Lexploria

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 18270/91

by Ahmet Cavit AN and Others

against Cyprus

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private

on 8 October 1991, the following members being present:

MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President

J.A. FROWEIN

S. TRECHSEL

F. ERMACORA

G. SPERDUTI

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A. WEITZEL

J.-C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

H. DANELIUS

Mrs. G. H. THUNE

Sir Basil HALL

Mr. F. MARTINEZ RUIZ

Mrs. J. LIDDY

MM. L. LOUCAIDES

J.-C. GEUS

M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

B. MARXER

Mr. H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission

Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the

Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 13 May 1991

by Ahmet Cavit AN and Others against Cyprus and registered

on 21 May 1991 under file No. 18270/91;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the

Rules of Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The facts submitted by the applicants may be summarised as

follows.

1. Particular circumstances of the present case

The first applicant, Mr. Ahmet Cavit An, a Cypriot citizen

born in 1950, is a paediatrician residing in Nicosia. The second

applicant, Miss Sefica Beren, a Cypriot citizen born in 1960, is a

printer residing in Nicosia. The third applicant, Mr. Nevzat Adil, a

Cypriot citizen born in 1948, is a journalist residing in Kyrenia.

The fourth applicant, Mr. Soner Engin, a Cypriot citizen born in 1951,

is a former government official residing in Nicosia. The fifth

applicant, Mr. Hasan Erçakica, a Cypriot citizen born in 1957, is a

newspaper editor residing in Kyrenia.

The applicants are represented by Mr. Ergin Ulunay, a lawyer

practising in Nicosia.

The applicants are the Turkish Cypriot members of a movement

for an independent and federal Cyprus, an unregistered association of

Turkish and Greek Cypriots. The movement has a Turkish Cypriot

co-ordinating committee in the North and a Greek Cypriot co-ordinating

committee in the South of Cyprus. In general, the Turkish Cypriot

authorities do not permit the Turkish Cypriot members of the movement

to visit the buffer zone or Southern Cyprus and to return to the

North. Only occasionally and on an arbitrary basis are such permits

granted. Thus, out of 52 requests for permission to visit the

buffer zone or Southern Cyprus only 14 were granted during the last

17 months.

The present application is confined to the restrictions on

the applicant's freedom of movement during the last six months before

the introduction of the application.

2. Relevant domestic law and practice

The applicants submit that in Northern Cyprus there is no law

regulating the restrictions which may reasonably be imposed, in a

democratic society, on the freedom of movement within Cyprus. The

relevant decree of 11 July 1986 is unconstitutional.

In order to get permission for crossing over to the

buffer zone, the applicants usually submit to the competent Turkish

Cypriot authority a written application, giving reasons, but they

never receive a written reply or written permit. Occasionally, when

permission is granted for crossing over, the authority sends a

circular to the police stationed at the control point at the Ledra

Palace Gate, Nicosia, containing a list of individuals permitted to

cross over to the South and to return to the North. Where an

application for a permit is rejected - which is usually the case -

no written reply is issued; the police at the control point simply do

not permit the passage as they have not received the necessary

circular.

Protests against this state of affairs and discussions with

the Turkish Cypriot authorities have been to no avail.

The applicants further observe that the entry-exit point at

the Ledra Palace Gate is within "the first Degree Militarily

Prohibited Region". Therefore the military authorities "have a say in

granting the permits for crossing over. ... The Turkish Cypriot

Military, Security and Police Authorities are in practice under the

command of Cyprus-Turkish Peace Keeping Force of Turkey which is

stationed in Northern Cyprus."

The possibility of getting local redress in Northern Cyprus is

uncertain because the Turkish Cypriot courts are likely to treat the

freedom of movement from Northern to Southern Cyprus or vice versa as

a political matter not judicially reviewable and therefore will

decline to assume jurisdiction. Even if the local Turkish Cypriot

courts assume jurisdiction, their decision will not be binding on the

military authorities of Turkey.

COMPLAINT

The applicants invoke the freedom of movement guaranteed in

Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention.

THE LAW

Article 1 (Art. 1) of the Convention provides that the High

Contracting Parties shall secure "to everyone within their

jurisdiction" the rights and freedoms defined in Section 1. The

Commission has considered whether, in the light of the situation which

has been prevailing in the north of Cyprus since 1974, the Republic of

Cyprus can be held responsible for the acts of the Turkish Cypriot

authorities complained of in the present application.

The Commission has previously observed that "the European

Convention on Human Rights continues to apply to the whole of the

territory of the Republic of Cyprus" and that the recognition by

Turkey of the Turkish Cypriot administration in the north of Cyprus as

"Turkish Federated State of Cyprus" does not affect "the continuing

existence of the Republic of Cyprus as a single State and High

Contracting Party to the Convention" (No. 8007/77, Cyprus v. Turkey,

Dec. 10.7.78, D.R. 13, p. 85 at pp. 149-150).

At the same time, however, the Commission has also found that

the Government of the Republic of Cyprus "have since 1974 been

prevented from exercising their jurisdiction in the north of the

island. This restriction on the actual exercise of jurisdiction ...

is due to the presence of Turkish armed forces" (ibid.).

The Commission now finds that the authority of the respondent

Government is in fact still limited to the southern part of Cyprus.

It follows that the Republic of Cyprus cannot be held responsible

under Article 1 (Art. 1) of the Convention for the acts of Turkish

Cypriot authorities in the north of Cyprus of which the present

applicants complain.

The Commission concludes that the application is incompatible

with the provisions of the Convention.

In view of its above conclusion the Commission does not find

it necessary to examine the subsidiary question whether the

application is also incompatible with the Convention on the ground

that Cyprus - a High Contracting Party to Protocol No. 4 to the

Convention, the instrument invoked in the present case - has not yet

recognised the right of individual petition under Article 6 para. 2 of

Protocol No. 4 (P4-6-2).

For these reasons, the Commission unanimously

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission

(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)

Menu

AN AND OTHERS v. CYPRUS

AN AND OTHERS v. CYPRUS

LEXI