Controversial ECHR decision sends Cyprus' Refugees back to start anew after 20 Years Legal fight ?

    For the 1st time after more than 20 Years of Legal struggle at the European Court of Human Rights, a controversial grand Chamber's decision almost send Greek Cypriot Refugees back to a starting point, by asking them to submit their applications to a shady 2-stage mecanism set up in the Occupied Territories held by Ankara's Army since their Expulsion by the 1974 Foreign Military Occupation, before they might eventually come back to Strasbourg...

    It's true that the 2010 decision by ECHR's grand Chamber (17 judges out of 47) was  based on some changes mainly made between 2003-2006 , when Turkey was obliged to open the Dividing Line between the Free areas and the Occupied Territories and to establish there a Committee to deal with the Properties illegally usurpated from Greek Cypriot Refugees and Displaced Persons.

    Also, ECHR explicitly rejected any "indirect legitimation of a Regime Unlawfull under International Law" in the Turkish Occupied Territories of Cyprus, and clearly confirmed that "the government of the Republic of Cyprus remains the sole Legitimate Government" in the island. ECHR also spoke about People "living under Occupation", (etc), stressing the "Fact that there is an Illegal Occupation" by Ankara's Foreign Army, and reiterated that "the overall Control exerciced by Turkey over the territory of northern Cyprus entails her (i.e. Ankara's) Responsibility  for the policies and actions of the "TRNC", and .. Turkey is accountable for Violations  of .. (Human) Rights which take place within that territory".
---------------
    But one of the main "burning" points for the Victims, (in addition to the "Humiliation", as they said, to be obliged to step under a Foreign Occupation Army, after Years of Legal struggle in Strasbourg), is that this mecanism in the Turkish Occupied Territories seems to excessively restrict or practicaly exclude "Restitution" of Refugees' Family Homes, except only in a few, rare and/or delayed cases, and even to limit Financial Compensation, in case of definite deprivation of private property, in smaller amounts than normally due, which appear to be much less than its real Value.  
    Briefly speaking, Turkey could definitively exclude almost all of them, and legalise the usurpation of their Family Homes and private Properties, as well as the hindrance to return to their Family Homes and Ancestral Land where they were born and lived before being forciblly expulsed by a Foreign Military Invasion, only by paying, after 35 Years' Delay, a small portion of their value, Victims' criticized.

    This Risk appears even greater, when the controversial ECH grd. Chamber's "Decision" seems to add that, in the view of a Majority of its members, there is "Defect"  only when there is total "LACK OF ANY provision for Restitution", while, "it is satisfied", on the contrary, when it finds "that (some) Restitution of property has occured", without even examining how many, nor whether this is exceptional or frequent enough..

    Indeed, ECHR itself observes that, already, out of "433 cases" submitted to the controversial "Committee" in the Occupied Territories since 2006, after several Years, in 2010, only .. Four (4 !) cases of some "Restitution" were noted, i.e. .. less than one percent (1%)...

    Or, both ECHR in various earlier judgements, and recently UNO in its New Official Doctrine, as well as International Human Rights NGOs (like "Redress", etc), strongly stress "Restitution" and, only if it's impossible : "Full Compensation", as the main Legal Principle, which allows also Refugees and Displaced Persons' inalienable Right to Return. (See infra).

    In Socio-Political terms, this obviously could mean in practice that only a few Greek Cypriot Refugees might see their Human Rights to Return back to their Family Homes and Ancestral Land respected, provoking fears of a kind of "legitimation" of Turkey's  aim to keep a tight Separation between Greekl Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots in 2 different parts of the island, as Ankara illegaly imposed since its 1974 Military Invasion and Occupation, which still persists 36 Years after a provisional pretext given by a failed, short Greek Cypriot "Coup" inspired by the former Military Chunta in Athens, whose instigators were severely punished by long terms of Jail after the reestablishment of Democracy in Greece and Cyprus.

    According to the recently established International Penal Court, Ethnic Cleansing in Occupied Territories, i.e. the massive import of its own Nationals by an Occupying power, in remplacement of the Native Population, obliged to flee a Foreign Military Occupation, tantamounts to a "War Crime". But Turkey is one of the rare CoE Member Countries which has not yet signed IPC's Statute, despite repeated calls by CoE Parliamentary Assembly's Resolutions for all its members to do so.
----------------------
    Turkish Press and Turkish Cypriot Media in the Occupied Territories of Cyprus (where many Settlers from mainland Turkey were massively imported since the 1974 expulsion of the Greek Cypriot Majority by Ankara's Army, as CoE's Assembly repeatedly denounced in the 1990ies and 2000ies), reportedly cried "Victory" over ECHR grd. Chamber's decision, claiming that "ECHR slamed the door of Strasbourg at Greek Cypriots' faces",  while, on the contrary, Greek Cypriot Press denounced an "unjust" "Shock", an "error", and/or a "Nightmare"..

    Political analysts atributed ECHR grd. Chamber's "precipitation", as they said, to reject the Greek Cypriot Refugees' applications, as a way to support the current Leader of the Turkish Cyupriot Community, Mehmet Talat (considered as comparatively more "moderate"), against his main competitor, Eroglou, at the forthcoming so-called "Elections" in the Occupied Territories, exactly when the Political Campain was starting...

    Given also that this controversial ECHR move, celebrated by Turkey, comes shortly before Ankara takes over CoE's Committee of Ministers' rotating Chair on November 2010 (until April 2011 included), after assuming also the Chair of CoE's ..Human Rights' meetings in just 2 Months : May 2010, while a Turkish MEP, Mevlut Cavusoglou, already got the job of CoE Parliamentary Assembly's President, for the 1st time in CoE's 60 Years' History, since January 2010 (for 2 Years), obviously, all these unprecedented events which converge towards a never seen before over-concentration of Institutional Power without any Safeguard, inevitably risks to provoke legitimate Concern and Fears by various People about eventual Risks against Human Rights and even Human Rights Defenders' Freedom around CoE in the forthcoming Months...
--------------------------------------------
    The controversial ruling  is not a "Judgement", but a procedural  "Decicion" on the Admissibility of certain (8) applications.

    Therefore, even if usualy ECHR follows its own practice, and might use now this decision as a "Pilot" case to massively reject many other Pending applications, Legally nothing deprives ECHR's freedom to decide, partially or totally, otherwise, in a differend way, at a future judgement.

     It was taken by a formation of 17 Members out of the 47 ECHR's EuroJudges, and, even then, not  unanimously but only "by a Majority".  

    Exceptionally, however, No Publication of the "Dissending Opinions" was made now, contrary to a long practice in almost all other important ECHR's rulings on Cyprus' issue.

    Moreover, the Number of EuroJudges who disagreed was not published officialy, and ECHR's Press Service, contacted by "EuroFora", was unable yet to give that Number.
-----------------------
    Refugees/Displaced Persons, Lawyers and Experts were also surprised by the fact that the controversial ECHR grd. Chamber's majority decision (unlike UNO's Principles) contests  Refugees' Right to access their usurpated Houses "even if Restitution is materially possible" !

    As for Refugees/Displaces persons obliged to flee from their Family Home, and hindered to Return, it's true that  ECHR recognized their Right under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights (protecting Family Life, etc), even if they were not proprietors.

    But it rejected the only one application of that kind among the 8 present cases, concerning a young Girl which was even born at her Family Home from which she had been afterwards obliged to flee and still hindeed to return, mainly by observing the mere passage of Time, since her eviction ("some 28 Years" in that case), as if a Thief or a Criminal would be .. absolved from his Crime, if he continued and persisted to commit it continuously for many years, (as Turkey "continues" to violate Greek Cypriot Refugees'. Human Rights, by persisting to hinder their acces to their Homes for many years, as ECHR's traditional case-law had repeatedly denounced)..

    Refugees/Displaced Persons also pointed, "inter alia, to the Time, effort and Humiliation that ...would involve, after Years of continuing and flagrant Violations", and many Years of Legal Fight in Strasbourg, to be obliged to start everything anew and submit their applications  inside a territory under Foreign Military Occupation.  ECHR grd. Chamber's majoriy decisionb replied that "similar argument might be raised ...by any victim of a violation who is faced with the prospect of asking for redress from a State which has been responsible for the injury suffered", i.e. curiously forgetting even to mention the specific character of these Cyprus' cases, which is the fact that the Victims would be obliged to submit to any humiliating and/or bothersome formalities that an illegal regime under Foreign Military Occupation might impose to them..

    Mutatis-mutandis, several International NGOs, including fex. Human Rights Watch, etc., have recently criticized another ECHR's ruling which had earlier blocked all applications by Kurdish Refugees or Displaced persons from mainland Turkey, obliging them to go back to Turkish Courts, (contrary to ECHR's initial case-law), because, as NGOs denounced, after such an ECHR's Ruling, Turkish Authorities had reportedly .. multiplied practical and formalistic Obstacles against Refugees/Displaced persons' return to their Homes, artificially making it more and more  restricted and Difficult in real practice, often almost impossible..
------------------
Victims : No Explanation for the 2010 rejection, 10 Years after "Freezing" cases since April 2000...
-------------------
     Comments by Lawyers of the Victims criicized the fact that No clear Explanation was provided why, after some inside the ECHR "Freezed" (since April 2000) almost all pending Cases of Greek Cypriot Refugees, then, obliged the Victims to wait for .. a whole Decade  before  suddenly telling them, only on March 2010, exactly 10 (Ten !) Years later, that their application was "inadmissible" for purely Procedural motifs (i.e. because they didn't previously exhaust "remedies"), even concerning developments which did not exist when they lodged their applications...

    Curiously, the 2010 controversial EU grd. Chamber's decision on Cyprus Refugees' Human Rights,  even complaints that "the Court .. faced cases burdened with a Political, Historical and factual Complexity, following a Problem that should have been resolved by all parties ... finding a Solution on a Political level"...

    It even goes as far as to explicitly acknowledge that "the .. evolution of the .. Political dispute must (sic !) inform the Court's interpretation and application of the (European) Convention" of Human Rights, as if individual persons were responsible for inter-Governemental issues, and as if Legal Principles on Human Rights should bow to Political points, (i.e. contrary to ECHR's traditional case-law)...
-----------------------
    >>> But experienced Lawyer Achileas Demetriades, (who has become famous after winning the 1st landmark "Loizidou" case where ECHR judged in 1996, after an impressive, Historic Public Hearing at 1994, that a Displaced Woman had the Right to condemn Turkey for the continuing usurpation of its House in the Occupied Territories of Cyprus), reminded now that, in fact, ECHR's controversial 2010 decision "had been progressively prepared 9 Years earlier, i.e. since 2001" ...

    Demetriades' reference pointed at ECHR's Grand Chamber's 2001 Judgement in the important Inter-State case "Cyprus v. Turkey", (which condemned Ankara's Government also many other, and much more Grave, continuing Human Rights Violations, as, f.ex. those commited against "Missing" People and their Families, etc), where EuroJudges hotly debated among them, as sharp Divisions between various, clearly Opposed "Dissending Opinions" revealed, an exceptional opening of a possibility for some institutional mecanisms set up by a Foreign Occupying Power to deal with Individuals' immediate needs, to eventually, under certain Conditions, be considered as "domestic remedies" that victims of Violations would be required to exhaust before lodging an application to Strasbourg.

    However, "EuroFora" remembers that another Greek Cypriot Journalist, (during a Group visit in Strasbourg where they met the then CoE Secretary General Daniel Tarshys), had already warned that, in his view, "the Loizidou case can become the Graveyard of Cyprus' issue", as he said for a  1998 ECHR Judgement which had accepted that Turkey could only pay a Financial Compensation for the Displaced Woman's House in the Occuypied Territories, without explicitly asking for its Restitution.
-------------------
    Evenmore, now, by giving the impression that Greek Cypriot Refugees should drop hopes to recover their usurpated Family Homes via the ECHR mecanism in the foreseeable future, after more than 15 to 20 Years of Legal struggles in Strasbourg which had repeatedly confirmed their Rights, (unbless they wish to prolonge     the Legal fight for 7 to 10 Years more : i.e. some ... 22 to 30 Years in total, a Delay that would be an exceptional Scandal in ECHR's History !),  this decision risks to give more importance to the growing EU and UNO's New Human Rights' mecanisms, at nearby Geneva and Luxembourg..

    Indeed, UNO's famous "Pinheiro Principles", (officially supported by UNO's High Commissioners on Human Rights and on Refugees, as well as by UNO's Secretary General), strongly stress that "Restitution" should be the main redress for violations of Refugees and Displaced persons' right to their Homes, in addition to their Right to Return to their ancestral Land.

    This is in line with the (long but largely succesful in recent Decades) World-wide efforts (from Africa to Asia and Latin America, including Balkans and East Timor) for the Return of Refugees and Displaced Persons, by famous Sergio de Mehlo, former UNO's High Commissioner on Human Rights (a former UN Official Expert on Refugees, that rumours pictured as a probable New UN SG), who was brutally murdered, together with other UN staff, in Beirut on 2003, shortly after Press Reports on plans for massive return of Kurdish Refugees at Northern Iraqi regions, whose Oil resources were recently disputed by a small group of "Turkmen" supported by Turkey.

    Therefore, the nearby Geneva-based UNO's International  Human Rights Council, set up after UNO's 60th Anniversary Summit of Heads of State and Government at New York on 2005, might result to be .. more protective of Refugees/IDP's Rights, than the Strasbourg-based PanEuropean CoE !

    EU being eager to prove the contrary : I.e. that Human Rights are better respected in Europe  than elsewhere in the World, the obvious risk for ECHR is now that EU's Court of Justice, at nearby Luxembourg, after the entry into force of Lisbon Treaty with its Charter of Fundamental Rights since December 2009, could develop a much more protective and efficient case-law for EU Citizens, than in the rest of CoE's Member Countries.. "                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              
    In this relation, Cyprus circulated this week at CoE's Committee of Ministers a copy of ECJ's recent Judgement on the "Orams" case, which recognized that Cypriot Courts' judgements' condemning to Fines and/or Jail anyone who might trespass on Greek Cypriot Refugees/Displaced persons' Family Homes and Properties in the Turkish  Occupied Territories of Cyprus, are applicable in all d27 EU Member Countries.
    --------------    
    Politically (as well as in real practice) ECHR grd. Chamber's controversial decision, obviously pushes Greek Cypriot Refugees to stop searching vindication of their Legal Rights in Courts, since they couldn't, no more, comme to Strasbourg, unless they have previously exhausted all procedures in the Turkish Occupied Territories (i.e. more than 3 to 5 Years, according to an experienced Lawyer, plus a new ECHR procedue, i.e, some 7, 8 or 10 Years  in total, in addition to the Time and efforts already made earlier in Strasbourg : About .. 22 to 30 Years of Legal struggle in all, which would be an exceptional Record-high Scandal of Delay in ECHR's entire History !....

    This point was, indirectly but explicitly, highlighted even at the controversial ECHR's decision which said that, if Refugees/Displaced persons don't want to submit to the Occupied Territories' mecanism, then, they "can wait a Political Solution" of the whole Cyprus' issue..

    Something that certain Politicians immediately seized as an opportunity to cla    im that Refugees' Human Rights will not be vindicated by the Victims' Individual Applications to the European Court of Human Rights,  but by following the successive Governments' guidance in their (secret) Talks with the Turkish Cypriot leadership, set up under Ankara's Military occupation.

    But, in fact, such calculations may Backfire, because they run also another Risk :

    That of a sudden, Massive rush of most Greek Cypriot Refugees to the controversial "Commitee" set up by Turkey in the illegally Occupied Territories of Cyprus, asking  massive Compensations for their usurpated properties that Ankara has repeatedly warned (even officially, inside the CoE in Strasbourg) that it cannot fund, because their real Value would total more than 22 Billions € !

    In that case, this Turkish System would inevitably collapse.

    Unless  it's the PanEuropean Human Rights' system which might do so...

Because, in practice, this gives to Turkey another occasion to persist delaying for more than ..20 Years (from 1996 until later than 2010 !) in its failure to implement ECHR Plenary's 1996 landmark Judgement (rendered by ALL EuroJudges then) on the famous "Loizidou" case, (from the name of a Displaced Woman), which had already condemned Turkey for "continuing" violations of Human Rights for hindering Refugees to access their Houses in the Occupied Territories of Cyprus, revealing a "Systemic", or "Structural" Problem in that "Reference" case, which, according to ECHR's Principles, (recently re-affirmed with strength by the Ministerial PanEuropean Conference at Interlaken, Switzerland, on February 2010), should, normally, have obliged Ankara to take adequate General Measures in order to prevent Similar Violations, that inevitably provoke justified repetitive applications. (Comp. "EuroFora"'s PressReports from Interlaken).

(NDLR : "EuroFora"'s Subscribers/Donors already got a larger initial Draft, with more factual observations, but a final version is due to incorporate more accurate and/or critical observations on this exceptionally delicate affair).