Notes on the Agenda
678 Meeting, 8-9 September
Human Rights Meeting
H54-1 - Loizidou against Turkey
Judgments of 18 December 1996 and 28 July 1998Notes(99)663
27 August 1999
Application of Article 54 of the ECHR
- CM/Del/Act(98)626, 647, 654
- CM/Del/Act(97)599 Addendum
The Deputies are invited to resume consideration of the
judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Loizidou against Turkey on
the basis of the Rules concerning the application of Article 54 of the European Convention
on Human Rights. The Deputies are also invited to examine the draft Interim Resolution
(Appendix I) in the light of the information provided by the Delegation of Turkey.
The Deputies considered this case at their 585th (March
1997, item H54-7), 599th (September 1997, item H54-40), 618th
(February 1998, item H54-51), and 626th (March 1998, item
Since the adoption of the Courts judgment of 28 July 1998, the
Deputies have considered this case at their 640th (September 1998, item
H54-68), 647th (October 1998, item H54-30) and 654th (December 1998
January 1999, item H54-20), 659 (February 1999, item H54-54) and 666th
(March 1999, item H54-60), 672th (May 1999, item H54-23) and 677th
(July 1999, item H54-61) meetings.
The case concerns the applicant's complaint that the Turkish
authorities had continuously prevented her from having access to and enjoying certain
property she owned in northern Cyprus.
In its judgment of 18 December 1996 the Court:
- dismissed, by eleven votes to six, the preliminary objection ratione
- held, by eleven votes to six, that the denial of access to the
applicant's property and consequent loss of control thereof was imputable to Turkey;
- held, by eleven votes to six, that there had been a breach of Article
1 of Protocol No. 1;
- held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 8 of
- held, unanimously, that the question of the application of Article 50
of the Convention was not ready for decision and consequently reserved the said question.
Subsequently, on 28 July 1998, the Court rendered its judgment under
Article 50. In this judgment the Court:
- dismissed, by fifteen votes to two, the respondent States claim
that the applicant has no entitlement to an award of just satisfaction under article 50 of
- held, by fourteen votes to three, that the respondent State was to
pay to the applicant, within three months, 300,000 Cypriot pounds for pecuniary damage;
- held, by fifteen votes to two, that the respondent State was to pay
to the applicant, within three months, 20,000 Cypriot pounds for non-pecuniary damage;
- held, by thirteen votes to four, that the Respondent State was to pay
to the applicant, within three months, 137,084 Cypriot pounds and 83 cents for costs and
- held, by fifteen votes to two, that simple interest at an annual rate
of 8% was payable on the above amounts from the expiry of the abovementioned three months
- dismissed, unanimously, the Cypriot Governments claims for
costs and expenses;
- dismissed, unanimously, the remainder of the claim for just
The Courts judgment of 18 December 1996 on the merits was
examined by Deputies for the first time at their 585th meeting. At this meeting
it was decided to postpone the examination of the case for no more than six months.
The Deputies subsequently examined the case at their 599th,
618th and 626th meetings. At the 626th meeting, it was
decided to postpone the examination of the case until the Court had pronounced its
judgment on just satisfaction.
A full account of the interventions made at the 599th and
626th meetings has been reproduced in the records: (CM/Del/Act(97)599 Addendum
and CM/Del/Act(98)626 respectively).
Subsequently the Court, on 28 July 1998 rendered its judgment under
At the 640th meeting (September 1998), the
Representative of Turkey stated in a declaration, which was distributed in writing at the
meeting, that the judgments in the Loizidou case were fundamentally different from other
individual or interstate applications. She drew attention to the exceptional character of
the case, its political implications and the negative effects it could have on the Cypriot
problem. The Representative of Turkey therefore asked the Committee of Ministers to take
this into account when examining the case.
The Representative of Cyprus stated that it was regrettable that Turkey
was attempting to politicise the issue. The Deputies needed to deal with the individual
case as it had been presented before the Court. The question to be answered was whether or
not the respondent State had abided by the judgment. One of the first issues to be
supervised was the payment of the just satisfaction which had been awarded to the
applicant by the Court in its Article 50 judgment. In addition, the Representative
referred to the arguments which had been presented in her letter of 9 September 1998,
addressed to Permanent Representatives, notably to the effect that, in addition to just
satisfaction, general measures would be required. She proposed that the Secretariat make
concrete proposals to this effect.
The Representative of Greece also regretted that Turkey was
politicising the case and questioned whether Turkey was prepared to comply with the
Several delegations, notably the Representatives of the five Nordic
States (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden) in a joint declaration, intervened
to underline the importance of implementing the Courts judgments and stated that a
legal solution would have to be found.
The Deputy Director of human rights recalled that, in accordance with
the usual practice, three issues would need to be addressed by the Committee of Ministers
in the context of Article 54: the payment of just satisfaction awarded by the Court,
individual measures necessary to remove the effects of the violation, and general
measures. In respect of the suggestion of the Representative of Cyprus that the
Secretariat should make proposals concerning execution, she stressed that while the
Secretariat was thinking of both individual and general measures, it was important that
capitals also contribute to this reflection in the general interest of maintaining the
efficency of the Convention system.
At the 647th meeting (October 1998), the
Representative of Turkey asked for a postponement to the next meeting as her authorities
were continuing their examination of the case.
The Chairman stated that, as the deadline for payment would not expire
until the following day, 28 October 1998, there was no basis for a discussion on
non-compliance with the judgment at this meeting.
Deputies accordingly decided to postpone the examination of this item
at their next meeting.
A full account of the interventions under this point of the agenda
appears in the Records of the 647th meeting (CM/Del/Act(98)647).
At the 654th meeting (December 1998-January 1999),
the Representative of Turkey made a statement in which she referred to the arguments she
had presented at the 640th meeting, and to the position of her authorities that
the Courts judgments could not be executed. She underlined that in the past, Turkey
had always abided by all the decisions of the Court, but the present case was
"exceptional in nature" according to the Court itself.
The Representative of Turkey underlined that the question of the
payment of the just satisfaction could not be isolated from the other issues at stake in
the Cyprus negotiations, notably the property issue which had been of a central importance since 1975. The agreement signed in 1977 between Mr Denktas
and the late Archbishop Makarios aiming at the establishment of an independent,
non-aligned and bi-communal federal republic was a landmark agreement. Subsequently, the
1986 negotiations with the UN had led to the establishment of a set of ideas
by the Secretary General of the UN. Therefore, the Courts judgment could be taken
into account in the discussions regarding the creation of a joint claims committee in the
framework of the UN. This approach would satisfy UN requirements as well as Turkeys
obligations under the Convention.
The Representative of Cyprus stated that the Committee of Ministers was
facing unprecedented behaviour from a member State. This was the first time that Turkey
had expressly stated that it would not pay. This kind of behaviour before a national court
would be perceived as contempt of court.
The Representative of Sweden, in a statement on behalf of the five
Nordic states, stated that Turkey should pay the just satisfaction awarded by the
Courts judgment and that it was regrettable that payment had not already been made.
He asked that the case be put on the agenda for the next meeting. This declaration
received support from a large number of Delegations.
In several interventions, regret was again expressed regarding the fact
that Turkey was politicising the Courts judgment. In order to ensure the credibility
of the Convention system, payment had to be made.
The Representative of Greece stated that the case was complicated but
easy at the same time: it concerned an individual complaint in respect of which there was
a clear decision by the Court that just satisfaction must be paid; it also concerned a
complex legal and social situation which had to be addressed in the context of the general
measures. The Committee of Ministers now had to supervise the implementation of this
judgment. As regards Ms Loizidous individual situation, the Court had awarded her
just satisfaction in full cognisance of the political problems and the UN negotiations,
which had been going on for the last 32 years. It was not for the Committee of Ministers
to reopen the case but to ensure the implementation of the judgment.
The Director of human rights also noted that this was the first time
that Turkey had indicated that it did not intend to execute the judgments. He noted that
there was a general agreement that Turkey was obliged to execute the judgments and pay the
just satisfaction to the applicant. In addition, he underlined that the Courts
judgments concerned an individual case. Payment by Turkey would therefore not set a
precedent in other cases against Turkey, as each of these cases would need to be examined
on their merits according to the development of the situation at the time of their
Regarding Turkeys proposal to ensure execution of the judgment
within the UN, the Director of human rights underlined that this would imply mistrust in
the Council of Europes ability to uphold the Convention system. The specificity of
this Organisation was its approach to the problem on the basis of freely accepted
obligations, the observance of which were upheld by an independent Court, responsible for
deciding on complaints, and the Committee of Ministers entrusted with ensuring compliance
with these judgments. It was this judicial approach which needed to be explored in this
case. In this context, he noted that, according to the UN Secretary Generals latest
report on operations in Cyprus, no significant development had taken place since December
The Representative of Turkey made a clarification of her earlier
statement by pointing out that she had not put into question the judgment but simply that
an acceptable outcome of the case had to be found. The execution of the judgment would
need to be part of a global solution of the Cyprus problem.
The Deputies agreed to resume consideration of the problems raised by
the case at their next meeting.
A full account of interventions under this point on the agenda appears
in the Records of the 654th meeting (CM/Del/Act(98)654).
At the 659th meeting (February 1999), the
Representative of Turkey recalled that in view of the exceptional and inapplicable nature
of the judgments this also raised exceptional difficulties insofar as their execution was
concerned. The Representative underlined that in order to respect the Courts
judgments, Turkey had made serious efforts to find a solution which would correspond to
the magnitude of the problems related to the case as well as satisfy all parties concerned. In this context, the Representative made reference to a letter
from Mr Denktas to the Secretary General of the UN, to establish a Joint Property Claims
Commission with a view to settling all property cases in Cyprus, including the Loizidou
case. Mr Denktas had also sent a letter to the
Secretary General of the Council of Europe to inform him of this initiative.
The Representative of Turkey listed the steps set out in the
guidelines on the composition and modalities of the proposed Joint Property Claims
Commission, drawn up by the Turkish Cypriot side. This proposal could, according to the
Representative, open the way to solving the Loizidou case. If the Council of Europe would
undertake to implement the above-mentioned proposal, this would also enhance the authority
of the Organisation.
The Representative of Cyprus stated that this was the fourth time the
Committee of Ministers was faced with the refusal of the Turkish Government to comply with
the judgments of the Court in the Loizidou case. Regarding the Turkish proposal, she
referred to the Committees obligation under Article 54 of the Convention to
supervise the execution of Courts decision. The Court itself had stressed that the
present case concerned the applicants personal situation but not the general
situation of the property rights of Greek Cypriots in northern Cyprus. The arguments
presented by the Representative of Turkey regarding the general situation had been
examined by the Court and discarded. Accordingly, the Committee of Ministers could
not pronounce itself on, or set up machinery to investigate, the general situation
concerning the property rights of Greek Cypriots in the occupied area. Furthermore, as the
Court had held that Ms Loizidou was the legal owner of the property in question, the
setting up of machinery for compensation for deprivation of ownership would go beyond the
scope of the judgments.
The Representative of Cyprus concluded by submitting to the Deputies a
draft interim resolution in which the Committee of Ministers would urge Turkey to
"proceed without delay to the payment of the amount decided by the Court". She
stated that as the Committee would need some time to examine the text, it could probably
not be adopted at the present meeting. There was, however, no possibility for Turkey to
avoid the payment of just satisfaction. Only after such payment had been made could the
issues concerning general measures be discussed.
The Representative of the United Kingdom stated that he concluded from
the intervention of the Turkish Representative that all delegations accepted that the
Courts judgments were binding in this case. He also recalled that the Court had said
that its judgments were not intended to undermine the ongoing discussions in the context
of the United Nations regarding the overall Cyprus problem. He therefore asked whether the
Representative of Turkey could explain the place of his proposal in this process. Even
though the Representative of the United Kingdom did not have specific instructions
regarding the ideas which had been presented, he stated that his authorities felt that it
would be very difficult to detach one aspect from the overall UN discussions.
The Representative of Greece stated that the Committee of Ministers was
witnessing a systematic effort to politicise the case and to use it to resolve the Cyprus
problem in a way which would be favourable to Turkey. He agreed with the Representative of
the United Kingdom that if Turkey wished to discuss these issues, this should be done
within the UN.
Several Delegations intervened to support the position expressed by the
United Kingdom Representative concerning the binding nature of the Courts judgments
and the legitimate expectation that Turkey would implement the judgments in the present
case. Delegations pointed out that they would not accept any compromises as far as the
payment of the just satisfaction was concerned.
Due to the complexity of the case, a readiness to co-operate in order
to find a solution within the Committee of Ministers was also expressed. This could
contribute to the safeguarding of the credibility of the judicial system laid down in the
As regards the draft interim resolution which had been presented by
Cyprus, Delegations asked for more time in order to study the text. One delegation,
however, stated that it would have been prepared to accept the interim resolution
The Director of human rights responded to the comments made by
recalling certain facts in the Loizidou case: even though legal and political
considerations were closely intertwined, certain elements could be distinguished. As a
direct consequence of the Courts judgment, one obligation was to pay the just
satisfaction which had been awarded. In addition, there were other aspects of the
judgment. The case would become complex only when these were examined. Even though these
other aspects could not be totally discarded, they could not be presented as preconditions
for the payment of the just satisfaction. It had already occurred that governments
encountered serious difficulties concerning payment of just satisfaction. In the present
case, however, the nature of the difficulties for the respondent Government to pay had not
been expressed clearly. Earlier statements by the Representative of Turkey taken together
with the statement by the Representative at this meeting, gave the impression that the
very basis of the judgment was put into question. Turkey thus needed to indicate clearly
to the Committee of Ministers whether it intended to pay the just satisfaction.
The Director of human rights stated that after the payment of just
satisfaction had been made, the Committee of Ministers could theoretically decide to close
the case. This would, however, imply that the situation of the applicant, who according to
the Court is the victim of a continous violation, would not improve. In addition, the
Committee of Ministers would not seize the opportunity given by the judgment to contribute
to finding a solution of the Cyprus problem. Moreover, the Committee of Ministers would
not exercise its function of preventing similar violations of the Convention in the
future. As other applications similar to Ms Loizidous were pending before the
Commission, it was also possible that the Committee of Ministers would have to deal with
similar cases in the future.
Regarding the establishment of a property claims commission as
suggested by the Representative of Turkey, the Director referred to requests from
Delegations for further information and explanations on the possibilities for the Council
of Europe to respond to this proposal. He stated that, since as it had already been
rejected by Cyprus in the context of the UN negotiations, other propositions would need to
be found. The Secretariat could conceive some kind of informal procedures within the
Committee of Ministers. As the issue at stake was the execution of the judgments by the
Court, this would also have to be the focus of such discussions. These informal procedures
would thus also need to be concluded by a decision within the framework of the Committee
of Ministers duties under Article 54 of the Convention.
A full account of interventions made at the 659th meeting
appears in the records (CM/Del/Act(99)659).
At the 666th meeting (March 1999), the Representative
of Turkey referred to the complex Cyprus question and the ongoing discussions under the
auspices of the Secretary General of the UN. The
implementation of the judgments in the present case could have direct implications on this
problem, which needed to be taken into account by the Committee of Ministers. The
Representative referred to Mr Denktass proposal, which had been presented at the
last meeting, as an important attempt to create the necessary framework for the
implementation of the Courts judgment. He therefore proposed that the Committee of
Ministers explore this proposal.
The Representative of Greece stated that he had expected that at the
present meeting Turkey would present a concrete proposal and not once more refer to the
proposition which had already been rejected by the Deputies at the last meeting. The
Representative emphasised that the introduction of this proposal by Turkey was a mere
pretext for not paying the just satisfaction.
The Representative of Cyprus pointed out that there was consensus in
the Committee of Ministers that the Turkey was bound by the Courts judgment. Turkey
therefore had no other choice than to pay the just satisfaction. The statement made by
Turkey concerned issues which did not concern the Committee and could not be considered by
it. The stand which had been taken by Turkey was unprecedented in that a member State
simply refused to pay the applicant the award granted. The Representative of Cyprus
concluded by stating that the Committee, as a supervisory organ, needed to adopt a firm
approach and that an interim resolution was called for.
The Representative of the United Kingdom recalled his firm position according to which Turkey must pay the just satisfaction.
He asked for proposals from Turkey as to how it was going to comply with its obligations.
Regarding Mr Denktass proposal, the Representative repeated his question from the
last meeting: how did this proposal fit into the overall UN negotiations? The
Representative added that the Council of Europe should not duplicate the UNs work
but concentrate on ensuring execution of the Courts judgments.
The Representative of Turkey replied that Turkey had an excellent
record as regards respecting the Courts judgments. The present case, however, had
dimensions far beyond the Loizidou case itself. Turkey intended to honour the judgments
but the issue of payment of the just satisfaction could not be isolated from other
The Representatives of Portugal and Switzerland stated that it was
regrettable that Turkey had not provided any new information at the present meeting and
that they expected Turkey to honour the Courts judgment by paying the just
The Representative of Cyprus stated that in the present situation there
was no alternative for the Committee other than to adopt an interim resolution. She
referred to the proposed Cypriot text for an interim resolution which had been sent to
Delegations at the 659th meeting (February 1999).
The Chairman concluded discussions by noting that there was agreement
that Turkey must abide by the Courts judgment and asked the Secretariat to prepare
an interim resolution which could be discussed by Deputies at their next meeting.
Following this meeting, the Secretariat prepared a draft interim
resolution which appears in Appendix I to the present Notes.
At the 672nd meeting (May 1999), Deputies agreed, as
a result of a procedural problem raised by the Delegation of Turkey, to examine more
closely in the future the question of how to summarise the contents of the discussion of
the meeting of the Deputies.
Turning to the substance of the case, the Representative of Turkey
stated that he disagreed with the action proposed in the Notes, as there had been no
formal decision by the Committee of Ministers to this effect. The Committee of Ministers
needed to take into account the exceptional difficulties in the present case and handle it
The Representative of Turkey recalled that the central issue of the
Cyprus problem was the issue of property rights. Claims for exchange of property had
created the basis for UN negotiations and had been approved by the Security Council. The
Loizidou case had therefore already had negative effects on these negotiations. The
proposal for the Joint Property Claims Commission as set forth by the Turkish Cypriot side
and presented by the Representative of Turkey in an earlier meeting of the Deputies
therefore needed to be given serious consideration by the Committee of Ministers.
The Representative of Cyprus stated that it was clear that Turkey would
not implement the judgment by paying the just satisfaction. As Turkey was thus not
complying with the Courts judgment the draft interim resolution which had been
prepared by the Secretariat should be adopted.
The Representative of Luxembourg confirmed and further specified the
position of his authorities, which had been presented already at the last meeting, that
the Committee of Ministers, in view of Turkeys attitude, now needed to consider the
adoption of an interim resolution and that he was therefore in favour of discussing the
text which had been prepared by the Secretariat. He recalled that he had at the previous
meeting declared his preparedness to work either on the draft put forward by the
Delegation of Cyprus or on a text prepared by the Secretariat.
In this context the Representative of Luxembourg referred to a booklet
from Turkeys Ministry of Foreign Affairs with the title: "The Loizidou case. A
dead end" which he had read. As it was stated on page 2 of this document that the
"Loizidou case had no chance of being implemented", this confirmed the need for
the Committee to react.
The Representative of Luxembourg suggested that the Committee, as a
first measure, should ask the Chairman of the Committee to write a letter to the Foreign
Minister of Turkey. The response to such a letter would determine whether the Committee of
Ministers would need to follow up with an interim resolution. This two-step approach would
thus contain first a confidential step and secondly a public step.
A large number of Delegations intervened to support this proposal. It
was also suggested that in such a letter the Chairman could refer to the draft interim
resolution which was on the table of the Committee of Ministers.
Delegations pointed out that they had received the above-mentioned
booklet from the Delegation of Turkey. In the view of some Delegations, the information in
this document was seen as a new ingredient, as Turkeys position appeared to be more
clearly stated than it had been in the meetings of the Committee of Ministers. Several
Delegations thought it would be reasonable to let Turkey clarify its position, but
emphasised that postponing the item to the next meeting should represent the last period
of grace which the Committee of Ministers should accord to the respondent State before
adopting an interim resolution.
At the request of the Chairman, the Turkish Delegation distributed the
booklet to those Delegations which had not received it earlier. The Representative of
Turkey explained that this document spelled out the difficulties which the Loizidou case
created. In response to a question from a Delegation asking whether Turkey would be
willing to negotiate a solution of the Cyprus problem, the Representative of Turkey
responded that Turkey was not a party to those discussions.
The Chairman concluded discussions with a summing-up.
Subsequently, the Icelandic Minister of Foreign Affairs sent a letter
to his Turkish counterpart.
At the 677th meeting (July 1999), the Representative
of Turkey confirmed that a letter had been transmitted to the Minister of Foreign Affairs
of Turkey on 22 June 1999. It was therefore reasonable for the Committee to wait for the
Ministers reply before discussing further action.
The Representative of Cyprus in a statement (see Appendix II) pointed
out that soon it would be one year since the Court had pronounced its judgment on just
satisfaction. In view of the attitude which Turkey had so far expressed, the prospects for
the applicant receiving payment were not promising. The Representative therefore proposed
that the Committee, in accordance with the Chairmans summing-up from the last
meeting, examine the draft resolution, which had been prepared for that meeting.
Delegations pointed out that less than a month had passed since the
letter from the Chairman had been sent and that Turkeys Minister of Foreign Affairs
should be given some more time to reply. Some delegations expressed a preference for
taking up the case again at the next meeting of the Deputies, on 26-27 July 1999, while
others preferred to wait until the next Human Rights meeting on 27-28 September 1999.
In this context, Deputies also discussed the examination of the
proposed interim resolution. Several delegations stated that in the absence of any payment
they supported the adoption of an interim resolution and thus would have been prepared to
discuss the text at that meeting. Attention was also drawn to the fact that the Chairman,
in his letter to Turkeys Minister, had mentioned that the Committee was examining a
draft resolution. A majority of delegations, however, expressed the view that it would be
reasonable not to discuss the interim resolution until the Turkish authorities had been
given some more time to reply to the Chairmans letter.
The Representative of Greece recalled that the Parliamentary Assembly
had taken a great interest in the execution of the present judgment. It could therefore be
expected that the Assembly at its next meeting, starting on 20 September 1999, would
request further information in this respect from the Chairman. In order for the Chairman
to be able to provide such information, the Representative suggested that the case be
discussed again at the 678th meeting of the Deputies on 8 and 9 September 1999.
A great number of delegations supported this proposal.
The Representative of Turkey asked that the Secretariat provide before
the next meeting statistical information regarding delays in payment of just satisfaction
which had occurred in other cases.
The Director of human rights replied that there was only one case which
had some resemblance to the present one, namely Stran Greek Refineries S.A. and S.
Andreadis against Greece. The binding character of the judgment and the obligation to pay
the award were not challenged by the Respondent State in this case. During the Committee
of Ministers examination of that case, the respondent State had, however, proposed
certain modalities of payment which could not be accepted by the Committee of Ministers.
Furthermore, eventually Greece paid the just satisfaction awarded, together with the
interest due. The Director of human rights stated that the Secretariat would submit
information regarding the Committee of Ministers handling of that case (see document
The Chairman concluded discussions by stating that Deputies would
resume consideration of the case at their 678th meeting on 8 and 9 September
COUNCIL OF EUROPECOMMITTEE OF MINISTERS
draft INTERIM resolution DH (99)
CONCERNING THE JUDGMENT OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
OF 28 JULY 1998
IN THE CASE OF LOIZIDOU AGAINST TURKEY
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on
at the 678th meeting of the Ministers Deputies)
The Committee of Ministers,
Having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of
28 July 1998 which ordered Turkey to pay to the applicant before 28 October 1998 specific
sums for damages suffered and for costs and expenses ;
Considering that this judgment has been transmitted to the Committee of
Ministers for supervision of its execution in accordance with Article 54 of the
Having regard to the fact that Turkeys compliance with this
judgment has been examined by the Committee of Ministers Deputies in subsequent
meetings since September 1998;
Considering that the Government of Turkey has indicated that the sums
awarded by the European Court could only be paid to the applicant in the context of a
global settlement of all property cases in Cyprus and concluding that the conditions of
payment envisaged by the Government of Turkey cannot be considered to be in conformity
with the obligations flowing from the Courts judgment ;
Deploring the fact that Turkey has not yet complied with the judgment
by paying to the applicant the sums awarded by the Court,
Stressing the obligation undertaken by all contracting States to abide
by the judgments of the Court, in accordance with Article 53 of the European Convention on
Strongly urges Turkey to review its position and to pay the just
satisfaction awarded in this case in accordance with the conditions set out by the
European Court of Human Rights so as to ensure that Turkey, as a High Contracting Party,
meets its obligations under the Convention.
677th meeting (DH) 15 July 1999
JUDGMENTS OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
IN THE CASE OF LOIZIDOU AGAINST TURKEY
(Judgments of 18 December 1996 and 28 July 1998)
Application of Article 54
of the European Convention on Human Rights
CM/Del/Act(98)626, (98)647, (98)654, CM/Del/Act(97)599 Addendum)
The Representative of Cyprus made the following statement:
"Allow me to make a number of comments. First, I would like to
thank you, Mr Chairman, on behalf of my authorities and through you, your Minister of
Foreign Affairs for sending the letter to the Turkish Foreign Minister. The letter is
skilfully drafted and presents the collective demand of this Committee as regards the
execution of the judgment on the Loizidou case by Turkey. The letter had also a positive
echo in the Parliamentary Assembly, and the parliamentarians are becoming increasingly
impatient with the lack of compliance demonstrated by Turkey in this case, as well as in
We are told by the Representative of Turkey that the time elapsed since
receiving the letter until today was not sufficient to prepare a reply. Indeed, Mr
Chairman, two weeks can be conceived as a short time if one tries to draft a qualified
'no' as a reply. But, it can also be conceived as adequate time for drafting a reply of a
clear 'yes'. The Turkish Representative should be reminded that the second type of reply
is expected from his authorities. Any other reply will not be to the liking of this
Committee and it will trigger action for deciding further steps to ensure compliance by
One further comment I would like to make is that the last two weeks
following the signing of the letter, are not the first time that Turkey is made aware of
its obligation to pay the just satisfaction awarded to Ms Loizidou. At the end of this
month the judgment will be one year old, and through that period repeated discussions in
this Committee revealed the wish of all delegations that Turkey abides by the judgment of
the Court. So far, the attitude of the Turkish authorities is not promising, to say the
This prompts me to suggest that we proceed as it is recorded in the
Chairman's Summing-up, and already at this meeting to examine the draft resolution which
appears in the Notes on the Agenda."