Procedural History: On 22nd July 1989, Mrs. Titina Loizidou, a Cypriot national filed an application against Turkey to ECHR (Necatigil 2009). The appellant was forced out of her home in the event of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974. The defendant had attempted to return home but was denied access to the Turkish occupied regions. Her pursuit resulted to three judgments by the ECHR and Turkey was held responsible for the violations of human rights in the northern region of Cyprus that was under the control of the Turkish armed forces.
In March 1995, the Court recalled dismissal of the numerous preliminary objections the Turkish government raised, and referred to the particular ownership of the land by the applicant. The referrals touched on the Turkish declaration of 22 January 1990 that related to the Compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (Article 46). The Court ruled that the jurisdiction only extended to the continued violation of the possessions’ rights of the plaintiff.
The court on 23 March 1995 took note of the international practice and resolutions of the international community, which did not regard the TRNC under international law. The Turkish government further acknowledged that they had prevented the applicant on several occasions from accessing her property. As a result, the Turkish role in the security of the rights and freedoms from the Convention that expands to the northern region of Cyprus and this role are obtained by virtue of associated control. These were for the functions of Article 1 of Protocol 1, which were to be regarded as the applicant’s legal property. The Court concluded that the Applicant’s rights to peaceful enjoyment of her property under Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1 have been violated constantly. This was a contradiction to earlier conclusion of the court wherein violations were found. This was according to Article 8 based on the fact the applicant was residing in Nicosia in 1974 and was in the process of constructing a home in Kyrenia.
This is a landmark case based on the rights of the refugees desiring to return to their original homes and properties. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled in favor of the defendant and on the rest of the refugees. This implies that all the refugees have the right to return to their original properties. The rule showed that Turkey had violated Loizidou’s human rights and that she should be allowed to return to her home and be compensated. Turkey ignored the ruling.
Facts: The appellant was a Cypriot national, who grew up in Cyprus before getting married and moving to Nicosia. The certificates that were issued by the Cypriot Lands and Surveys Department affirm her ownership of the plots. The appellant was constantly prevented from accessing her lands, which was a violation of the Articles 3, 5, and 8. The respondent violated Article 1 of the protocol NO. 1 (P1-1), Article 8 (art. 8), and Article 50 of the convention (art. 50). The appellant filed the case after she was prevented from accessing her property by the Turkish troops.
Legal Issue (s): Did the defendant interfere with the plaintiff’s rights over property as stipulated under article 1 and 8?
Ruling: The Court compensated the plaintiff over $ 1 million as ruled by the European Court of Human Rights. The defendant was to evacuate her house and return it to her. The plaintiff however chose not to return on the basis that some Turkish occupation troops were making her return unsafe. The Court accepted her claim and in place, ordered the defendant to continue paying the compensation for denying her, her rights to enjoy her property.
Court’s reasoning: The appellant and the Cypriot Government affirmed that ever since the Turkish occupied the northern region of Cyprus, the applicant had lost control over her property. The Turkish government contended that the capture of the Northern Cyprus began in 1974 and extended to an irreversible expropriation by the rule of Article 159 (1) according to the 1985 TRNC constitution. The applicant had definitely lost ownership of the possession before 22 January 1990
Personal Analysis: I strongly support the conclusions of the court majorly due to the fact the identified state was accountable to the appellant. This is according to the International law, which upholds this rule irrespective of whether the administration of the territory was illegally given off by the local administration (Vasilios 2009). The law implies that the conflict is a result of illegal application of force and thus the government had to assume responsibility. Because the applicant had lost access of her property, her rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) had been interfered with.
This Case is a significant precedent for the judgments at the International Courts of law concerning the Cyprus dispute. Even though countless related cases have been presented to the European Court of Human Rights that await judgment, two of the cases have been concluded in the similar way. In May 2007, the case of Myra Xenides v. Turkey was concluded in the similar manner. Myra Xenides received compensation for the damages for the loss of enjoying her property in Famagusta. Similarly, in April 2008, Demades vs. Turkey was presented to the same European Court for Human Rights. The Loannis Demades received compensation for the damages totaling to €835,000 for the loss of enjoyment of his Kyrenia property.
Necatigil, M. Z. (2009). SAM Papers No. 8/00- The Loizidou Case: A Critical Examination.
Republic of Turkey, Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Vasilios S. Spyridakis, (2009). “Loizidou v. Turkey and the Future of Property Compensation for
Refugees in Cyprus and Beyond,” Journal of Modern Hellenism no. 25-26 pp. 129-156.