Council of Europe ministers to re-examine Immovable Property Commission

The Council of Europe’s committee of ministers is to once again examine the Immovable Property Commission and the state of affairs regarding Greek Cypriots’ access to property and compensation for lost immovable property in northern Cyprus this week. Between Tuesday and Thursday, the committee is to deliberate the implementation of rulings made by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), with the Xenides-Arestis case among the rulings to be discussed. That ruling, made in 2005, ordered that Greek Cypriots who lost immovable property as a result of Turkey’s invasion of the island in 1974 and who wish to receive compensation for it be adequately compensated. It predicated the creation of the Immovable Property Commission (IPC) in Nicosia in 2005, which is operated by the Turkish Cypriot authorities and ostensibly aims to “establish an effective domestic remedy for claims relating to abandoned properties in northern Cyprus”. In advance of the ministers’ meeting, the governments of both Cyprus and Turkey had submitted documents to the Council of Europe, with the Cypriot government’s position being that, contrary to earlier findings by both the ECtHR and the committee of ministers, the IPC does not constitute an effective domestic remedy. It said that in December last year, the committee of ministers had “exhorted Turkey to comply with its unconditional obligation to pay the sums awarded by the [ECtHR], together with accrued default interest, without further delay”. Additionally, it highlighted that the committee had found that “there is no obligation on the applicants to apply to the IPC or to take any other procedural steps before the sums awarded to them by the [ECtHR] are paid by Turkey”. It then said that various rulings regarding abandoned Greek Cypriot property in northern Cyprus have seen the total amount of money owed by Turkey now rise to “more than €57 million”, and as such, said that it “encourages the committee to repeat its insistence that these sums be paid immediately and without condition”. “Cyprus has given its reasons for considering the IPC to be an ineffective remedy,” it said, saying that in the “majority” of cases related to the Xenides-Arestis case, “just satisfaction still remains unpaid, despite no fewer than four interim resolutions”. On this matter, it said that it “deplores Turkey’s failure in this respect, and reiterates its position that payment cannot be conditional on recourse to the IPC”. Turkey, meanwhile, pointed out that the committee has already closed its examination on six cases related to the Xenides-Arestis case, and said that “in all of these judgements, the IPC was the central measure which led to the closure of supervision of all cases”. It then added that in one case, the committee had decided to close its examination “without a friendly settlement” as the Greek Cypriot applicant had refused to accept the compensation offered by the IPC. “The amount of compensation paid to the applicants covered all claims … with respect to the property, including the amount of just satisfaction ruled by the [ECtHR] plus default interest, where relevant,” it said. It added that it “has been inviting all remaining applicants in the Xenides-Arestis group to apply to the IPC”, and that the IPC “is equipped to remedy their claims in their entirety as per established practice”. Additionally, it offered an update regarding the IPC’s current status, saying that 11 applications are currently pending before it, of which 10 are part of the Xenides-Arestis case. “The Turkish side reiterates its invitation to the remaining applicants in the Xenides- Arestis group … to apply to the IPC for their claims, if they have not done so to date, and to receive redress, which would include payment of just satisfaction ruled by the [ECtHR] plus default interest, where relevant,” it said. In its most recent deliberation of the matter in December last year, the committee found that while applicants are not obliged to apply to the IPC to receive compensation due to them, the IPC remains an effective domestic remedy for such disputes. As such, it closed its supervision of two cases and resolved to resume its deliberation of the matter in June.