THIRD SECTION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 16162/90

by Andromachi ALEXANDROU

against Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights ( Third Section) sitting on 24 August 1999 as a Chamber composed of

Sir Nicolas Bratza , President ,

Mr J.-P. Costa,

Mrs F. Tulkens ,

Mr W. Fuhrmann ,

Mr K. Jungwiert ,

Mr K. Traja , Judges ,

Mr F. Gölcüklü , ad hoc Judge ,

with Mrs S. Dollé, Section Registrar ;

Having regard to Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 26 January 1990 by Andromachi Alexandrou against Turkey and registered on 14 February 1990 under file no. 16162/90;

Having regard to the reports provided for in Rule 49 of the Rules of Court;

Having regard to the fact that no observations have been submitted by the respondent Government within the time-limit fixed for that purpose;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a Cypriot national born in 1933 and living in Nicosia. Before the Court she is represented by Mr Christos Clerides , a lawyer practising in Nicosia.

The facts of the case, as they have been submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows:

The applicant states that she is the owner of 109 plots of land in the District of Kyrenia in Cyprus.

As a result of the July 1974 Turkish invasion she has been deprived of her property rights, her property being located in the area which is under the occupation and overall control of the Turkish military authorities. The latter have prevented her from having access to and from using and possessing her property. She is continuously prevented from entering the northern part of Cyprus because of her Greek Cypriot origin.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant alleges a violation of Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1  and Articles 2 and 3 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention.

She states that since the Turkish invasion of the northern part of Cyprus in July 1974 and since 29 January 1987, when Turkey accepted the competence of the European Commission of Human Rights to examine individual petitions against it, Turkey prevented her from exercising her right to the peaceful enjoyment of her home and possessions.

PROCEDURE

The application was introduced on 26 January 1990 and registered on 14 February 1990.

On 29 November 1993 the European Commission of Human Rights decided to communicate the complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention to the respondent Government and invited them to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the application before 18 March 1994.

On 16 March 1994 the Government requested the Commission to adjourn the proceedings until the Court completed its consideration of the case of Loizidou v. Turkey. On 9 April 1994 the Commission granted the request.

Following the Court’s judgment in the case of Loizidou (Eur. Court HR, Loizidou judgment of 18 December 1996 (merits), Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI), the Commission examined, on 23 January 1997, the state of proceedings in the present application. It decided to invite the respondent Government to submit, by 4 April 1997, supplementary observations in the light of the above-mentioned judgment.

On 18 April 1997 the Commission decided to suspend the request for the submission of supplementary observations by the Government until 5 September 1997. On 13 September 1997 it laid down a new time-limit for that purpose until 8 December 1997. At the request of the Government, the President of the Commission agreed to four extensions of that time-limit until 7 July 1998. On 30 November 1998, and after the expiry of the above-mentioned time-limit, the Government again requested a further extension. On 21 December 1998 the Government were informed that no further extension could be granted. No observations were submitted.

On 1 November 1998, by operation of Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, the case fell to be examined by the Court in accordance with the provisions of that Protocol.

THE LAW

The applicant alleges a violation of Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Articles 2 and 3 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention.

Article 8 of the Convention ensures respect for private and family life, home and correspondence. Article 14 prohibits any discrimination in the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention. Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 guarantees property rights. Articles 2 and 3 of Protocol No. 4 secure freedom of movement within the territory of a State and prohibit the expulsion of nationals, respectively.

1. As regards Article 8 of the Convention, the Court notes that the applicant complains of a violation of her right to respect for her “home”, although she apparently has nothing more than plots of land in northern Cyprus.

In the Court’s view, such land does not constitute a home within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (see Loizidou judgment, op. cit., § 66, p. 2238).

It follows that this part of the application is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.

2. As regards Articles 2 and 3 of Protocol No. 4, the applicant complains that she is not free to move and choose her residence in Cyprus and that she has been expelled from the territory of the State of which she is a national.

The Court notes that Turkey is not a Party to Protocol No. 4 to the Convention.

It follows that this part of the application is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.

3. As regards the remainder of the complaints, the Court notes that the respondent Government have not provided any observations on the admissibility of the case, although they have been given ample opportunity to do so.  It must, therefore, be assumed that they do not contest the admissibility of the complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention.

The Court considers that this part of the application raises serious questions of fact and law which are of such complexity that their determination should depend on an examination of the merits.  It cannot, therefore, be considered manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. No other ground for declaring this part of the application inadmissible has been established.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

DECLARES ADMISSIBLE , without prejudging the merits, the applicant’s complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention;

DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.

S Dollé N. Bratza

Registrar President