LOIZIDOU v. TURKEY (PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS)

• Judgment Date: 23 March 1995
• ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:1995:0323JUD001531889
• Respondent State: Turquia
• Date: 23 March 1995
• Application Number: 15318/89
• Court: Grand Chamber (European Court of Human Rights)
• Counsel: DEMETRIADES A.
• Applied Rules: 1;19;34;56;57;P4-6;P4-6-2;P7-7;P7-7-2;33;35;35-3
• Official Gazette Publication: [object Object]

CASE OF LOIZIDOU v. TURKEY

(Article 50)

(40/1993/435/514)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

28 July 1998

SUMMARY[1]

Judgment delivered by a Grand Chamber

Turkey – claims for just satisfaction in respect of Court’s finding, in principal judgment, of violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention

I.Entitlement to just satisfaction

Court’s finding in principal judgment that denial of access to property in northern Cyprus was imputable to Turkey is res judicata – applicant entitled to compensation.

Conclusion: respondent State’s claim dimissed (fifteen votes to two).

II.Pecuniary damage

Given uncertainties inherent in assessing economic loss caused by denial of access, sum awarded on equitable basis.

Conclusion: respondent State to pay applicant specified sum (fourteen votes to three).

III.Non-pecuniary damage

Award made in respect of anguish, helplessness and frustration suffered by applicant.

Conclusion: respondent State to pay applicant specified sum (fifteen votes to two).

IV.Applicant’s costs and expenses

Awarded in full.

Conclusion: respondent State to pay applicant specified sum (thirteen votes to four).

V.Cypriot Government’s costs and expenses

In principle not appropriate that States which act in interests of Convention community be reimbursed costs and expenses.

Conclusion: Cypriot Government’s claims dismissed (unanimously).

In the case of Loizidou v. Turkey[2],

The European Court of Human Rights, sitting, in accordance with Rule 51 of Rules of Court A[3], as a Grand Chamber composed of the following judges:

MrR. Bernhardt, President,
MrF. Gölcüklü,
MrL.-E. Pettiti,
MrA. Spielmann,
MrS.K. Martens,
MrsE. Palm,
MrR. Pekkanen,
MrA.N. Loizou,
MrJ.M. Morenilla,
SirJohn Freeland,
MrA.B. Baka,
MrM.A. Lopes Rocha,
MrL. Wildhaber,
MrG. Mifsud Bonnici,
MrJ. Makarczyk,
MrP. Jambrek,
MrU. Lōhmus,

and also of Mr H. Petzold, Registrar, and Mr P.J. Mahoney, Deputy Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 29 November 1997 and 25 June 1998,

Delivers the following judgment on Article 50, which was adopted on the last-mentioned date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case was referred to the Court by the Government of the Republic of Cyprus (“the Cypriot Government”) on 9 November 1993, within the three-month period laid down by Article 32 § 1 and Article 47 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”). It originated in an application (no. 15318/89) against the Republic of Turkey (“the Turkish Government”) lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) under Article 25 by a Cypriot national, Ms Titina Loizidou, on 22 July 1989.

2. In its judgment of 23 March 1995 the Court dismissed various preliminary objections raised by the Turkish Government but joined to the merits a preliminary objection ratione temporis (Series A no. 310).

In its judgment on the merits of 18 December 1996 (“the principal judgment”) the Court dismissed the objection ratione temporis and found that the continuous denial of the applicant’s access to her property in northern Cyprus and the ensuing loss of all control over the property was a matter which fell within Turkey’s “jurisdiction” within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention and was thus imputable to Turkey. It also found that there had been a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in that the applicant had effectively lost all control over, as well as all possibilities to use and enjoy, her property. However it found that there had been no interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her home under Article 8 of the Convention (Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI, pp. 2227–38, §§ 31–66, and points 1–4 of the operative provisions).

3. As the question of the application of Article 50 was not ready for decision, it was reserved in the principal judgment. The Court invited the Turkish Government and the applicant to submit, within six months, their written observations on the matter and, in particular, to notify the Court of any agreement they may have reached (ibid., pp. 2238–39, §§ 67–69, and point 5 of the operative provisions).

4. No agreement having been reached, the applicant and the Turkish Government submitted their memorials on 23 and 24 June 1997. A valuation report, setting out the basis for the calculation of the applicant’s loss, was appended to the applicant’s memorial. The comments of the Delegate of the Commission in reply were received on 28 July 1997.

5. In their memorial the Turkish Government contested the Court’s decision...