[ALBSA-Info] European Court ruling a landmark – Kathimerini

[Gazhebo at aol.com]

European Court ruling a landmark
Great implications in law and politics

By Stelios Perrakis

The ruling issued in Strasbourg on May 10 by the European Court of Human 
Rights on a complaint lodged by Cyprus against Turkey, is a significant move 
from several aspects. 

First of all, it is a landmark in both the court's 50-year history and that 
of the European Human Rights Charter, since it presents several 
characteristics that are important for the legal, and by extension, political 
arena.

It is the second time that this court has ruled on a case brought by one 
state against another (following the Ireland-UK case in 1978) and is the 
first ruling on such a complaint issued after the institutional changes of 
1998, when the court's screening body was unified.

The case concerned the situation in the northern sector of Cyprus following 
the Turkish invasion of 1974 and its continuing military occupation. It is 
the legal extension of three other complaints brought by Cyprus in 1974, 1975 
and 1977 in order to have Turkey's responsibility for human rights violations 
in the occupied area recognized. In all three instances, the Strasbourg 
screening body at the time (which were the reports by the European Human 
Rights Commission and the Ministers' Commission) had found violations of 
human rights by the occupying forces. 

In 1994, Cyprus took recourse once again (No. 25781/94) to the court, calling 
for recognition of the fact that Turkey was continuing to violate human 
rights guaranteed by the court. 

The interval between recognition of the complaint (1996) and the Commission's 
report (1999) was a difficult one but had a positive outcome. 

The court began examining the case in 1999 and at a hearing before the 
17-member session - which did not include Turkey - the Cypriot government 
succeeded in having the precedent of the Loizidou Case [In July 1998, the 
court awarded $652,000 in damages to Titina Loizidou to compensate her for 
being deprived of property she owns in Kyrena, located in the breakaway 
Turkish-Cypriot state in the north of the island] jurisprudence affirmed. 
That is, having positions taken by the court over an individual complaint 
apply also to complaints by one state against another. An expanded majority 
of 16 plus one (the Turkish ad hoc judge) ruled on 14 claims of human rights 
violations in the island's occupied sector, relating to four categories of 
persons:

- Greek-Cypriot missing persons. Continuing violations of Article 2 (right to 
life), Article 3 (inhuman or humiliating treatment), Article 5 (person 
freedom and safety).
-Greek Cypriots who fled from their homes. Continuing violations of Article 8 
(respect for private family life and homes), Article 13 (access to legal 
process), Article 1 of the first protocol (protection of property).

- Greek Cypriots living in the Karpas Peninsula in the Turkish-controlled 
north. Violations of articles 3, 8, 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and 
religion), Article 10 (freedom of expression), articles 13 and 1 of the first 
protocol.

- Turkish Cypriots living in the occupied sector. Violation of Article 6, 
because of the practice of allowing military courts to try civilians. This is 
an important claim, made for the first time.

The court's ruling is significant. It is the first time it has ruled on a 
claim by one state against another - unprecedented at an international level 
- on mass violations of human rights, recognizing Turkey's responsibility for 
events in occupied Cyprus. It confirms and emphasizes its legal position in 
the Loizidou Case as applied to a series of crucial issues (international 
representation and locus standi of the Cypriot government, the legal 
non-existence of the "Turkish-Cypriot Republic of Cyprus," reference to UN 
Security Council resolutions, among other things). For the first time, there 
is reference to a violation of rights of Turkish Cypriots. 

Therefore, the court's ruling supports Nicosia in maintaining its 
determination to avert debate on a solution to the Cyprus issue leaning 
toward a confederation, which certain circles are promoting. It also gives 
further legal support to the domestic aspect of the Cyprus issue in 
questions, such as property and settlement, which cannot be avoided in any 
solution, given the terms of international law and the jurisprudence of the 
Human Rights Court. And of course it helps Cyprus in its accession to the 
European Union, indicating once again the party responsible for the problems 
plaguing the island. All that remains now, apart from any legal analysis, is 
the political exploitation of the ruling, which is the job of Athens and 
Nicosia.

Stelios Perrakis is a professor at Panteios University.