PLEASED WITH CYPRUS
Riza Turmen

Hurriyet
March 8 2010
Turkey

Rage born with the approval of the Genocide Bill in the United States
has cast a shadow over the critical acquisitions we have gained through
the European Court of Human Rights’ decision on the Cyprus question.

The European court decision dated March 5 in the Demopoulos vs. Turkey
case has brought this issue to a brand-new state. Greek Cypriots who
moved from the north of the island to the south following the peace
operation in 1974 resorted to the European court for their immovable
properties in the north. There are nearly 1,550 cases against Turkey.

In order for the court to take these cases, parties have to try
internal legal channels first.

As a domestic remedy in accordance with the European court and
northern Cyprus set up an Immovable Property Commission, or IPC, to
compensate the damages of Cypriot Greeks. The court selected eight
pilot cases in order to decide whether the IPC was an effective,
appropriate judicial system. The Grand Chamber announced that the
commission is effective enough and overruled to take eight cases.

Since these eight pilot cases are legal cases, they will also determine
the fate of the 1,550 cases as well. From now on, if claimants claim
compensation for their immovable properties in the north, they have
to apply to the IPC. If they don’t, as stated in the decision, they
can wait for a final solution to be found in the Cyprus conflict.

Applicants and the Greek Cypriot Administration asserted that
since northern Cyprus is not recognized in the international arena,
the IPC cannot be legally binding and therefore such legal channel
legitimizes the occupation of the island. The European court rejected
these claims and reached a conclusion that the IPC is an independent,
impartial and legitimate legal body.

The court rules that if there is an effective domestic way to settle
similar issues, they should be tried first. The European court has
left the judgment to see if compensation or the return of property
is needed to the IPC, stating that they cannot impose a solution to
force people to move out from properties.

Critical legal and political consequences

Legally speaking, Turkey, from now on, will not pay enormous amount
of compensation to the European court. Cypriot Greeks are paid
compensations as long as they resort to the IPC, but there are two
differences.

The first is the amount of compensation. The amount from now on will
be decided by way of conciliation between the parties.

The second is that applicants still have the ownership rights of their
properties in the European court decisions if Turkey is found guilty.

Since the ownership right is still protected, the applicant can
resort in the future and claim rights. But, in the IPC decisions,
the ownership right ends after compensation is paid.

Another critical point in this decision is the European court’s
recognition of a legal body set up by northern Cyprus. That doesn’t
mean the court recognizes northern Cyprus. Still, this is a critical
step showing that a legal decision by northern Cyprus is considered
valid in the international arena.

The Demopoulos decision will make positive contributions to the
solution of the Cyprus issue. One of the toughest areas of discussions
in settlement talks is the property issue. With this decision, a way
has been found how this particular issue can be resolved. The European
court ruling is binding. States have to abide by the decision.

Besides, the decision put an end to recommendations such as the return
of land to Cypriot Greeks in some cases to set aside the property
problem as envisaged in the Annan Plan. The Demopoulos verdict is
the product of long years of a legal fight.

Turkish public opinion should see this significant achievement
in the Cyprus issue, rather than the negative development in the
Armenian issue.

* Mr. Rıza Turmen is a columnist for the daily Milliyet in which
this piece appeared Monday. It was translated into English by the
Daily News staff.