Demades v. Turkey
Doc ref: 16219/90 • ECHR ID: 002-4808
Document date: July 31, 2003
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 0
Information Note on the Court’s case-law 55
July 2003
Demades v. Turkey - 16219/90
Judgment 31.7.2003 [Section III]
Article 8
Article 8-1
Respect for home
Denial of access to, use and enjoyment of home in northern Cyprus: violation
Facts : The applicant is a Cypriot national who maintains he is the owner of a plot of land and a house in northern Cyprus. He claims that the house was furnished and regularly use d by him and his family, but that since 1974 he has been prevented by the Turkish armed forces from gaining access to, using and enjoying his property.
Law : Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – The Court’s reasoning was similar to those in the case of Eugenia Mi chaelidou Developments Ltd and Michael Tymvios is (see Article 1 of Protocol No.1 below).
Conclusion : violation (6 votes to 1).
Article 8 – An extensive interpretation of the notion of “home” must be applied. Such a notion can include the second house of a person, as in the present case, since it is possible to develop strong emotional ties with the latter. The applicant’s house thus qualified as a home within the meaning of Article 8. The restriction of his rights by the Government, purportedly in the inter ests of security, public safety, prevention of disorder and the protection of the rights of others was not justified, nor was the Government’s claim that the notion of “home” could not be applied to a place where one no longer lives. The Court maintained i ts reasoning in the case of Cyprus v. Turkey , where it had already concluded that the complete denial of the right of Greek-Cypriot displaced persons to respect for their homes in northern Cyprus constituted a continuing violation of Article 8.
Conclusion : violation (6 votes to 1).
The Court unanimously found that it was unnecessary to examine whether there had been a violation of Article 13.
Article 41 – The Court reserved the question of just satisfaction.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes