Presidency: ECHR Has Once Again Confirmed the Effectiveness of the IPC

In its statement, the Presidency emphasized:

“The ECHR has reaffirmed that the restitution of property is not the only means of redress for Greek Cypriots’ abandoned properties in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC), and that compensation or exchange decisions by the IPC are equally valid forms of remedy.”

The Court also clarified that the involvement of judges from the High Administrative Court in matters concerning disputed properties did not constitute a conflict of interest. Furthermore, it found that the IPC’s inclusion of the Evkaf Administration as an intervening party in a property claim concerning Varosha did not violate the principle of fair trial.

The statement also noted that the ECtHR acknowledged the IPC’s recent progress based on statistics and highlighted the importance of maintaining this positive trajectory.

However, the Court found a procedural violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights due to delays in the IPC proceedings—some attributable to the applicant—and called on TRNC authorities to continue timely involvement in such cases and address delays.

The Presidency described the ECHR ruling as a response to the Greek Cypriot side, which “pursues an aggressive policy against our citizens by disregarding our property regime and its integral component, the IPC.” It added:

“The IPC exists and continues to function effectively. For Greek Cypriots who left behind immovable property in 1974, the IPC remains the first and only address for their claims.”

The statement concluded with a call to the Greek Cypriot side to respect ECtHR rulings and end “individualized punitive measures that violate human rights and target our citizens acting within the property regime endorsed by the Court.” It warned that such actions are incompatible with international law and may have serious consequences.