Communicated on 14 December 2015

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 50646/15 Pavlos LOIZOU against Turkey lodged on 7 October 2015

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The applicant, Mr Pavlos Loizou , is a Cypriot national, who was born in 1961 and lives in Nicosia. He is represented before the Court by Mr M. Sağıroğlu and Mr F. Hansel, lawyers practising in Nicosia.

A. The circumstances of the case

2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

3. Before the military operations in northern Cyprus in 1974 the applicant ’ s family resided in Kyrenia and owned property there. This included the family home (“plot 146”), which was registered in the name of the applicant ’ s mother, and two commercial properties, which were registered in the name of a limited company, Neocles Loizou Successors (“NLS”). The applicant ’ s parents were the sole shareholders in NLS. According to NLS ’ s articles of association, the two commercial properties were to be distributed among the applicant and his two brothers should their parents, the shareholders, so wish.

4. The first of the two commercial properties, plot 213, was a ground floor dwelling which the applicant ’ s father planned to turn into a supermarket. The second, plot 233, was a supermarket which his father owned and operated until the military operations began.

5. When their mother died in 1990, the applicant ’ s father decided to transfer all three properties (that is, the home and the two commercial properties) to the applicant and his brothers.

6. On 28 January 2003 the applicant, his father and his two brothers lodged an application with the Court, alleging violations of Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 arising from their inability to access their three properties (application no. 4758/03). On 14 December 2010 a Single Judge of the Court decided to declare their application inadmissible, on the basis that it had been made prior to the exhaustion of the domestic remedy available via the Immovable Property Commission and had to be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.

7. On 3 December 2010, the applicant ’ s brothers transferred their shares in the properties to the applicant, making him the sole owner of them.

8. On 23 September 2011, the applicant lodged an application with the Immovable Property Commission in respect of all three properties.

9. At a hearing before the IPC on 20 November 2014, a representative of the “TRNC” authorities informed the applicant and the Commission that no offer would be made in respect of the family home unless the claims made in respect of the two commercial properties were withdrawn. The applicant subsequently did so, stating that this was without prejudice. The applicant also stated that the decision to withdraw the claims in respect of the two commercial properties was based on his understanding that relevant law on the IPC, as interpreted by the “TRNC” High Administrative Court, did not allow for the award of compensation to an individual, unless the individual could prove that he or she was the legal heir of the individual in whose name the immovable property originally had been registered (see Eleni Meleagrou v. the Immovable Property Commission summarised at paragraph 13 below).

10. On 17 April 2015, after an agreement reached between the parties, the IPC decided that the “TRNC” authorities would pay GBP 190,000 (approximately EUR 270,000) to the applicant in respect of the family home. This sum has not yet been received.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

11. The relevant law and practice are set out in Demopoulos and Others v. Turkey ( dec. ) [GC], nos. 46113/99, 3843/02, 13751/02, 13466/03, 10200/04, 14163/04, 19993/04 and 21819/04 , ECHR 2010.

12. In summary, Law no. 67/2005 of the “TRNC” provides that all natural and legal persons claiming rights to immovable or movable property may bring a claim before the Immovable Property Commission (“the IPC”). The applicant must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that, inter alia , the immovable property was registered in his name on 20 July 1974 (or that he is the legal heir to such a person), that he owned the movable property before 13 February 1975 and was forced to abandon it due to conditions beyond his own volition, and that according to the Land Registry records there are no other persons claiming rights to the claimed immovable property (section 6 of the Law, summarised at paragraph 35 of Demopoulos and Others ).

13 . In Eleni Meleagrou v. the Immovable Property Commission , no. 124/2009, 27 June 2011, the “TRNC” High Administrative Court found that an individual could not make a claim to the IPC in respect of immovable property he or she had received from a company. This was because section 6 of Law no. 67/2005 only allowed claims from persons in whose name the property was registered before 20 July 1974 and/or from that person ’ s legal heirs. This was the case even if the company was a family business and the applicant a shareholder in that company.

COMPLAINTS

14. First, the applicant complains that the proceedings before the IPC were in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

15. Second, in respect of the family home, the applicant alleges that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention and/or Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. In the alternative, he alleges that there has been a violation of Article 14 when taken in conjunction with these two Articles: he alleges that there has been a difference in treatment based on his Greek Cypriot origin.

16. Third, in respect of the two commercial properties, the applicant alleges that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Again in the alternative, and again relying on his Greek Cypriot origin, he alleges that there has been a violation of Article 14 when taken in conjunction with this Article.

17. Finally, relying on Article 13 of the Convention, he alleges that, in respect of the two commercial properties, he has been denied an effective remedy for his complaints because the relevant law, as interpreted by the “TRNC” High Administrative Court in Eleni Meleagrou v. the Immovable Property Commission , does not allow for compensation for property obtained by transfer from a company to a natural person.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. In respect of the two commercial properties, plots 213 and 233, has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 either alone or taken in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention?

2. As regards these two commercial properties, in light of the Eleni Meleagrou v. the Immovable Property Commission judgment, did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 ( either alone or taken in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention) , as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

3. In respect of plot 146, the family home, given the apparent non ‑ payment of the GBP 190,000 awarded, can the applicant still claim to be a victim of a violation of Article 8 of the Convention and/or Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, has there been a violation of these provisions either alone or taken in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention?

4. Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its civil head applicable to the proceedings before the Immovable Property Commission in the present case? If so, was the length of the proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?