Instead of submitting its observations to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) on the two cases involving Greek Cypriot property in Varosia and Tympou, Turkey made a unilateral statement earlier this week, with the lawyer of the Greek applicants, Achilles, to attribute the move to Ankara's attempt to save time.
With the unilateral declaration, Turkey offers a total of 11.000 euros to the applicants, plus expenses, in order to close the cases in the ECtHR and return them to the 'real estate committee' in the occupied territories. Applicants have until February 28 to respond.
It is recalled that after a series of extensions requested and received, Turkey had until January 27 to submit to the European Court its observations in the case of "KV Mediterranean Tours Limited v. Turkey" concerning property in the enclosed city of Famagusta, as well as and for the case "Theodora Panagi and Eudoxia Siartou v. Turkey" in Tympou.
Speaking to KYPE, Mr Dimitriadis said he had been informed by the ECtHR on Friday that Turkey had acknowledged that there had been a delay in the 'real estate commission' examining the cases, where applicants had sought restitution and compensation. for loss of use.
At the same time, Ankara is offering 6.000 euros, plus costs, for the Famagusta case and 5.000 euros, plus costs, for the Tympos case, in order to close the cases before the Court in Strasbourg.
"These actions revolve around Turkey's attempt to further delay the process, in order to avoid examining the substance of the cases in the ECtHR," said Mr. Demitriadis, recalling that in the Famagusta case, the EVKAF is presented as a involved party. .
At the same time, it considers that the procedure followed by Turkey cannot be applied in both cases, because the applicants' complaint concerns not only the delay of the procedure, but also its inefficiency in relation to their property rights.
He added that "in the case of Varosia, huge questions are being raised about the role of EVKAF in the process, which is why Turkey's unilateral statement is tacit."
"At least for the issue of Famagusta, the Court should consider the issue of EVKAF and the rights of the applicants," says Mr. Dimitriadis. Regarding the Tympos case, he says that issues are raised about the ineffectiveness of the 'real estate committee' and therefore, this case should also be examined by the ECtHR.
According to the lawyer, the applicants have until February 28th to respond to Turkey's unilateral statement. The Court will then decide whether to accept Turkey's statement, closing the cases by paying compensation for the delay, or not. If the statement is not accepted, then Turkey will have to give the ECtHR specific answers to the questions raised in March 2019, in the text of the notification of cases, he added.
Asked about the reasons why Ankara is making a unilateral statement, Mr. Demitriadis said that "Turkey wants to save time, because it has to face a very bad situation, given the structural problems that exist in the 'committee'". It refers specifically to the fenced city of Famagusta and the involvement of EVKAF, but also in general to the ineffectiveness of the 'committee'.
Turkey is trying to move the cases to the 'real estate committee' in the occupied territories, with the Greek Cypriots - especially in the Famagusta case - preferring the procedure before the ECtHR, so that the Court can finally decide on its arguments. ΕΒΚΑΦ.
It is recalled that EVKAF claims that the enclosed city of Famagusta belongs to bakuf institutions, from which the properties were removed and given during the British administration to the Greek Cypriots and the Church. "Our view is that the property belongs to the individuals to whom the Republic of Cyprus has given certificates of Turkish-occupied property," said Mr Demitriadis, adding that the claims in Varosia concern the return of property to its owners and compensation for loss of rent from 1974 until today.