Turkey will have to allow Greek Cypriot refugee Myra Xenides-Arestis back to her property in Famagusta within 6 months, according to her lawyer Achilleas Demetriades, who is highly sceptical about whether any attempts at domestic remedy will be effective.
On December 22 the European Court of Human Rights ruled in the case of Arestis v. Turkey that Turkey has effectively six months to reinstate Arestis in the fenced area of Famagusta. It awarded EUR 64,000 in costs but reserved judgment on damages until later.
The case is important because it is test case for some 1400 other claims by Greek Cypriots who lost their homes after the Turkish invasion in 1974, which have been put on hold pending this case.
In previous judgments at the ECHR Turkey has been held responsible for the violations of Greek Cypriots’ human rights.
“It essentailly means that Mrs Arestis must be allowed to go to Famagusta with 6 months from today,” Achilleas Demetriades told the Financial Mirror.
Paragraph 50 imposes a three-month limit to come up with a genuine effective remedy and then it gives three months for Turkey to provide redress, “that is to say not only to pay the damages but to allow restoration of Mrs Arestis house and property in the fenced area of Famagusta,” said Demetriades.
Demetriades said that the important point is that Turkey has 3 months to come up with a genuine effective remedy, not a bogus effective remedy like last time.
In the previous judgement, Turkey’s attempt to set up compensation commissions was deemed ineffective, partly because it was composed of people who were living in Greek Cypriot property, but also because the mechanism did not provide for restitution.
On Monday the Turkish Cypriot administration, referred to by the ECHR as the “subordinate local administration” changed the law to allow Greek Cypriots to make claims via a commission that would have to include people who were neither Cypriots, Turks, Britons or Greeks.
Scepticism about whether remedy possible
However, Demetriades is sceptical about whether the rule-changes will be enough to be considered an effective remedy.
Pointing out that it is not yet in force as of December 23, because it had not been published, he said,
“If this law of the suborindate local administration is in fact enacted it has major defects.”
He said that in the subordinate local administration’s constitution, article 159 allegedly makes the ‘Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus’ the owners of all the abandoned property.
“This has not been amended, so what kind if a law is this that is contrary to the constitution?”
He said that the Turkish Cypriot and Turkish statements say that the property up for restitution covers only 4% of the occupied areas, whereas Greek Cypriots actuall own about 60% of it.
“What about the rest?” he asks.
The law also excludes military areas, which would include the fenced up city of Famagusta where Arestis’ property lies.
Finally, Demetriades wonders who is going to pay the compensation.
Restoration and compensation
The money involved is important, because effecitve remedy has two aspects, according to Demetriades: payment and compensation for past violation and resoration of rights for the future.
This implies that merely giving Arestis her property back would not be enough. She would have to be paid compensation for loss of use.
Demetriades adds that it is not unsual for the Court to decide on compensation at a later date in pilot cases.
“Of course it would have been nicer if they had awarded compensation immediately but as is customary in pilot cases such as Arestis the Court approaches is in a phased way. It is not unusual.”
Demetriades also added tat Turkey has made a “huge move” by accepting the ‘TRNC’ is a subordinate local administration.
“It has done that by saying it will produce an effective domestic remedy…as long as Turkey is there is is responsible for human rights violations.”
Fiona Mullen
