Varoši can play a key role in both the real estate crisis and the political solution process, argued Turkish Cypriot lawyer Murat Metin Hakki, who specializes in property rights issues, commenting on the ECHR decision in the case of KV Mediterranean Tours Ltd v. Turkey in "Yeni Duzen".
According to the publication, Mr. Hakki stated that Varosha remains the biggest and perhaps the only bargaining chip in the hands of the Turkish Cypriots, both in the context of international law and in local internal politics or in relations with the Greek Cypriots. "The ECHR decision recorded that the 50-year status quo can no longer be maintained," he said.
In that decision, he argued, the court recognized the applicant Greek Cypriot company as the owner of the property, and although the proceedings are still before the "real estate committee", it ruled that it was authorized to examine the issue of violation of rights in more detail and ruled that the right to property had been violated.
He noted that the ECHR wants the "committee" to continue its work, but also issued some warnings, with Mr. Hakki arguing that the main meaning and importance of the decision in question is that something must be done about Varosha.
Mr. Hakki also stated that the “committee” has not reached any decisions on applicants concerning Varosha, apart from one “small case”. “After the exchange of positions at the ECHR in 2021-2022, there was a long wait for the decision in the KV Mediterranean Tours Ltd case and finally the decision was announced on June 10”, he added. In which decision, he continued, the ECHR rejected the position that domestic remedies had been exhausted and decided that the ECHR itself is competent to examine further details.
On the other hand, he added, the ECtHR did not find any violation of rights regarding the inclusion of EVKAF in the case and essentially ruled that the prolonged procedure before the “committee” violated property rights. “The fact that no suggestion or allusion was made to the exclusion of EVKAF from the application to the committee is, at first glance, a point in favor of EVKAF. However, the ECtHR stated that the owner of 1974 is the (Greek) company. Compensation must be paid to this company,” he said.
According to Mr. Hakki, the ECHR also found that there are no effective safeguards against delays in the "committee" and requested measures in this direction.
He also considered that the ECtHR wants to set a precedent for the parties by examining a pilot case in such depth, including the final calculation of compensation, and will guide how applications for Varosha should be handled in the future, with regard to the application process, the applicant's rights and the calculation of compensation.
The Turkish Cypriot lawyer believes that the ECHR largely left the "committee" out of the picture in this case, but created the ground for the conclusion it will reach and the framework it will set to serve as an example for future issues.
According to Murat Hakki, the status of a military zone has never been a legal obstacle to providing solutions such as compensation or exchange. “In my opinion, the opening of Varosha has also turned into an unsuccessful legal and diplomatic move. However, the fundamental importance of this decision is that something must now be done about Varosha. Putting the file on the shelf and forgetting about it, postponing it is not an excuse,” he said.
In the context of international law, he continued, resolutions 550 and 789 stand out for Varosha, while the ECHR has also recognized the "immovable property committee" that examines property issues there.
"The status of Varosha as a military zone can be lifted in a controlled manner under Turkish rule and can be transferred to its registered owners in 74 or their heirs, thus satisfying two of the three rules that stand out in the context of international relations and international law. What remains is the issue of transfer to the UN, which is also a very complex issue and one that must be handled very delicately and neutralized with commentary," he said.
This, he argued, means the opening of Varos under Turkish administration and the return of property to the Greek Cypriots, through the "real estate committee", and the issuance of a valid "property title" in accordance with the "legislation" of the pseudo-state to the legal Greek Cypriot owners.
Source: KYPE
