Lexploria

EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Application No. 15318/89

Titina Loizidou

against Turkey

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

(adopted on 8 July 1993)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. INTRODUCTION

(paras. 1 - 27) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

A. The application

(paras. 2 - 4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

B. The proceedings

(paras. 5 - 22). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

C. The present Report

(paras. 23 - 27) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

II. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS

(paras. 28 - 45) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

A. The particular circumstances of the case

(paras. 28 - 37) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

1. Possessions (paras. 29 - 30) . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2. Deprivation of liberty

(paras. 31 - 35) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

3. Responsibility of Turkey

(paras. 36 - 37) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

B. The evidence before the Commission

(paras. 38 - 42) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

1. Evidence concerning the applicant's

possessions (para. 38) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

2. Evidence concerning the demonstration of

19 March 1989 (paras. 39 - 42) . . . . . . . . . . 7

a) Report of the Secretary-General of the

United Nations (para. 39) . . . . . . . . . . 7

b) Witnesses (paras. 40 - 42). . . . . . . . . . 7

aa The applicant (para. 40). . . . . . . . 7

bb Witness proposed by the

applicant (para. 41). . . . . . . . . . 8

cc Other evidence (para. 42) . . . . . . . 8

C. The relevant domestic law

(paras. 43 - 45) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

1. Procedural law (para. 43). . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

2. Substantive law relied on by the

respondent Government (paras. 44 - 45) . . . . . . 8

III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION

(paras. 46 - 106) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

A. Complaints declared admissible

(para. 46) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

B. Points at issue

(para. 47) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

C. Arrest and detention

(paras. 48 - 85) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

1. Imputability (paras. 48 - 51). . . . . . . . . . .10

2. Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention

(paras. 52 - 72) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

a) The character of the demonstration

(paras. 55 - 58). . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

b) The treatment of the applicant -

evaluation of the evidence

(paras. 59 - 62). . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

c) Application of Article 3 of the

Convention to the facts established

(paras. 63 - 64). . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

Conclusion (para. 65). . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

d) Application of Article 8 of the

Convention to the facts established

(paras. 66 - 71). . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

Conclusion (para. 72). . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

3. Article 5 para. 1 of the Convention

(paras. 73 - 85). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

a) Deprivation of liberty "in accordance

with a procedure prescribed by law"

(paras. 76 - 79). . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

b) Justification of the arrest and detention

under Article 5 para. 1 (f) of the

Convention

(paras. 80 - 83). . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

c) Other issues under Article 5 para. 1

(para. 84). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

d) Conclusion (para. 85) . . . . . . . . . . . .15

D. Access to property

(paras. 86 - 101). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

1. Article 8 of the Convention

(paras. 86 - 89) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

a) Interference with home

(paras. 86 - 88). . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

b) Conclusion (para. 89) . . . . . . . . . . . .15

2. Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

(paras. 90 - 101). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

Conclusion (para. 101) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

E. Recapitulation (paras. 102 - 106). . . . . . . . . . . .17

PARTLY CONCURRING, PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF

MM. NØRGAARD, JÖRUNDSSON, GÖZÜBÜYÜK, SOYER AND

DANELIUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

PARTLY CONCURRING, PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION

OF MR. C.L. ROZAKIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

PARTIALLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. M.P. PELLONPÄÄ. . . . . . . . .21

APPENDIX I: HISTORY OF PROCEEDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

APPENDIX II: DECISION ON THE ADMISSIBILITY . . . . . . . . . . . .26

I. INTRODUCTION

1. The following is an outline of the case, as submitted to the

European Commission of Human Rights, and of the procedure before the

Commission.

A. The application

2. The applicant is a Cypriot citizen born in 1949 and residing at

Nicosia. She is represented by Mr. Achileas Demetriades, a lawyer

practising in Nicosia.

3. The application is directed against Turkey. The respondent

Government were initially represented by their Agent, Prof. S. Bilge,

and subsequently by their Acting Agent, Mr. S. Özmen, both of the

Ministry of Foreign Affairs. They are now represented by their Agent,

Prof. B. Çaglar.

4. The application concerns the applicant's deprivation of liberty

on 19 March 1989, and access to her property, in the northern part of

Cyprus. The applicant alleged violations of Article 3 and Article 5 of

the Convention and a continuing violation of Article 8 of the

Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. She claims that all acts

complained of were carried out by Turkish military forces stationed in

the northern part of Cyprus or by forces acting under their authority.

B. The proceedings

5. The application was introduced on 22 July and registered on

31 July 1989.

6. On 9 November 1989 the Commission ordered the joinder of the

present application and of Applications No. 15299/89 (Metropolitan

Chrysostomos v. Turkey) and No. 15300/89 (Archimandrite

Papachrysostomou v. Turkey). It further decided to bring the

applications to the notice of the respondent Government and to invite

them to submit written observations on the applications. The

Government's observations were filed on 28 February 1990. The

applicant's observations in reply were filed on 11 May 1990.

7. On 5 October 1990 the Commission decided to invite the parties

to a hearing.

8. The applicant filed further written submissions on

18 December 1990.

9. At the hearing on 11 January 1991 the respondent Government were

represented by Prof. S. Bilge as Agent, Prof. H. Golsong and

Prof. E. Lauterpacht as Counsel and by Mr. M. Özmen and Dr. D. Akçay,

both of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Mr. D. Bethlehem,

Barrister, as Experts. The applicant was represented by Mr. Demetriades

and Prof. I. Brownlie, Q.C. and Mrs. Joanna Loizidou, Barrister, as

Counsel. The applicant was also present.

10. On 4 March 1991 the Commission declared inadmissible the

applicant's complaints of continuing violations of Article 8 of the

Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 alleged to have occurred

before 29 January 1987. The remainder of the application was declared

admissible.

11. The respondent Government were then invited to submit their

observations on the merits of the application. Under cover of a letter

of 7 May 1991 they submitted a memorandum requesting the Commission "to

re-open the proceedings on the admissibility" of the application and

"to find that (it) is inadmissible". The applicant's comments on this

request were filed on 24 May 1991.

12. On 30 May 1991 the Commission found no legal basis for the

respondent Government's request. It invited the Government to submit

their observations on the merits, including their evidence, no later

than 29 July 1991. At the Government's request this time-limit was

subsequently extended to 30 September 1991.

13. In a letter transmitted on 25 September 1991, the respondent

Government informed the Commission that they would not participate in

any further proceedings concerning the present application.

14. On 16 October 1991 the Commission adopted an Interim Report on

the present state of the proceedings in which it requested the

Committee of Ministers to urge Turkey, as a High Contracting Party to

the Convention, to meet its obligations and accordingly to participate

in the Commission's examination of the merits of the present

application, as required by Article 28 para. 1.

15. On 19 December 1991 the Committee of Ministers adopted Resolution

DH (91) 41, in which it urged Turkey, as a High Contracting Party to

the Convention, to meet its obligations and accordingly to participate

in the Commission's examination of the merits of the present

application as required by Article 28 para. 1.

16. On 14 January 1992 the Commission decided to take oral evidence

of the applicant at a hearing of witnesses before delegated members of

the Commission in the presence of the parties in Strasbourg; and to

invite the parties to file, within a time-limit of six weeks, such

further observations as they wished to make.

17. On 9 April 1992 the Commission appointed its Delegation for the

hearing of witnesses. It decided to include in the list of witnesses

to be examined the person proposed in the applicant's submissions of

24 March 1992. Further submissions in writing were filed by the

respondent Government on 20 May and by the applicant on 5 June 1992.

18. At the hearing on 9 and 10 June 1992 the Delegation (MM. Frowein,

Busuttil and Pellonpää) heard the applicant and the witness proposed

by her.

19. On 7 July 1992 the Commission decided to hold a hearing on the

merits of the applications. Further submissions in writing were filed

by the applicant on 28 September and by the respondent Government on

1 October 1992.

20. At the hearing on 4 December 1992 the applicant was represented

by Mr. Demetriades, Prof. Brownlie and Mrs. J. Loizidou. The respondent

Government were represented by Prof. B. Çaglar as Agent, Mr. Özmen,

Dr. Akçay, Prof. Golsong and Mr. A. Sait as Counsel, and

Mrs. G. Erönen, Mr. O. Örek and Mrs. I. Tokcan as Experts. During the

hearing the parties were given the opportunity to make supplementary

submissions under Article 8 of the Convention with regard to the

applicant's complaint concerning her arrest. At the end of the hearing

the Commission accepted, as further written submission, a "Note

d'Audience" filed by the respondent Government shortly before the

hearing and invited the parties to file, before 31 January 1993, such

final submissions in writing as they might wish to make.

21. On 7 December 1992 the Commission decided to disjoin the present

application from Applications Nos. 15299/89 and 15300/89 (cf. para. 6

above). The applicant's final submissions were dated 28 January and

those of the Government 29 January 1993.

22. After declaring the case admissible, the Commission, acting in

accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, also placed

itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a

friendly settlement. In the light of the parties' reaction, the

Commission now finds that there is no basis on which such a settlement

can be effected.

C. The present Report

23. The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission in

pursuance of Article 31 para. 1 of the Convention and after

deliberations and votes in plenary session, the following members being

present:

MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President

J.A. FROWEIN

S. TRECHSEL

F. ERMACORA

E. BUSUTTIL

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

J.-C. SOYER

H. DANELIUS

Sir Basil HALL

MM. C.L. ROZAKIS

M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

24. The text of this Report was adopted on 8 July 1993 and is now

transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, in

accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention.

25. The purpose of the Report, pursuant to Article 31 of the

Convention, is:

i) to establish the facts, and

ii) to state an opinion as to whether the facts found disclose

a breach by the State concerned of its obligations under

the Convention.

26. A schedule setting out the history of the proceedings before the

Commission is attached hereto as Appendix I and the Commission's

decision on the admissibility of the application as Appendix II.

27. The full text of the parties' submissions, together with the

documents lodged as exhibits, are held in the archives of the

Commission.

II. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS

A. The particular circumstances of the case

28. The applicant grew up in Kyrenia in northern Cyprus. In 1972 she

married and moved with her husband to Nicosia.

1. Possessions

29. The applicant states that she is the owner of plots of land

Nos. 4609, 4610, 4618, 4619, 4748, 4884, 5002, 5004, 5386 and 5390 in

Kyrenia in northern Cyprus. Before 20 July 1974 work had commenced on

plot No. 5390 for the construction of a home for the applicant. She has

been prevented in the past, and is still prevented, by Turkish forces

from returning to, and peacefully enjoying, the said properties.

30. The respondent Government state that, after 15 July 1974, there

was an agreement for exchange of Turkish and Greek Cypriots. Turks

living in the south were allowed to come to the north of the island and

the Greeks living in the north were allowed to go to the south. The

properties of the communities concerned were taken over by the

administrative authorities on both sides. The question of Greek Cypriot

properties in the north and Turkish Cypriot properties in the south is

a matter discussed within the framework of the intercommunal talks. The

applicant has not been residing in the "Turkish Republic of Northern

Cyprus". Her allegation that she went there to claim her property is

false.

2. Deprivation of liberty

31. The applicant states that she participated in each of the four

marches organised by the "Women Walk Home" movement. The last

demonstration was on 19 March 1989 at the location of Lymbia. The

applicant, leading a group of some fifty participants in the march,

advanced towards the Church of the Holy Cross (Stavros) in the Turkish-

occupied part of Cyprus. They passed the United Nations' guard post,

but further on unarmed Turkish soldiers tried to prevent them from

continuing. The group persisted, but when they reached the churchyard

the soldiers surrounded them and they were unable to move any further

up the hill.

32. The applicant further states that the Turkish army was gradually

replaced by members of the Turkish Cypriot police force, who advanced

wearing helmets and carrying shield and clubs. The applicant was pushed

down the hill and two policemen took hold of her. She was carried round

to the west side of the hill and deposited on the ground with other

women. A Turkish officer who was in charge of the situation asked them

if they needed anything. Two United Nations' officers were also there

to reassure the women that they would make all the necessary

arrangements for their release. The women sat there for about two

hours, while negotiations took place between the United Nations'

representatives, the Turkish army, and the police.

33. Eventually, the group was split up and the applicant was put into

an ambulance with six or seven other women. They were escorted by two

Turkish Cypriot policewomen and a United Nations' officer. The

ambulance took them first to the village of Lourougina, where a great

many Turkish Cypriots and settlers (identifiable by their clothes) were

demonstrating - apparently a pre-arranged counter-demonstration. They

were held up in a traffic jam, with some of these people banging on the

ambulance and gesticulating at the women to go away. The applicant felt

insulted and she felt that her life was under threat. The ambulance

stopped at the Lourougina police station at the north entrance of the

village. Turkish commandos in blue berets were lined up there.

34. The car went back to Nicosia. Near the Ledra Palace they waited

for a further two hours or more. Before their release they passed one

by one before a United Nations' doctor, who asked if anyone had been

injured. The applicant had nothing to report on that score. She was

released around midnight, having been detained for more than ten hours.

35. The respondent Government state that on 19 March 1989 the women's

"Return" movement of the Greek Community of Nicosia organised an anti-

Turkish demonstration. About 1,000 women got into about 80 busses and

departed from the town centre. About 15 of these busses went to Lymbia,

near the Turkish village of Akincilar in the "Turkish Republic of

Northern Cyprus". From Lymbia the demonstrators after violating the

buffer-zone marched into the territory of the "Turkish Republic of

Northern Cyprus". They were warned by loud speakers to leave the area

but refused. Upon this refusal 29 persons including the applicant were

arrested. They were brought by Turkish Cypriot police, accompanied by

Australian police serving with UNFICYP, to Nicosia where they were

handed over to U.N. officials and taken over to the Greek Cypriot Area.

3. Responsibility of Turkey

36. The applicant claims that the acts complained of were carried out

by Turkish military forces stationed in the northern part of Cyprus or

by forces acting under their authority.

37. The respondent Government do not find it established that Turkish

officials have exercised any control over the issue of property which

Greek Cypriots left behind in Northern Cyprus, the administration of

such property and their possible future disposition, or that Turkish

troops which may have been involved in the border incident of

19 March 1989 have acted outside the instructions of the constitutional

authorities of the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus".

B. The evidence before the Commission

1. Evidence concerning the applicant's possessions

38. The applicant has submitted copies of certificates of

registration of immovable property.

2. Evidence concerning the demonstration of 19 March 1989

a) The report of the Secretary General of the United Nations

39. In his report of 31 May 1989 - Security Council document S/20663

- on the United Nations Operation in Cyprus (for the period

1 December 1988 - 31 May 1989) the Secretary-General of the United

Nations referred to the demonstration on 19 March 1989 in the following

terms (at para. 11):

"11. In March 1989, considerable tension occurred over the well-

publicized plans of a Greek Cypriot women's group to organize a

large demonstration with the announced intention of crossing the

Turkish forces cease-fire line. In this connection it is relevant

to recall that, following violent demonstrations in the United

Nations buffer-zone in November 1988, the Government of Cyprus

had given assurances that it would in future do whatever was

necessary to ensure respect for the buffer-zone ... Accordingly,

UNFICYP asked the Government to take effective action to prevent

any demonstrators from entering the buffer-zone, bearing in mind

that such entry would lead to a situation that might be difficult

to control. The demonstration took place on 19 March 1989. An

estimated 2,000 crossed the buffer-zone at Lymbia and some

managed to cross the Turkish forces' line. A smaller group

crossed that line at Akhna. At Lymbia, a large number of Turkish

Cypriot women arrived shortly after the Greek Cypriots and

mounted a counter demonstration, remaining however on their side

of the line. Unarmed Turkish soldiers opposed the demonstrators

and, thanks largely to the manner in which they and the Turkish

Cypriot police dealt with the situation, the demonstration passed

without serious incident. Altogether, 54 demonstrators were

arrested by Turkish Cypriot police in the two locations; they

were released to UNFICYP later the same day."

b) Witnesses

aa The applicant

40. The applicant, when heard as a witness, stated that she

participated in the march organised by the organisation "Women Walk

Home" on 19 March 1989. From Nicosia the demonstrators drove to the

village Lymbia. In their march they passed by a United Nations post and

walked up towards the top of a hill, where they were stopped by unarmed

Turkish soldiers. The demonstrators sat down. After some time the

Turkish soldiers were replaced by Turkish Cypriot policemen. The

policemen arrested the applicant and other women. The applicant had no

injuries. There was no physical violence. The applicant felt insecure.

A Turkish officer asked her whether she needed anything. The police

wanted to know the names of the arrested persons. The women preferred

to hand a list with the names to a sergeant of the United Nations for

security reasons. The women waited for two or three hours. Then they

were put in a car. They were altogether 32 women. Turkish Cypriot

civilians insulted them. As the women were driven away the applicant

saw Turkish soldiers.

bb Witness proposed by the applicant

41. Witness A. Moysseos, referring to photographs he had taken of the

incident on 19 March 1989, stated that violence was used to arrest the

women.

cc Other evidence

42. The applicant has submitted maps, photographs and other

documents.

C. The relevant domestic law

1. Procedural law

43. Criminal Procedure Law, Chapter 155, Section 14 (legislation

enacted in Cyprus under British rule and still in force today) states:

"(1) Any officer may, without warrant, arrest any

person -

...

(b) who commits in his presence any offence

punishable with imprisonment;

(c) who obstructs a police officer, while in the

execution of his duty ..."

2. Substantive law relied on by the respondent Government

44. Aliens and Immigration Law (1952), Section 12

"(1) No person shall enter or leave the Colony except

through an approved port.

(2) A person entering the Colony by sea shall not disembark

without the consent of the immigration officer ...

(3) Every person entering the Colony as a passenger by air

shall forthwith present himself in person to the nearest

immigration officer.

...

(5) Any person who contravenes or fails to observe any of

the provisions of subsections (1), (2), (3) or (4) of this

section shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable

to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to

a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to both such

imprisonment and fine."

45. Prohibited Military Areas Decree of 1979

(translation)

"Section 3: Definitions

a. Prohibited military areas:

(1) Military area No. 1:

This area is situated between the frontier (contact line)

and the line picked out by the markings placed at a

distance of 500 metres from the frontier (contact line).

..."

"Section 9

... Any persons who enters a prohibited military area without

authorization, or by stealth, or fraudulently, shall be tried by

a military court in accordance with the Military Offences Act;

those found guilty shall be punished."

III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION

A. Complaints declared admissible

46. The Commission has declared admissible the applicant's complaints

concerning her arrest and detention on 19 March 1989 and access to her

property. In its decision on the admissibility (see below p. 36) the

Commission noted the applicant's claim that the acts complained of

"were carried out by Turkish military forces stationed in the northern

part of Cyprus or by forces acting under their authority".

B. Points at issue

47. The Commission considers that the issues now to be determined

are:

1. with regard to the applicant's arrest and detention:

a) whether there has been a violation of Article 3

(Art. 3) of the Convention;

b) whether there has been a violation of Article 8

(Art. 8) of the Convention, as regards the applicant's

private life;

c) whether there has been a violation of Article 5

para. 1 (Art. 5-1) of the Convention;

2. with regard to access to property:

a) whether there has been a violation of Article 8

(Art. 8) of the Convention, as regards the applicant's

home;

b) whether there has been a violation of Article 1 of

Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the Convention.

C. Arrest and detention

1. Imputability

48. The applicant claims that her arrest and detention on

19 March 1989 were carried out by Turkish military forces stationed in

the northern part of Cyprus or by forces acting under their authority.

49. The respondent Government do not deny that Turkish troops were

involved in that incident.

50. The Commission, having regard to the report of the Secretary-

General of the United Nations (para. 39 above), finds it established

that Turkish soldiers were involved in the applicant's arrest and

detention.

51. It follows that the applicant's arrest and detention on

19 March 1989 are imputable to Turkey.

2. Articles 3 and 8 (Art. 3,8) of the Convention

52. With regard to her treatment during her arrest and detention the

applicant alleges a breach of Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention

which provides as follows:

"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or

degrading treatment or punishment."

53. The Commission has considered the applicant's complaint

concerning her treatment during her arrest and detention also under

Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention (cf. para. 20 above), which

provides as follows:

"1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and

family life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with

the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with

the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests

of national security, public safety or the economic well-being

of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the

protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the

rights and freedoms of others."

54. In the present case the Commission is confronted with different

versions as regards the events on 19 March 1989.

a) The character of the demonstration

55. The Commission notes the descriptions of the events given in the

submissions by the applicant (see paras. 31 - 34 above) and by the

respondent Government (see para. 35 above).

56. The Commission further notes the evidence given by the applicant

(see para. 40 above) and the photographs submitted by her

(cf. paras. 41 and 42 above).

57. The Commission attaches particular weight to the evidence

contained in the report of the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

He stated that "considerable tension occurred over the well-publicized

plans of a Greek Cypriot women's group to organize a large

demonstration with the announced intention of crossing the Turkish

forces cease-fire line" and he described the demonstration as follows:

"An estimated 2,000 crossed the buffer-zone at Lymbia and some managed

to cross the Turkish forces' line. A smaller group crossed that line

at Akhna. At Lymbia, a large number of Turkish Cypriot women arrived

shortly after the Greek Cypriots and mounted a counter demonstration,

remaining however on their side of the line. Unarmed Turkish soldiers

opposed the demonstrators and, thanks largely to the manner in which

they and the Turkish Cypriot police dealt with the situation, the

demonstration passed without serious incident" (see para. 39 above).

58. In the light of the above evidence the Commission finds that the

demonstration constituted a serious threat to peace and public order

on the demarcation line in Cyprus.

b) The treatment of the applicant - evaluation of the evidence

59. The applicant submits that her arrest and detention constituted

degrading treatment, in particular because of the way she was seized

and brought to Nicosia under escort, a prisoner in her own country. She

felt that her life was threatened and she was insulted by the crowd

while she was in the ambulance.

60. The respondent Government state that the applicant was treated

properly.

61. The Commission notes the applicant's description of the

circumstances of her arrest and her detention (paras. 31 ff. and 40

above) and the evidence given by a witness proposed by her (see

para. 41 above).

62. The Commission observes that the applicant passed before a United

Nations' doctor and did not claim to have suffered any injuries.

Moreover, two United Nations officers were present during her arrest

and she was accompanied by a United Nations officer when transported

in the ambulance.

c) Application of Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention to the

facts established

63. The Commission recalls that ill-treatment must attain a minimum

level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3

(Art. 3). The assessment of this minimum is, in the nature of things,

relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the

nature and context of the treatment, the manner and method of its

execution, its duration, its physical or mental effects and, in some

instances, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (Eur. Court

H.R., Soering judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, p. 39,

para. 100, with further references).

64. The Commission does not find that the treatment to which the

applicant was subjected during her arrest and detention attained a

level of severity which was sufficient to bring it within the ambit of

Article 3 (Art. 3).

Conclusion

65. The Commission concludes unanimously that there has been no

violation of Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention.

d) Application of Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention to the

facts established

66. The Commission observes that, as deprivations of liberty, arrest

and detention primarily fall to be considered under Article 5 (Art. 5)

of the Convention.

67. With regard to Article 8 (Art. 8) the Commission recalls that a

person's "private life" includes his or her physical integrity

(cf. e.g. Eur. Court H.R., X and Y v. the Netherlands judgment of

26 March 1985, Series A no. 91, p. 11, para. 22; No. 8239/78,

Dec. 4.12.78, D.R. 16 p. 184 at p. 189; No. 8278/78, Dec. 13.12.79,

D.R. 18 p. 154; No. 10435/83, Dec. 10.12.84, D.R. 40 p. 251).

68. The Commission has therefore examined whether the treatment to

which the applicant was subjected during her arrest and detention

constituted an "interference" with her right, under Article 8 (Art. 8),

to respect for her private life, which was not justified under para. 2

of that Article (Art. 8-2).

69. The Commission considers that arrest and detention may affect the

physical integrity, and thus the private life, of the arrested person,

However, not every act or measure which may be said to affect adversely

the physical or moral integrity of a person necessarily gives rise to

an interference with the right to respect for private life (cf. Eur.

Court H.R., Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom judgment of

25 March 1993, Series A no. 247-C, para. 36).

70. The Commission has found above (at para. 64) that the treatment

to which the applicant was subjected during her arrest and detention

did not attain a level of severity which was sufficient to bring it

within the ambit of Article 3 (Art. 3).

71. Even assuming, under Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention, that

the applicant's arrest interfered with her private life, the Commission

does not find that this interference exceeded the limits of what in the

circumstances could reasonably be considered as "necessary", in the

interest of public safety and for the prevention of disorder, within

the meaning of second paragraph of this article.

Conclusion

72. The Commission concludes by eleven votes to two that there has

been no violation of Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention, as regards

the applicant's private life.

3. Article 5 para. 1 (Art. 5-1) of the Convention

73. Article 5 para. 1 (Art. 5-1) of the Convention provides as

follows:

"1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person.

No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following

cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:

...

c. the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected

for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal

authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an

offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to

prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having

done so;

...

f. the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent

his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of

a person against whom action is being taken with a view to

deportation or extradition."

74. The applicant submits that she was not arrested and detained "in

accordance with a procedure prescribed by law" and that none of the

grounds of lawful arrest and detention envisaged in para. 1 of

Article 5 (Art. 5-1) were present. In particular, there was no

reasonable suspicion of an offence in the normal sense having been

committed nor any necessity to prevent the commission of such an

offence or to prevent subsequent flight. The alleged offence was of an

artificial character relating to the "frontiers" of an illegal entity.

The Turkish armed forces and their agents had no authority to arrest

and detain the applicant.

75. The respondent Government submit that Article 5 para. 1

(Art. 5-1) was complied with. When arresting the applicant on the

territory of the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus", the police

acted under the relevant provisions of domestic law (cf. paras. 43 ff.

above). The authorities used the powers conferred on them in the

context of international arrangements concerning the buffer-zone in

Cyprus. In the respondent Government's view the Commission is not

required to examine the validity or legitimacy of the legal system of

the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" but only the question whether

an effective legal system exists in that area. The arrest and detention

of the applicant were justified under Article 5 para. 1 (Art. 5-1).

a) Deprivation of liberty "in accordance with a

procedure prescribed by law"

76. The Commission has examined whether the applicant was deprived

of her liberty "in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law", as

required by Article 5 para. 1 (Art. 5-1). It recalls that, on the

question whether an arrest is "lawful", including whether it complies

with "a procedure prescribed by law", the Convention refers back

essentially to national law and lays down the obligation to conform to

the substantive and procedural rules thereof. However, it requires in

addition that any deprivation of liberty should be consistent with the

purpose of Article 5 (Art. 5), namely to protect individuals from

arbitrariness (see Eur. Court H.R., Wassink judgment of

27 September 1990, Series A no. 185-A, p. 11, para. 24, with further

references).

77. As regards domestic law in Cyprus, the Commission notes that,

under Chapter 155, Section 14, para. 1, sub-paras. b and c of the

Criminal Procedure Law (cf. para. 43 above), any police officer may,

without warrant, arrest any person who commits in his presence any

offence punishable with imprisonment or who obstructs a police officer,

while in the execution of his duty.

78. The Commission further notes that the applicant, having crossed

the buffer-zone, was arrested in northern Cyprus by Turkish Cypriot

policemen (cf. paras. 39 f. above).

79. Having regard to the above elements, the Commission finds that

the arrest and detention of the applicant in Cyprus, by police officers

acting under Chapter 155, Section 14 of the Criminal Procedure Law,

took place "in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law", as

required by Article 5 para. 1 (Art. 5-1) of the Convention.

b) Justification of the arrest and detention under

Article 5 para. 1 (f) (Art. 5-1-f) of

the Convention

80. Article 5 para. 1 (f) (Art. 5-1-f) of the Convention permits the

lawful arrest and detention of a person to prevent his effecting an

unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action

is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition.

81. The applicant argues that she was arrested when crossing the

"frontiers" of an illegal entity.

82. The Commission finds that it is not in this connection required

to examine the status of the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus". It

notes that the demonstration on 19 March 1989, in the course of which

the applicant was arrested in northern Cyprus, constituted a violation

of the arrangements concerning the respect of the buffer-zone in Cyprus

(cf. para. 39 above). The provisions under which the applicant was

arrested and detained (see paras. 43 - 45 above) served to protect this

very area. This cannot be considered as arbitrary.

83. The Commission therefore finds that the applicant's arrest and

detention were justified under Article 5 para. 1 (f) (Art. 5-1-f), as

applied to the regime created in Cyprus by international agreements

concerning the buffer-zone.

c) Other issues under Article 5 para. 1 (Art. 5-1)

84. In view of its above finding the Commission does not consider it

necessary to examine whether the applicant's arrest and detention were

also justified under Article 5 para. 1 (c) (Art. 5-1-c).

d) Conclusion

85. The Commission concludes by nine votes to four that there has

been no violation of Article 5 para. 1 (Art. 5-1) of the Convention.

D. Access to property

1. Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention

a) Interference with home

86. Article 8 para. 1 (Art. 8-1) of the Convention provides that

everyone has the right to respect for his home.

87. The applicant states that she intended to develop the property

her father had given her in Kyrenia and return there to live.

Construction had begun on plot No. 5390 and one of the flats was

intended for her family. She submits that the continuous prevention of

her return to this flat which would eventually become a home

constitutes a continuous violation of Article 8 (Art. 8).

88. The Commission notes that the applicant left Kyrenia in 1972 and

moved to Nicosia, her present residence. Since 1972 her home has not

been in Kyrenia. The fact that she is prevented from returning to

Kyrenia does therefore not affect her right to respect for her home

within the meaning of Article 8 (Art. 8) (cf. the decision on

admissibility, below p. 62, para. 69).

b) Conclusion

89. The Commission concludes by nine votes to four that there has

been no violation of Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention, as regards

the applicant's home.

2. Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1)

90. Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the Convention provides:

"Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful

enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his

possessions except in the public interest and subject to the

conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of

international law.

The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair

the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary

to control the use of property in accordance with the general

interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions

or penalties."

91. The applicant submits that Turkey, through the use of its armed

forces and by the continued occupation and control of part of Cyprus

and by prohibiting the applicant on a number of occasions from gaining

access to the said part of Cyprus and consequently to the property in

question, has affected the rights of the applicant as property owner

and in particular her right to peaceful enjoyment of her possessions,

contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1), thus constituting a

continuing violation of the said Article.

92. The Commission recalls that it has declared inadmissible the

applicant's complaint of a continuing violation of Article 1 of

Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) alleged to have occurred before 29 January 1987

(cf. decision on admissibility, below p. 62).

93. The Commission notes that the applicant has since that date been

prevented from gaining access to the north of Cyprus.

94. The Commission finds it established that this is due to the

presence of Turkish forces in Cyprus who exercise an overall control

in the border area.

95. The Commission therefore finds that the refusal of access to

property in the north of Cyprus, of which the applicant complains, is

imputable to Turkey.

96. The Commission must consequently examine whether this complaint

raises an issue under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).

97. The Commission considers that a distinction must be made between

claims concerning the peaceful enjoyment of one's possessions and

claims of freedom of movement. It notes that the applicant, who was

arrested after having crossed the buffer-zone in Cyprus in the course

of a demonstration, claims the right freely to move on the island of

Cyprus, irrespective of the buffer-zone and its control, and bases this

claim on the statement that she owns property in the north of Cyprus.

98. The Commission acknowledges that limitations of the freedom of

movement - whether resulting from a person's deprivation of liberty or

from the status of a particular area - may indirectly affect other

matters, such as access to property. But this does not mean that a

deprivation of liberty, or restriction of access to a certain area,

interferes directly with the right protected by Article 1

of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1). In other words, the right to the peaceful

enjoyment of one's possessions does not include, as a corollary, the

right to freedom of movement (cf. mutatis mutandis Nos. 7671/76 etc.,

15 Foreign students v. the United Kingdom, Dec. 19.5.77, D.R. 9 p. 185

at pp. 186 f.)

99. The Commission therefore finds that the applicant's claim of free

access to the north of Cyprus, which has been examined above (at

paras. 81 ff.) under Article 5 (Art. 5) of the Convention, cannot be

based on her alleged ownership of property in the northern part of the

Island.

100. It follows that it discloses no issue under Article 1 of

Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).

Conclusion

101. The Commission concludes by eight votes to five that there has

been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the

Convention.

E. Recapitulation

102. The Commission concludes unanimously that there has been no

violation of Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention (para. 65 above).

103. The Commission concludes by eleven votes to two that there has

been no violation of Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention, as regards

the applicant's private life (para. 72 above).

104. The Commission concludes by nine votes to four that there has

been no violation of Article 5 para. 1 (Art. 5-1) of the Convention

(para. 85 above).

105. The Commission concludes by nine votes to four that there has

been no violation of Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention, as regards

the applicant's home (para. 89 above).

106. The Commission concludes by eight votes to five that there has

been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the

Convention (para. 101 above).

Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission

(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)

(Or. English)

PARTLY CONCURRING, PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF

MM. NØRGAARD, JÖRUNDSSON, GÖZÜBÜYÜK, SOYER AND DANELIUS

In their declaration deposited on 28 January 1987, the Government

of Turkey recognised the right of individual petition under Article 25

of the Convention, subject to certain conditions. One of these

conditions was that the right of petition should extend only to

allegations concerning acts and omissions of public authorities in

Turkey performed within the boundaries of the territory to which the

Constitution of Turkey is applicable. It is clear that this wording was

intended to prevent petitions from being lodged in regard to events

occurring in the northern part of Cyprus.

The question arises whether this territorial limitation in the

Turkish declaration is legally valid. If it should be considered not

to be valid, the further question arises as to whether this will affect

the validity of the Turkish declaration as a whole.

We first note that, in accordance with a constant practice, a

Contracting State is free to make a temporal limitation of its

declaration under Article 25 of the Convention, in particular by

excluding its application to acts which occurred before the declaration

was made.

Moreover, under Article 63 of the Convention, certain territorial

limitations are also expressly provided for. However, Article 63

concerns territories for whose international relations a Contracting

State is responsible, and the northern part of Cyprus cannot be

regarded as such a territory. Nevertheless, Article 63 shows that, when

making a declaration under Article 25, a Contracting State may, in some

circumstances, make a distinction between different territories.

If a State may exclude the application of Article 25 to a

territory referred to in Article 63, there would seem to be no specific

reason why it should not be allowed to exclude the application of the

right of individual petition to a territory having even looser

constitutional ties with the State's main territory. If this was not

permitted, the result might in some circumstances be that the State

would refrain altogether from recognising the right of individual

petition, which would not serve the cause of human rights.

We consider that the territorial limitation in the Turkish

declaration, insofar as it excludes the northern part of Cyprus, cannot

be considered incompatible with the object and purpose of the

Convention and that it should therefore be regarded as having legal

effect.

In these circumstances, it is not necessary to examine what the

legal consequences would have been if the territorial limitation had

been held not to be legally valid.

It follows that in our view the Commission is not competent to

deal with the applicant's complaints of violations of the Convention

in Cyprus. For these reasons, we have voted against any finding of a

violation of the Convention in the present case.

(Or. English)

PARTIALLY CONCURRING, PARTIALLY DISSENTING OPINION

OF MR. C.L. ROZAKIS

In my partially concurring and partially dissenting opinion to

the opinion of the Commission in the cases of Metropolitan Chrysostomos

and Archimandrite Papachrysostomou against Turkey (Nos. 15299/89 and

15300/89), I referred to a number of issues on which I disagree with

the majority of the Commission. The approaches that I have expressed

there remain the same, insofar as they are pertinent to the present

case.

In the case of Titina Loizidou there is, however, one more

element on which I disagree with the majority of the Commission: that

of the access of the applicant to her property; mainly from the angle

of the first article of the First Protocol to the Convention. The

applicant complains that "Turkey through the use of its armed forces

and by the continued occupation and control of part of Cyprus and by

prohibiting the applicant on a number of occasions from gaining access

to the said part of Cyprus and consequently to the property in

question, has affected the rights of the applicant as property owner"

[peaceful enjoyment of her possessions] (para. 91 of the Commission's

Report).

The answer to the complaint of the applicant on the part of the

Commission does not satisfy, in my view, her expectation for an overall

determination of her case. The Commission contents itself with dealing

with only one aspect of her complaints: in paras. 97, 98 and 99 it

considers that what she asks is not actually a request for the

enjoyment of her possessions - which comes under the protection of the

First Protocol - but a request for moving freely in the occupied

territory of Cyprus, where her possessions lie. And since the "right

to peaceful enjoyment of one's possessions does not include, as a

corollary the right to freedom of movement ... the applicant's claim

of free access to the north of Cyprus cannot be based on her alleged

ownership of property in the northern part of the island."

I think that the Commission interprets in a very narrow way the

meaning of the word "access" to the applicant's property. Under the

influence of the previous cases (Nos. 15299 -15300) and because of the

participation of the present applicant in the March manifestations, it

considers that the notion of "access", as used by the applicant, is

solely referring to a physical contact between the applicant and her

possessions.

Yet, to my mind, the notion of "access", when referring to the

enjoyment of possessions (and when referring to the very wording of the

expressed complaint of our applicant) is a wider one than the mere

freedom of movement which may allow the establishment of a physical

contact. It actually covers all the elements constitutive of the right

to enjoyment of possessions; i. e. the possibility to repair an

immovable good; or the possibility to usefully exploit the possession;

or the possibility to exchange a possession through the free

acquisition of another one, etc. Under these circumstances, it becomes

clear that the occupation by Turkey of the northern part of Cyprus

actually prevents, in a continuing manner, the free enjoyment of

possessions, the access to their many uses, and attributes, for the

applicant.

I must also concede that even a narrow interpretation of the term

"access" could not have led me so easily to the conclusion that no

issue arises under the First Protocol to the Convention. There are

circumstances where the absence of physical contact of a person with

his or her possessions may amount to a deprivation of possessions; this

is particularly true in cases where the use of a possession is the main

constitutive element for the enjoyment of the possession; but also in

other cases where the optimal exploitation of a possession requires

physical presence of the person who owns it.

I then wonder whether, under the circumstances of the present

case, when the applicant has for a long time been unable both to have

any physical contact with her possessions and to freely make use of

them, she cannot effectively claim to be a victim of continuous

violation of her rights, under the Protocol. I conclude, in answering

my own dilemma, that in either way I see a violation of Article 1 of

the First Protocol.

(Or. English)

PARTIALLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

While I share the opinion of the majority of the Commission in

other respects, I disagree in so far as concerns the complaints based

on Article 5 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.1.

The majority seem to consider that the applicant's right

protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 has been interfered with only

"indirectly", and that therefore the case discloses no issue under

Article 1 of Protocol 1 (paras. 98, 100). This finding appears to be

based on the view that the applicant in reality complains only about

the lack of free access to her property, i.e., denial of freedom of

movement.

In agreement with what is said by Mr. Rozakis in his Dissenting

Opinion I consider this to be an unduly narrow construction of the

applicant's complaint made under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. In her

application form the applicant submitted that:

"Turkey through the use of the T.M.F. and by the continued

occupation and or control of the said part of Cyprus and by

prohibiting the Applicant access to the said part of Cyprus

and consequently to her property in question, has gradually

and with the passing of time over the last 15 years,

affected the rights of the Applicant as property owner and

in particular her right to peaceful enjoyment of her

possessions contrary to Article 1 of protocol 1 of the

Convention (see SPORRONG ...) thus constituting a

continuing violation of the said Article."

In her observations on the merits submitted in December 1992 the

applicant specified that:

"In the particular case of violations of Article 1 of

Protocol 1 of the Convention, the object of the Application

is for the Applicant to be restored to the peaceful

enjoyment of her possessions in the area occupied by Turkey

and, in particular, her immovable property situated in

Kyrenia. In addition the Applicant seeks compensation for

the deprivation of the use and enjoyment of her property

for the period between July 20, 1974 up to this day."

To me it is clear that the applicant's complaint is not limited

to the access aspect but concerns an alleged denial of various aspects

of the right guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

Since 1974 all the essential elements of the applicant's rights

as the owner of the property, including access to the property, have

been interfered with. This interference was not for the purpose of

controlling the use of the property within the meaning of the second

paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No.1. Nor was the applicant's

property formally expropriated before the acceptance by Turkey of the

right of individual petition in such a way as to remove the

interference from the Commission's competence ratione temporis.

According to the respondent Government, "the question of Greek

properties in the north and Turkish Cypriot properties in the south is

a matter of discussion within the framework of the intercommunal talks"

(para. 30 of the Commission's report). Thus the unsettled nature of the

property issue - and the continuing nature of the interference - is

conceded by the Government.

Under these circumstances the denial of access to the property

and denial of its enjoyment amount to a continuing violation of

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, mutatis mutandis, Case of

Papamichalopoulos and Others v. Greece, Eur. Court H.R., judgment of

24 June 1993). This violation is attributable to Turkey, as there are

no circumstances which would break the chain of causation between the

original interference by Turkey and the present situation. I refer to

the considerations put forward in my Partially Concurring, Partially

Dissenting Opinion in Chrysostomos and Papachrysostomou v. Turkey

(Nos. 15299/89 and 15300/89).

I also consider that Article 5 of the Convention has been

violated. I doubt whether the arrest and detention on the basis of the

rules relied on in the main opinion of the Commission fulfilled the

requirement of foreseeability and therefore took place "in accordance

with a procedure prescribed by law". In all the circumstances of the

case, including the length of the deprivation of liberty, I conclude

that the applicant's "right to liberty and security of person",

guaranteed by para. 1 of Article 5, was violated.

APPENDIX I

HISTORY OF PROCEEDINGS

Date Item

_________________________________________________________________

2 July 1989 Introduction of the application

31 July 1989 Registration of the application

Examination of Admissibility

7 September 1989 Commission considers state of

proceedings

7 October 1989 Commission considers state of

proceedings

9 November 1989 Commission's decisions:

- to join the present application and

Applications No. 15299/89

(Metropolitan Chrysostomos v. Turkey),

and No. 15300/89 (Archimandrite

Papachrysostomou v. Turkey);

- to invite the Government to submit

observations on the admissibility and

merits of the applications

28 February 1990 Government's observations

11 May 1990 Applicants' observations in reply

5 October 1990 Commission's decision to hold an oral

hearing

18 December 1990 Further written submissions by the

applicant

11 January 1991 Oral hearing on admissibility and

merits

11 and 12 January 1991 Commission's deliberations

4 March 1991 Commission's further deliberations and

decision to declare the application

partly admissible and partly

inadmissible

7 March 1991 Commission approves text of decision

on admissibility

7 March 1991 Decision on admissibility communicated

to the parties

Examination of the merits

7 March 1991 Commission invites Government to

submit observations on the merits

7 May 1991 Government's requests to re-open

proceedings on admissibility and to

declare the applications inadmissible

24 May 1991 Applicant's comments on the

Government's requests

30 May 1991 Commission finds no legal basis for

the requests, invites Government

again to submit observations on

merits

6 July 1991 Commission grants Government's request

for extension of time-limit

25 September 1991 Government refuse to participate in

further proceedings

8 October 1991 Commission's deliberations

16 October 1991 Commission's further deliberations and

adoption of Interim Report to the

Committee of Ministers

17 October 1991 Commission's deliberations

19 December 1991 Committee of Ministers adopts

Resolution DH (91) 41

14 January 1992 Commission's decisions:

- to take oral evidence;

- to invite parties to file

observations

28 February 1992 Government's observations

24 March 1992 Submissions by applicant

9 April 1992 Commission's decisions:

- appointment of Delegation for

hearing of witnesses;

- list of witnesses to be examined

29 April 1992 Government propose further witness

19 May 1992 Commission's deliberations

20 May 1992 Further submissions by Government

5 June 1992 Further submissions by applicant

9 and 10 June 1992 Hearing of witnesses by Delegation

7 July 1992 Commission's decision to hold oral

hearing on the merits of the

applications

28 September 1992 Further written submissions by the

applicant

1 October 1992 Further written submissions by the

Government

20 November 1992 Government submit documentary material

2 December 1992 Communication from Government

3 December 1992 Commission's deliberations

4 December 1992 Oral hearing on the merits.

Commission's deliberations

7 December 1992 Commission decides to disjoin the

present application from Applications

No. 15299/89 (Metropolitan

Chrysostomos v. Turkey), and

No. 15300/89 (Archimandrite

Papachrysostomou v. Turkey);

28 January 1993 Final submissions by applicant

29 January 1993 Government's final submissions

3 April 1993 Commission's consideration of the

state of proceedings

29 June 1993 Commission's deliberations on the

merits and final vote

8 July 1993 Adoption of the Report

Menu

LOIZIDOU v. TURKEY

LOIZIDOU v. TURKEY

LEXI