The peaceful settlement of strife between Turkey and Cyprus has always been a matter of international concern and continues to be the case. The separation of the Turkish Cypriot part from the Greek part of Turkey and Turkish domination of the Turkish Cypriot sector has been one of the challenges that have been casting a shadow over relations between Cyprus and Turkey for many years (Giavroutas).
According to Lott, following the Cypriot government's lawsuit against the Turkish government, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on 12 May 2014, issued its warrant in the process of just satisfaction of Cyprus against Turkey. Thirteen years after the Grand Chamber's main decision that Turkey is responsible for human rights violations in relation to Article 2 (right to life), Article 3 (prohibition of torture) and Article 5 (Right to liberty and security) of the Convention to be (Ecthr - Cyprus v. Turkey).
Just satisfaction (Article 41) relates to monetary damages awarded because of violations of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Grand Chamber has decided that Turkey will pay 90,000,000 euros ($ 123,000,000) in non-pecuniary damages by 1456 relatives of missing Greeks and Cypriots, as well as the Greek-Cypriot barrier on the engaged Cypriot Peninsula. Turkey has been obligated to pay (Case of). As such, this is the first legal battle that the ECHR has acquired just satisfaction in an interstate case.
“The Cyprus dispute, also known as the Cyprus conflict, Cyprus issue, or Cyprus problem, is an ongoing dispute between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots” (Giavroutas). It entered its current phase in the outcome of the 1974 Turkish military attack and occupation of the northern third of Cyprus. As Giavroutas states, On 15 July 1974, fourteen years after Cypriot independence from Britain, among increasing inter-ethnic fighting between Greek and Turkish Cypriots and in the immediate aftershock of a takeover by right-wing Greek-Cypriot national guard officers seeking enosis (political union) with Greece. Turkey invaded Cyprus, occupied 36.2 percent of the Sovran land of the Republic, and effectively expelled about 180,000 Greek Cypriots from their homes (Hoffmeister). Another 20,000 Greek Cypriots, who remained in the occupied areas, were also obligated to ultimately abandon their homes and seek refuge in the safety of the government-controlled areas. Today, less than 500 enclaved Greek Cypriots remain in the occupied areas. Turkey still denies the displaced Greek Cypriots of their right to return to their homes and properties (Giavroutas).
In addition to the economic destruction caused by the offensive and the violent population movement, over 3000 people were killed, while some 1400 Greek Cypriots are still missing (Ecthr - Cyprus v. Turkey). This has given rise to applications to the European Court of Human Rights, which has issued major decisions on Turkey’s violations of the European Convention. According to Lott, in 1983, the Turkish-occupied region made a unilateral declaration of independence creating the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC). In the outcome of the independent statement of the TRNC, Greek-Cypriot citizens began to use international and national courts to redress property claims and human rights misuses. The case of Cyprus v. Turkey emerged before the ECHR in 1994 alongside with cases brought by Cypriot citizens acting (Case of).
The events of 1974 and their aftermath gave rise to three claims wedged by Cyprus against Turkey under former Article 24 of the Convention (Lott). Some of the Cyprus government's arguments against Turkey include the large-scale murder of Greek Cypriots as well as the large number of missing. Moving Greek and South Cypriots south without returning to their homes. Loss of property rights for minorities in Northern Cyprus; eradication of Greek-language secondary schools in the north, severe and unjustified censorship of schoolbooks. Restricting freedom of religion, practicing discrimination and harassment in northern Cyprus (Ecthr - Cyprus v. Turkey).
On 10 May 2001, the Court consistently stated that the question of the possible use of Article 41 of the Convention was not ready for decision and postponed its consideration (Hoffmeister). According to Article 41 of the Convention, “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party” (Case of). As Lott writs, in 2001, the Court decided that the parties should wait for a final decision on just satisfaction, and that the principle of good faith obliged them to maintain the status as far as possible and await the process of review. This meant that Cyprus had in fact decided to uphold the regulatory function of the Committee of Ministers and not to go to court for just satisfaction (Ecthr - Cyprus v. Turkey).
A few years later, when it became clear that Turkey was unwilling to “resolve the issue through political means (i.e., through public and specific measures)", the Cypriot government realized that it had no choice but to return to court in order to properly enforce this order. Be assured through equitable satisfaction (Lott). For this reason, on August 31, 2007, the applicant government informed the court that it intended to file a petition with the Grand Chamber to resume the possible application of Article 41 of the Convention (Case of).
On March 11, 2010, Cyprus submitted to the court claims for equitable satisfaction with missing persons who had observed violations of Articles 2, 3 and 5 of the Convention (Ecthr - Cyprus v. Turkey). According to Lott, Cyprus argued, that a just request for consent is not merely a claim for financial damages directly entered Cyprus as a country. Rather, it comes from humanitarian concerns that further delays individual rights to treatment among older Cypriot citizens who were injured by the Turkish government in 1974. In 2010, on behalf of its affected citizens, Cyprus applied for just satisfaction relief. In the recent ruling, two legal questions needed to be addressed. First, because of the passage of time, was the application inadmissible? Second, could Article 41 be applied in an inter-state argument? The Court found, by a widespread majority, that the passage of time had no legal effect on the Cypriot government’s application and that Cyprus, as a state, could apply for just satisfaction on behalf of battered citizens (Hoffmeister). On November 25, 2011, the Government of Cyprus again calls on Europe and the Court to take particular processes to facilitate the implementation of the innovative judgment (Case of).
On 12 May 2014, the Court considered Cyprus’ claim for just satisfaction for the violations relating to the missing persons and the enclaved (Cyprus v Turkey). The court finds that the Cypriot government's just satisfaction plan is not pointed to compensate the government for violating its rights, but “for the benefit of the individual victims - 1,456 missing persons and Greek-Cypriot residents surrounded by the Carpathian Peninsula” (Ecthr - Cyprus v. Turkey). In these surroundings, and in the case of disappeared persons and carpenters, the Court deliberates that the Applicant State has the right to bring a protest under Article 41 of the Convention and this would be a just satisfaction (Lott). After a series of detailed legal reviews, the court found 14 cases of violations of the European Convention on Human Rights by Turkey. “Violations of Articles 8, 13 and P1-1 concerning Greek-Cypriot displaced persons and property. Violations of Articles 3, 8, 9, 10, 13, P1-1 and P1-2 regarding the living conditions of Greek Cypriots in the Karpas area of northern Cyprus. Violation of Article 6 concerning the rights of Turkish Cypriots residing in Northern Cyprus” (Ecthr - Cyprus v. Turkey). To this effect, the Court decided that Turkey must pay 90 million Euros in total, including 30 million Euros to the relatives of the missing persons and 60 million Euros to the enclaved. The award was based on article 41 ECHR according to which ‘the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party’ in cases of violations of the Convention or its Procedures (Case of). Finally, after 13 years of efforts, the government of Cyprus has been able to seize the rights of affected citizens and families.
In conclusion, The Cyprus - Turkey case (just satisfaction) could be one of the most important lawsuits in the history of the European Court of Human Rights. It also greatly contributes to world peace, in addition to the court's final verdict of moral condemnation as well as legal condemnation of the transgressor. The Court has acknowledged the application of Article 41 of the European Convention on Human Rights at the intergovernmental level, so this could be a clear message to countries involved in war, aggression or foreign-armed intervention in other countries. Hostile governments must be held accountable for the unlawful actions and consequences of their actions on victims, their families, and are responsible for compensation even after a long time of committing the crime. It can be concluded that this case confirms the legitimacy of the Republic of Cyprus and its government. Therefore, these decisions are an important basis for any future comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem. In my opinion, the war and its tragic effects only harm the defenseless people that are not acceptable anywhere in the world and is completely inhumane. Countries that do not comply with this principle must be legally accountable regardless of political consequences.
Works Cited
"Case of Cyprus v. Turkey ". European Court of Human Rights. May 12, 2014.
"ECtHR - Cyprus v. Turkey, Application no. 25781/94". European Database of Asylum Law.
May 10, 2001.
https://www.asylumlawdatabase.eu/en/content/ecthr-cyprus-v-turkey-application-no-2578194-10-may-2001
Giavroutas, Tasos."The Cyprus Problem – The 1974 Turkish Invasion and its consequences”. In-
Cyprus. 2019.
Hoffmeister, Frank. "Cyprus v. Turkey. App. No. 25781/94". Cambridge University Press. Feb
27, 2017.
Lott, Anthony. "Cyprus v. Turkey: Just Satisfaction and Acts of Aggression". American Society
Of International Law. Aug 27, 2014.
Comments