Kibkom North Cyprus Forum

According to the report in Cyprus Mail today, the Court of Human Rights has judged the IPC ineffective and Turkey has not defended it, so what happens next?

As I understand it the ECHR has ruled that the IPC was ineffective as a domestic remedy in this specific case. What could happen next is Turkey / IPC amend the operation of the IPC so that it is deemed by the ECHR an effective local remedy not just in principal but also in specific instances where by a given claimant challenges its effectiveness at the ECHR as they did in this case.

For those interested the ECHR ruling can be seen here (in pdf format). This link is not from the ECHR itself and I do not have time right now to find such a 'primary source' link but I believe it to be an accurate copy of the ECHR's findings

https://www.ddikastes.gr/sites/default/ ... TURKEY.pdf

some extracts that relate to the issue of the validity of the IPC in principal as a valid domestic remedy.

81. At this point, the Court finds it important to note that there is nothing in the applicant’s arguments and submissions which could, in itself, at present call into question the effectiveness of the IPC remedy as such.

However, there is nothing at present persuading the Court to conclude that the possible delays or difficulties arising in the processing of particular cases before the IPC call into doubt its findings in the Demopoulos and Others case (cited above, §§ 124-126), according to which that remedy is accessible and capable of efficiently delivering redress.

86. Indeed, and without prejudice to its findings regarding the applicant’s specific arguments concerning her case before the IPC, the Court emphasises that it is perfectly possible that a remedy that is in general found to be effective operates inappropriately in the circumstances of a particular case. This does not, however, mean that the effectiveness of the remedy as such, or the obligation of other applicants to avail themselves of
that remedy, should be called into question (see, for instance, V.K. v. Croatia, no. 38380/08, §§ 115-116, 27 November 2012). Nevertheless, the Court would stress that it remains attentive to the developments in the functioning of the IPC remedy and its ability to effectively address Greek Cypriot property claims.

My 'reading' of this case is that it is the ECHR sending a 'warning' to Turkey / IPC about its operation in practice. It is the ECHR saying do not take two years to reply to an application, do not keep requesting documentary evidence that has already been supplied and the like. It is saying if you do keep doing such things then you run the risk of the ECHR ruling that the IPC no longer represents and effective domestic remedy generically.

Thanks Erol, you have made it very clear.

The IPC has paid our very little over the past few years and it was only a matter of time before it was deemed to be an ineffective remedy. My issue with this is why even bother when the South do not have a similar system in place. Just turn the IPC off until the South reciprocate.

gary&shirley wrote:The IPC has paid our very little over the past few years and it was only a matter of time before it was deemed to be an ineffective remedy.

Again just to be clear here this ruling has NOT said that the IPC in not an effective local remedy in general terms. It is saying that in this specific case, primarily because of delays that it blames mostly on the IPC, it proved not to be but is explicitly clear that this does not mean that it's status as an effective local remedy in principal has changed.

gary&shirley wrote:My issue with this is why even bother when the South do not have a similar system in place. Just turn the IPC off until the South reciprocate.

My own personal view is that 'we' (Turkey / TRNC) should not refuse to 'do the right thing' simply on the basis that 'they' are not doing so. As far as settlements can be agreed and reached via the IPC, such are good for Turkey, good for the TRNC, good for any 'current user' of land / property that is settled and good for the person making the claim. The RoC would claim that it does have an effective local remedy for those TC that lost use of their property in the South because of it's actions post 1974. As far as this 'local remedy' is not 'just' then it is down to TC to go to the ECHR to have this challenged. This has in the past been done on some issues to do with the RoC's 'local remedy' and the RoC has, strategically imo, chosen to amend it's law's and processes before such cases were ruled on by the ECHR - in one case doing so on the day before the ECHR was due to rule. In my view there are still many aspects of the RoC's 'local remedy' that should indeed be challenged via the ECHR and hopefully over time these will be so challenged and changes made as a result.

Correct.me if I'm wrong but does the same thing happen in the south ie TC property returned compensated for etc as I have not heard of it. So if it's a one sided thing why does the north bother??

terry2366 wrote:Correct.me if I'm wrong but does the same thing happen in the south ie TC property returned compensated for etc as I have not heard of it. So if it's a one sided thing why does the north bother??

Lots of issues here. I will start with this 'why does Turkey bother' question, which has been mentioned twice now.

We need to be honest here. Turkey is not 'bothering' because of some altruistic desire to 'do the right thing'.Turkey 'bothers' because of the ECHR rulings against it. Countries that are members of the Council of Europe (nothing to do with the EU btw), as Turkey is, can and do ignore ECHR rulings. The UK for example has been doing so for many years now with regards to a ruling about the right of prisoner to vote in elections. However there is a political cost to ignoring such rulings that increases with time they are ignored and the numbers of cases that are ignored. Turkey only set up the IPC when it decided the political cost of having 1000's of claims against it at the ECHR was greater than the monetary cost of negating such claims by setting up the IPC in a manner that the ECHR deems is an effective remedy in principal (and in practice). In short It 'bothers' because it believes doing so is better for Turkey than 'not bothering' is for Turkey.

Past that there is the whole issue of how the RoC has acted since 1974 re TC property in the South. This is not directly comparable with the situation Turkey / TRNC is in for a whole host of reasons, which I will not go in to here atm as the post would end up being pages long.

More 'IPC' news for anyone interested

http://cyprus-mail.com/2018/04/03/north ... dir-hotel/