ECHR ENDORSES PROPERTY SWAP BUT SIDESTEPS THE TURKISH

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 NICOSIA 000270 SIPDIS SIPDIS, SENSITIVE E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PGOV PREL CY SUBJECT: ECHR ENDORSES PROPERTY SWAP BUT SIDESTEPS THE TURKISH CYPRIOT "PROPERTY COMMISSION" Ref: 07 Nicosia 811 ¶1. (SBU) Summary: The April 22 decision of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) approving a property swap between Greek Cypriot refugee Michael Tymvios and Turkey fell short of declaring the Turkish Cypriot "Property Commission" an effective local remedy, a finding that the Republic of Cyprus had feared could confer indirect recognition on the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus." However, the burden of implementing the ECHR decision now falls on the shoulders of the RoC, since the Turkish Cypriot-owned property awarded to Tymvios lies in the government-controlled area. Government officials must choose between two options both carrying significant risks: accepting the ECHR decision, a potentially precedent-setting move that could leave it susceptible to a flood of copycat cases, or opposing it, earning the Strasbourg court's ire and threatening Greek Cypriots' continuing use of international litigation to settle property claims. ¶2. (SBU) In a second judgment, the Court ordered Turkey to pay 835,000 Euros (USD 1,333,000) to a Greek Cypriot refugee (Demades) for loss of use of his property in Kyrenia, in the T/C-administered area. The latter ECHR decision was hailed by Greek Cypriots as yet another blow to Turkey since it reaffirmed that refugees retain ownership of their properties in the north. Post will report Septel additional reactions from both sides of the Green Line, as well as the Government's thinking on maintaining the "lawsuit track" even as preliminary negotiations on property and other elements of the Cyprus Problem continue. END SUMMARY. -------------- Tymvios vs. Turkey -------------- ¶3. (U) On April 22, the European Court of Human Rights issued a long-awaited decision approving a friendly settlement reached between Greek Cypriot Michael Tymvios and the Government of Turkey. The deal in question was brokered by the Turkish Cypriot "Property Commission" in May 2007, and entailed striking the case from the ECHR's docket, an action that caused consternation in the G/C community and RoC (Reftel). Tymvios, a well-known businessman and chemist, in 1990 had filed his case against Turkey for damages over loss of use of his property in the north, now home to "illegal" Ercan Airport. The ECHR found in 2003 in his favor, but a decision on actual compensation looked distant and Tymvios was deep in debt. Tymvios and the Turkish Cypriot "Property Commission" met sometime in 2007 and, on May 21 of that year, reached a friendly settlement. The deal called for withdrawal of his application before the ECHR and exchange of his property in the north for Turkish Cypriot property in the city of Larnaca, in the south, plus one million dollars. ¶4. (SBU) News in 2007 that the ECHR might soon bless the property swap had caused tremors in the Greek Cypriot community for two reasons: firstly, that such a decision would confer a degree of recognition on the "TRNC" by declaring the "Commission" an effective local remedy which must be exhausted before G/C-originated property cases against Turkey could be filed in Strasbourg; and, secondly, that the ECHR finding could lead to the collapse of the Guardian of Turkish Cypriot Property Law, the RoC statute that bars Turkish Cypriots residing in the north from reclaiming their properties in the south. The RoC unsuccessfully attempted to prevent the sanctioning of the land swap by intervening in Court proceedings and questioning Tymvios's ability to enter into any settlement in light of his earlier declaration of bankruptcy. ¶5. (U) Strasbourg officials, however, opined that Tymvios's bankruptcy had no bearing on the case. Further, the plaintiff accused the government of persecuting him and acting vindictively against him ever since he agreed to the friendly settlement in 2007. As proof, he revealed that in January, the Ministry of Commerce and Industry had foreclosed on a piece of his property and immediately sold it at a price far below its market value. He also said that foreclosure proceedings had been initiated for his chemical laboratory and, as result, he would soon be rendered jobless. Tymvios had communicated these complaints to the ECHR. ¶6. (SBU) Lawyer and property expert Achilleas Demetriades told us April 23 that, while the Tymvios decision did not "upgrade" the Turkish Cypriot "Commission," it could still have grave effects on the Guardianship Law, depending on how the RoC decided to deal with the case. If the Land Registry Department, citing restrictions in the Guardianship Law, refuses to transfer the property in Larnaca to Tymvios -- a possibility, since the original T/C owners do not reside permanently in the south -- Tymvios is already on record stating he will file suit in Strasbourg against the government. Such a refusal risks international condemnation, however, and could prove disastrous to the RoC-blessed practice of G/Cs seeking redress through international courts. Demetriades considered some sort of "out-of-court" arrangement between the RoC and Tymvios the most likely outcome, although he did not rule out the government NICOSIA 00000270 002 OF 002 transferring the property outright. Should the RoC fully implement the ECHR decision and allow Tymvios to register his property through normal channels, additional, direct property exchanges between displaced G/Cs and T/Cs likely would occur. -------------- Demades vs. Turkey -------------- ¶7. (U) A second ECHR decision handed down on April 22 called on Turkey to pay 835,000 Euros (USD 1,333,000) to the heirs of John Demades for loss of use and enjoyment of their property in Kyrenia. The ECHR's principal judgment finding Turkey responsible for "continuing violation of the Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms" had been issued in July 2003. In its latest finding, the Court rejected the Turkish government's request to refer the case to the "Commission," stating that since the Court earlier had decided on the merits of the case, it should determine the issue of just satisfaction as well. ¶8. (SBU) The Court reiterated that, as in the earlier cases of Titina Loizidou vs. Turkey, Cyprus vs. Turkey, and Xenides-Aresti vs. Turkey, displaced Greek Cypriots could not be deemed to have lost title to their property as a result of the events of 1974. As such, ECHR-awarded compensation was confined to losses emanating from the denial of access, and the loss of control, use and enjoyment of their property. Demades's lawyer Demetriades, who had represented Loizidou and Xenides-Aresti as well, commented that the decision "quantified the cost of Turkey's occupation of Cyprus." He pointed out that the damages awarded for loss of use were almost double the amount that Turkey had offered to his client to settle the case. -------------- Comment -------------- ¶9. (SBU) If not exactly promoting the practice, past Greek Cypriot administrations certainly condoned the seeking of international court redress by displaced Greek Cypriot property owners. As long as the decisions favored Nicosia and tarred Ankara, as Loizidou, Arestis, and others earlier had, the strategy made great sense. With Tymvios, however, Strasbourg has delivered at least a partial victory to the other side, leaving many in the south worried about long-term repercussions. Early bluster by some in the administration to oppose the ECHR's ruling over technicalities has since given way to more measured statements, with experts cognizant that, having adopted and supported the legal track for years, the government must be prepared to accept and implement all outcomes, not just favorable ones. The government spokesman subsequently pledged the administration's intention to work closely with the Attorney General to determine the RoC's course of action. Encouragingly, he also reiterated that the Cyprus Problem - and not just its property component -- required a political, not a legal solution. We agree, and will suggest to leaders that the growing uncertainties involved in using international legal fora to pursue local property claims should serve as a strong impetus to negotiate the necessary political solution.