyprus also submitted a memorandum on the property rights of displaced persons (DH-DD(2016)688). The Turkish delegation submitted a memorandum on this issue on 3 June 2016 (DH-DD(2016)707).
In the Cypriot authorities? view, in order to comply with the main judgment, Turkey had inter alia to introduce measures to put an end to all transfers of immovable property belonging to displaced Greek Cypriots and ban all construction activities on such properties without the consent of the owners. The Turkish authorities considered that Turkey had already taken the measures required for the execution of this part of the judgment with the setting-up of the Immovable Property Commission. They also referred to protective measures prohibiting the sale and improvement of property which had been returned to its owners by the Commission or which would be returned, in accordance with its decisions, after the solution of the Cypriot problem.
At its 1259th meeting (June 2016) (DH), the Committee decided to resume consideration of the issue of the homes and immovable property of displaced Greek Cypriots at its 1280th meeting (March 2017) (DH).?
52. On the basis of the above findings, the Committee of Ministers decided at its 1280th meeting to resume consideration of the issue of displaced Greek Cypriots? property rights at its meeting in December 2017.
53. An issue still outstanding before the Committee of Ministers is the execution of the just satisfaction awards in thirty-three cases (designated as the Xenides-Arestis group; see the document containing the list of cases https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectID=090000168072832d) in which the Court found violations of the Convention with regard to breaches of the property rights of displaced Greek Cypriots.
54. The following findings were noted following the Committee of Ministers meeting in September 2017 (footnote references omitted):
?a) Payment of the just satisfaction: In the Loizidou case the just satisfaction was paid in 2003. The cases of Alexandrou and Eugenia Michaelidou Developments and Michael Tymvios do not raise any issue in respect of the payment of just satisfaction, as the applicants concluded friendly settlements with the respondent State regarding Article 41 (see below under ?individual measures concerning the applicants? property?). The Turkish authorities paid the just satisfaction awarded in the Xenides Arestis judgment of 22 December 2005 in respect of costs and expenses.
As regards the Xenides-Arestis judgment of 07 December 2006, the sums awarded for material and moral damages and for costs and expenses have been due since 2007. In the Demades case, the sums awarded for just satisfaction have been due since 2009 and, in the more recent cases, since 2010-2012. In the Xenides-Arestis case the Committee of Ministers adopted two interim resolutions, in 2008 and 2010, strongly urging Turkey to pay the just satisfaction awarded by the European Court in the judgment of 7 December 2006, together with the default interest due. In the majority of these cases, the applicants or their representatives have addressed the Committee of Ministers on several occasions to complain about the lack of payment of the just satisfaction awarded to them.
At the 1208th meeting (September 2014) (DH), the Committee adopted an interim resolution deeply deploring that, to date, despite the interim resolutions adopted in the cases of Xenides-Arestis and Varnava, the Turkish authorities, on the ground that this payment could not be dissociated from the measures of substance in these cases, had not complied with their obligation to pay the amounts awarded by the Court to the applicants in those cases, as well as in 32 other cases in the Xenides-Arestis group.
In its interim resolution, the Committee also recalled that the then Chairmen of the Committee of Ministers had stressed on behalf of the Committee, in two letters addressed to the Turkish Minister of Foreign Affairs, that the obligation to comply with the judgments of the Court was unconditional. The Committee declared that the continued refusal by Turkey to pay the just satisfaction awarded in the case of Varnava and in 33 cases of the Xenides-Arestis group was in flagrant conflict with its international obligations, both as a High Contracting Party to the Convention and as a member State of the Council of Europe. It exhorted Turkey to review its position and to pay without any further delay the just satisfaction awarded by the Court, as well as the default interest due.
At its 1214th meeting (December 2014) (DH), the Committee expressed its deepest concern in view of the lack of response from the Turkish authorities to the two letters sent by the Chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers to the Turkish Minister of Foreign Affairs, as well as to the interim resolution adopted in September 2014. The Committee exhorted once again the Turkish authorities to review their position and to pay without further delay the just satisfaction awarded by the Court
At its 1230th (June 2015), 1236th (September 2015), 1243rd (December 2015) and 1250th (March 2016) meetings (DH), the Committee deeply deplored the lack of payment of the just satisfaction and exhorted once again the Turkish authorities to pay without further delay the sums awarded by the Court to the applicants, as well as the default interest due. The Committee also invited the Secretary General to raise the issue of payment of the just satisfaction in these cases in his contacts with the Turkish authorities, calling on them to take the measures necessary to pay it.
At its 1236th meeting (September 2015) (DH), the Committee also encouraged the authorities of the member States to do the same.
On 28 April 2016, the Secretary General sent a letter to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Turkey trusting that the Turkish authorities would take the necessary measures to ensure the prompt payment of the just satisfaction awarded in these cases (see DH-DD(2016)573).
At its latest examinations of this issue (1259th, 1265th, 1273rd, 1280th and 1288th meetings (June, September, December 2016 and March and June 2017) (DH), the Committee firmly insisted once again on Turkey?s unconditional obligation to pay the just satisfaction awarded by the European Court in these cases and deeply deplored the absence of progress in this respect, again exhorting Turkey to comply with this obligation without further delay. The Committee agreed to resume consideration of this issue at their 1294th meeting (September 2017) (DH).
…
b) Individual measures concerning the applicants? properties: The Committee decided to close its examination of the individual measures in one of these cases (Eugenia Michaelidou Developments and Michael Tymvios, decision taken at the 1043rd meeting (December 2008) (DH). In the Alexandrou case, the Turkish authorities having complied with the friendly settlement according to which they had to pay the applicant and return the immovable property at stake, it was noted that no further individual measures were needed (see the public notes of the 1092nd meeting (September 2010) (DH).
The Secretariat?s assessment of the individual measures in the cases of Loizidou, Xenides-Arestis, Demades and Eugenia Michaelidou Developments Ltd and Michael Tymvios is presented in the information document CM/Inf/DH(2010)21 of 17 May 2010. This assessment is valid for the other cases of this group in which the judgments on the just satisfaction became final after 2010.
The Turskish authorities presented their position in this respect in their memorandum of 3 June 2016 (DH-DD(2016)707).?
55. On the basis of the above findings, the Committee of Ministers decided to resume consideration of the Xenides-Arestis group of cases at its further meetings.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 TO THE CONVENTION
56. The applicant complained that the procedure before the IPC by means of which she sought compensation for her property in the ?TRNC? had been protracted and ineffective and thus in breach of Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
57. The Court finds that an issue related to the applicant?s claim for compensation before the IPC may arise under all the provisions relied upon by the applicant. In the circumstances of the case, and noting that the central tenet of the applicant?s grievance concerns her inability to obtain compensation for her property claim, the Court considers that the complaint should be examined solely under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, for the approach, Kirilova and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 42908/98 and 3 others, ?? 87-88 and 125-127, 9 June 2005; Naydenov v. Bulgaria, no. 17353/03, ?? 48 and 86-87, 26 November 2009, and Shesti Mai Engineering OOD and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 17854/04, ? 64, 20 September 2011).
58. Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 provides as follows:
?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.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.?
A. Admissibility
1. The parties? arguments
(a) The Government
59. Relying on the Court?s findings in the case of Demopoulos and Others v. Turkey (cited above) concerning the effectiveness of the IPC remedy, the Government argued that the applicant had failed to properly exhaust the available domestic remedies since she had lodged her application with the Court before the relevant proceedings before the IPC had finished. In this connection, the Government pointed out that the applicant had failed to produce all the relevant documents before the IPC in due time and that she had amended her application for compensation in the course of the proceedings before the IPC. Moreover, for reasons unknown to the Government, the applicant had never submitted the available valuation reports to the IPC. The Government also stressed that the applicant had failed to reply to the settlement offer made by the ?TRNC? authorities for compensation in the amount of GBP 60,000 and she had failed to produce the documents necessary for such a settlement to be effected. In the Government?s view, the applicant had had unsatisfactory communication with her representative before the IPC, which had led to a number of misconceptions on her part with regard to the functioning of the IPC. As a result, the applicant had prematurely lodged an application with the Court, while the relevant proceedings before the IPC were still ongoing. The Government thus considered that her application was premature and/or manifestly ill-founded.
(b) The applicant
60. The applicant contended that she had decided to apply to the Court at the time that she did because the proceedings before the IPC had not been fair and effective, particularly in view of the lengthy delay in reaching a decision in her case. She argued that the IPC had failed to come to a decision even though it was in possession of all the relevant information concerning her property claim. The IPC?s requests for further documents had in fact been aimed at delaying the proceedings and had clearly been used as tactics on the part of the authorities to create further obstacles to an effective resolution of her case. At the same time, the IPC had never asked her to produce the valuation report ? even though she had made reference to it when amending the claim ? and the respondent had never submitted a report of its own. In this connection, the applicant also argued that the subsequent amendment of her claim had been of a technical nature and not one that could justify the delay in the proceedings. She further contended that in the proceedings before the IPC she had merely had a position of spectator as the proceedings had been conducted hastily and without proper translation from Turkish. Moreover, in her view, the case was not very complex as her property title was evident and the identities of her mother and aunt were easily ascertainable from the available identity documents. Lastly, the applicant argued that the fact that the Xenides-Arestis group of cases remained unexecuted suggested that the IPC remedy was ineffective.
2. The Court?s assessment
61. The Court notes that the respondent Government did not raise an objection as regards the incompatibility ratione personae of the present application with the provisions of the Convention or of its Protocols. However, in view of the fact that the matter calls for consideration by the Court of its own motion (see, for instance, Sejdi? and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos. 27996/06 and 34836/06, ? 27, ECHR 2009), the Court finds it important to note that in the light of its findings in the cases of Loizidou v. Turkey ((merits), ?? 52-57, 18 December 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 VI), Cyprus v. Turkey (cited above, ?? 75 81) and Demopoulos and Others (cited above, ?? 89 and 103), the issues complained of fall within the jurisdiction of Turkey, which has, in the northern part of Cyprus, the obligation to secure to the applicants the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention.
62. The Court will therefore proceed on the assumption that Turkey is responsible for the circumstances complained of by the applicant. Having said that, the Court would stress that this does not in any way call into doubt either the view adopted by the international community regarding the establishment of the ?TRNC? or the fact that the government of the Republic of Cyprus remains the sole legitimate government of Cyprus (see Cyprus v. Turkey, cited above, ? 90, and Demopoulos and Others, cited above, ? 89).
63. As to the Government?s preliminary objection of inadmissibility for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies due to the fact that the proceedings before the IPC are still pending, the Court finds that the question of exhaustion of domestic remedies is closely linked to the merits of the applicant?s complaint that she has been unable to obtain compensation for her property due to the protracted and ineffective proceedings before the IPC. The Court therefore considers that the Government?s objection should be joined to the merits of the applicant?s complaint.
64. The Court notes that the applicant?s complaint is not manifestly ill founded within the meaning of Article 35 ? 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
1. The parties? arguments
(a) The applicant
65. The applicant submitted that there was no doubt that she was the owner of the plots of land in question. She had received them by way of a gift from her aunt, who had in turn received them from her father. The applicant further argued that the matter under examination in relation to her property claim had been considered in the light of the Court?s well established case-law in the cases of Loizidou (cited above) and Cyprus v. Turkey (cited above). In her view, however, it was paradoxical to assert that the IPC remedy was effective, as found in the Demopoulos and Others case (cited above), when the Xenides-Arestis group of cases and the just satisfaction arising from the Cyprus v. Turkey judgment could not be executed. She also pointed to a newspaper article, referring to an interview with the IPC?s President, alleging that Turkey had stopped financing IPC. Moreover, the proceedings before the IPC were ineffective due to the delaying and arbitrary practices of the ?TRNC? authorities and the relevant statistics showed that a substantial number of cases were still pending before the IPC. In this connection, the applicant also argued that other applicants before the IPC faced various obstacles in proving their claims and in obtaining the payment of compensation awarded by the IPC.
66. The applicant further contended that since she had lodged her application with the IPC in May 2008 there had been no serious progress in the case and the examination of the substance of her claim had been repeatedly adjourned. In her view, the case in itself was not complex and there had been only one amendment of the claim of a purely technical nature. She contended that the IPC had not so far held a real hearing but only directions meetings for the purpose of assessing her case. The applicant considered that such delaying practices had been continuous, systemic and deliberate and had rendered the remedy before the IPC ineffective. In this connection the applicant pointed to the fact that she had repeatedly been requested to provide further irrelevant documents and certificates, such as those relating to her property title and the identity of her aunt, all of which were already known and available in the file. In particular, she had been requested to clarify the different spellings of her aunt?s name even though the identity documents had been available to the IPC and clearly attested to her aunt?s identity. Similarly, she had been asked to provide further documents concerning her property title, which required her to go through a time-consuming and costly procedure. This had in point of fact been completely unnecessary, because the certificates concerning her property title, including proof of the non-existence of any liabilities on her property, had already existed in the file.
67. The applicant also contended that she had been made an initial settlement offer of GBP 20,000, which she had not been prepared to accept, and then, at the meeting of 24 October 2013, this offer had been increased to GBP 60,000. At the same meeting before the IPC she had not been able to participate effectively as the proceedings had been conducted hastily and in Turkish, without the provision of adequate translation services. Moreover, on several other occasions, her representative had not been allowed to address the IPC on her behalf. On one occasion she had attempted to attend a meeting before the IPC ? on 25 April 2013 ? but the meeting had been adjourned. The applicant also contended that the IPC had failed to take the necessary measures to ensure effective administration of the proceedings. It had never requested the valuation reports from the parties and had failed to properly address the requests of the respondent ?TRNC? Attorney General?s Office for the provision of further documents by declaring such documents unnecessary. In this connection, the applicant also pointed out that her aunt had lived in the occupied northern part of Cyprus and that all the relevant information on her identity and properties had been well known to the ?TRNC? administration. In the applicant?s view, all this clearly demonstrated that the proceedings before the IPC had been ineffective.
(b) The Government
68. Relying on the case of Meleagrou and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 14434/09, 2 April 2013, the Government argued that the Court had confirmed its finding in Demopoulos and Others v. Turkey (cited above) that the procedure before the IPC provided an adequate and effective remedy for Greek Cypriot property claims relating to properties located in northern Cyprus. However, in the Government?s view, the applicant in the case at issue had failed to avail herself properly of that remedy. In this connection, the Government argued that the applicant?s claim for damages had been excessive and she had asked for an adjournment of the preliminary examination of the case on 25 May 2010 to subsequently amend her compensation claim. However, her amended claim had not corresponded to the reality of the property market in northern Cyprus and the methods used in the 2011 valuation report had been inadequate and inaccurate. Moreover, it had taken her two years to submit the documents requested on 1 June 2010. In addition, the applicant had only been present for the examination of the case before the IPC on 24 October 2013 and it had been for her to substantiate her claim by providing the relevant documents, including those that could have clarified the confusion over the different spellings of the names.
69. In the Government?s view, the applicant?s impression that the IPC remedy was ineffective had not been objectively substantiated but had rather resulted from deficiencies in communication between her and her legal representatives. This was apparent from the fact that the applicant seemed to be unaware that her legal representatives had failed to submit the relevant documents showing the transfer of the property from her aunt to her and had likewise failed to present the relevant valuation reports. In this respect the Government explained that the transfer of properties by Greek Cypriots was not recorded in the ?TRNC? registers and applicants were therefore required to produce the relevant documents showing their property title before the IPC. Moreover, the confusion over the spelling of the names could not be clarified on the basis of the identity documents and the mukhtar?s certificates had been needed in that respect. The Government also considered that the documents initially provided by the applicant to the IPC had not clearly shown that she had paid rent for the use of a Turkish Cypriot house. Moreover, the amendment of the applicant?s claim had necessitated the production of further relevant documents, which the applicant had failed to procure and present with the requisite diligence. The Government also stressed that the applicant and her representatives had failed to inform the IPC whether they would accept the friendly settlement offer by the ?TRNC? Attorney General.
70. The Government furthermore contended that the execution of the Xenides-Arestis group of cases had nothing to do with the effectiveness of the IPC remedy as those cases had been decided prior to the Demopoulos and Others case (cited above), which had confirmed the effectiveness of the IPC. In the procedure before the IPC, compensation awards were executed and payments made in accordance with the relevant law and the timetable of execution. Moreover, the functions of the Court and the Committee of Ministers in this respect differed. With regard to the proceedings before the IPC, the Government pointed out that the applicant had been represented by lawyers who spoke both Turkish and English and the proceedings before the IPC, as well as the documents submitted to it, had been simultaneously translated into English as the IPC was also made up of two international members. The applicant and her representatives had been given every opportunity to address and to argue her case before the IPC. Moreover, under Rule 7(5) of the IPC Rules, a hearing should be completed within three months and exceptionally within six months. The Meleagrou and Others case (cited above) showed no issue of ineffectiveness arising in this respect. In addition, the Government considered that the significant number of cases decided by means of friendly settlement before the IPC also suggested that the mechanism functioned and there were only a few cases that ended before the High Administrative Court. Taking all these factors into account, in the Government?s view there was nothing to call into question the effectiveness and adequacy of the IPC remedy.
2. The Court?s assessment
(a) Preliminary points
71. The Court observes at the outset that it has been provided with official certificates of ownership from the Department of Lands and Surveys of the Republic of Cyprus proving that the applicant is the owner of the relevant property. There is also sufficient evidence before the Court showing that the applicant had received the property in question in 1997 by way of a gift from her aunt, who owned it prior to the Turkish military intervention in 1974, and that in 2008 she had received an additional share in one of the plots concerned from her mother (see paragraphs 8 and 18 above).
72. In these circumstances, in accordance with its findings in the cases of Loizidou (cited above, ?? 42-47 and 62), Cyprus v. Turkey (cited above, ? 180), Demopoulos and Others (cited above, ? 107) and Xenides-Arestis v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 46347/99, 14 March 2005, and (merits) ? 28, 22 December 2005), for the purpose of its assessment under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the applicant must be regarded as the legal owner of the property in question.
73. With regard to the nature of the infringement of the property rights of displaced Greek Cypriots in the ?TRNC?, in the Loizidou case (cited above, ?? 63-64) the Court reasoned as follows:
?63. 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. Such an interference cannot, in the exceptional circumstances of the present case to which the applicant and the Cypriot Government have referred (see paragraphs 49-50 above), 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. However, it clearly falls within the meaning of the first sentence of that provision 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 (see, mutatis mutandis, the Airey v. Ireland judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32, p. 14, para. 25).
64. 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.
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.?
74. The Court confirmed the above findings in the case of Cyprus v. Turkey (cited above, ?? 184-189) and in subsequent cases concerning the complaints of Greek Cypriots concerning interference with their property rights in the ?TRNC? (see Demopoulos and Others, cited above, ? 71; see also, for instance, Demades v. Turkey, no. 16219/90, ?? 44-46, 31 July 2003; Xenides-Arestis, cited above, ?? 29-32, and Lordos and Others v. Turkey, no. 15973/90, ?? 67-70, 2 November 2010).
75. The Court further notes, as it did in Demopoulos and Others (cited above, ? 108), that the Turkish Government no longer contest their responsibility under the Convention for the areas under the control of the ?TRNC? and that they have, in substance, acknowledged the right of Greek Cypriot owners to remedies for breaches of their rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Indeed, in Demopoulos and Others, the Court recognised this acknowledgment as a significant factor in the provision of the IPC mechanism, which, by applying the Court?s findings in the earlier cases, most notably in the Xenides-Arestis pilot judgment (cited above), sought to secure effective redress for Convention violations identified in the Court?s judgments with regard to the property rights of Greek Cypriots in the ?TRNC?.
76. With regard to the effectiveness of the IPC mechanism, in Demopoulos and Others (cited above, ?? 127-128), following a careful examination of all the relevant institutional and procedural aspects of that remedy, the Court reasoned as follows:
?127. The Court finds that Law no. 67/2005 provides an accessible and effective framework of redress in respect of complaints about interference with property owned by Greek Cypriots. The applicant property owners in the present cases have not made use of this mechanism and their complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 must therefore be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. It is satisfied that Law no. 67/2005 makes realistic provision for redress in the current situation of occupation that is beyond this Court?s competence to resolve.
128. Lastly, it would stress that this decision is not to be interpreted as requiring that applicants make use of the IPC. They may choose not to do so and await a political solution. If, however, at this point in time, any applicant wishes to invoke his or her rights under the Convention, the admissibility of those claims will be decided in line with the principles and approach above. The Court?s ultimate supervisory jurisdiction remains in respect of any complaints lodged by applicants who, in conformity with the principle of subsidiarity, have exhausted available avenues of redress.?
77. Following the adoption of the Demopoulos and Others judgment, the Court declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies all applications that had not already been declared admissible and where the applicants had not presented a claim to the IPC in accordance with Law no. 67/2005 (see, for instance, Cacoyanni and Others v. Turkey (dec.), nos. 55254/00 et al., 1 June 2010; Papayianni and Others v. Turkey (dec.), nos. 479/07 et al., 6 July 2010; Marios Eleftheriades and Others v. Turkey (dec.), nos. 3882/02 et al., 5 October 2010; Papaioannou and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 58678/00, 7 December 2012; and Efthymiou and Others v. Turkey (dec.), nos. 40997/02, 7 May 2013).
78. For other applications which had been declared admissible or where the Court had ruled on the merits prior to the adoption of the Demopoulos and Others judgment, the Court proceeded with the adoption of judgments on the merits and/or awards of just satisfaction (see, for instance, Lordos and Others, cited above; see also Gavriel v. Turkey (just satisfaction), no. 41355/98, 22 June 2010; Solomonides v. Turkey (just satisfaction), no. 16161/90, 27 July 2010; Christodoulidou v. Turkey (just satisfaction), no. 16085/90, 26 October 2010; Anthousa Iordanou v. Turkey (just satisfaction), no. 46755/99, 11 January 2011; Loizou and Others v. Turkey (just satisfaction) (final judgment), no. 16682/90, 24 May 2011). These cases form part of the aforementioned Xenides-Arestis group of cases in the execution process (see paragraph 53 above).
79. The Court has also examined an application (Meleagrou and Others, cited above) ? lodged after Demopoulos and Others and where the applicants had presented their claims to the IPC ? which was declared inadmissible on the following two grounds. Firstly, as regards the applicants? complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, Article 8 and Article 14 concerning certain plots of land owned by a registered company, the Court found that the complaints failed by reason of incompatibility ratione materiae on the grounds that, as shareholders, the applicants could not claim property rights in land owned by a company which was still in existence. As to the ongoing refusal to return certain of their plots of land to them, the Court found that, although the applicants had submitted claims for restitution to the IPC, they had not made claims either for exchange of land in the south of Cyprus or for pecuniary compensation, which would also have permitted the award of damages for loss of use or non-pecuniary compensation if restitution was not afforded. That failure meant the applicants had not made proper use of the IPC remedy. Secondly, in respect of the applicants? complaints under Article 6 ? 1, the Court found that there was no evidence that the proceedings had been unfair or that the IPC was biased or lacking independence. As regards their complaint as to the length of the proceedings the Court found that a period of four years and eight months (before the IPC and on appeal to the ?TRNC?s? High Administrative Court) was not unreasonable given the newness of the proceedings and what had been involved in their adjudicating the applicants? claims.
80. The applicant in the present case challenges the effectiveness of the IPC remedy, arguing that the procedure before the IPC by which she sought compensation for her property located in the ?TRNC? has been protracted and ineffective. The Court will embark on its determination of these issues below, taking full account of the particular circumstances of the case and its findings in the aforementioned cases, particularly the principles laid down in the Demopoulos and Others judgment.
81. At this point, the Court finds it important to note that there is nothing in the applicant?s arguments and submissions which could, in itself, at present call into question the effectiveness of the IPC remedy as such. In particular, the Court is unable to accept the applicant?s argument that the difficulties in the e