Communicated on 19 November 2015

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 53240/14 Adriani JOANNOU against Turkey lodged on 28 October 2014

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Adriani Joannou , is a dual British/Cypriot national, who was born in 1953 and lives in Enfield, Middlesex.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

In 1997 the applicant was gifted five plots of land by her aunt. The plots lie in the occupied area of the “TRNC” (“the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus”). The total area of the land is some 18 dönüm . [1]

In 2007, the applicant instructed a firm of lawyers in Nicosia who, in turn, obtained a valuation report on the land from a Turkish Cypriot chartered surveyor. The valuation report assessed each of the five plots of land and gave valuations for the five plots, which ranged from GBP 500 per dönüm to GBP 10,000 per dönüm . However, the amount of land on each plot was not specified: thus, the total value of the land was not set out in the report.

On 25 April 2008, the applicant through her representatives filed a claim with the Immovable Property Commission (“IPC”) claiming restitution of the land or compensation at its current market value. She also claimed damages for loss of use of the land. The total compensation sought was GBP 100,000 per dönüm (GBP 1,800,000 or approximately EUR 2,463,000).

A preliminary hearing took place on 25 May 2010 at which the “TRNC” representative made a settlement offer of GBP 20,000, which the applicant declined, believing it to be far too low.

In November 2010, dissatisfied with both the initial valuation report and the settlement offer she had received, the applicant sought a second valuation report, this time from a Greek Cypriot chartered surveyor. The chartered surveyor, after considering the approach set out in this Court ’ s judgments in Xenides-Arestis v. Turkey (just satisfaction), no. 46347/99, 7 December 2006 and Demades v. Turkey (just satisfaction), no. 16219/90, 22 April 2008 , assessed the current value of the land, plus loss of use and interest, at EUR 2,691,000. She gave this report to her legal representatives with instructions to submit it to the IPC.

The applicant alleged that, between 2011 and 2013, whenever she sought a hearing before the IPC, the IPC would request further documentation and certificates, including the identities of her aunt and other relatives, land deeds and evidence of searches made in the Land Registry against the relevant plots of land. The applicant maintains that she nonetheless complied with all of the IPC ’ s requests.

Frustrated at the lack of progress of her claim, the applicant requested a further hearing before the IPC. A hearing was then set for 25 April 2013 at which the IPC gave the applicant a list of names whose identities still had to be verified. The applicant states that the reason given by the IPC for requiring this further verification was that the handwriting on the original documents provided by the applicant was illegible.

On 24 October 2013, another hearing took place at which a final offer of GBP 60,000 (EUR 82,300) was made. The applicant declined the offer, since it amounted to only 3% of the valuation she had obtained from the chartered surveyor.

Although the applicant has requested a further hearing, at the present time no hearing date has been set by the IPC and thus her claim is still pending before it.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

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.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the ICP has failed properly to apply the relevant rules on compensation and, as such, is an ineffective remedy. She further complains that proceedings before IPC have now lasted over seven years and are still pending, in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement in Article 6 § 1.

The applicant also alleges that she has been denied fair compensation on the basis of her Greek Cypriot origin, in violation of Article 14 when taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. In this respect, relying on Article 13 of the Convention, she further alleges that she has been denied an effective remedy for her complaints.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. 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. In the particular circumstances of this case, having regard to the length of time proceedings have been pending before Immovable Property Commission , did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for her complaints 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. 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, is the length of the proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

[1] . Unit of area used in the Ottoman Empire and still used, in various standardised versions, in many countries which were formerly part of the Ottoman Empire. It was defined as “forty standard paces in length and breadth”, but varied considerably from place to place. It is considered to be the equivalent of about a quarter of an acre. See Demopoulos and Others v. Turkey ( dec. ) [GC], no. 46113/99, ECHR 2010 at p. 12, footnote 1.