Erhürman: “It Is Absolutely Incorrect to Present the ECHR Ruling as a Victory”

While noting that the Immovable Property Commission (IPC) continues to be recognized by the ECtHR as an “effective domestic remedy,” Erhürman warned that several critical findings in the ruling should not be overlooked.

“The ruling was generally welcomed as a reaffirmation of the IPC’s status as an effective domestic remedy. However, it would be wise to examine the decision’s specifics more carefully,” Erhürman wrote.

He made the following key points in his statement:

1. Continued Recognition, but Not Without Reservations:
   The ECtHR reaffirmed the IPC’s effectiveness, but only in general terms. In the specific case at hand, the Court highlighted serious delays in the process, which undermined the commission’s effectiveness. This, Erhürman warned, could create future complications in similar cases.

2. Rejection of the Government’s Objection:
   Despite the application still being pending before the IPC, the Court unanimously rejected the argument that domestic remedies had not been exhausted.

3. A Material Shift in the Court’s Approach:
   For the first time since 2010, the ECtHR took up the issue of material compensation for property rights violations as a matter under its own purview, reminiscent of the landmark Loizidou judgment. This, Erhürman stated, effectively bypassed the IPC in this particular case.

4. Identification of Structural Issues:
   The ECtHR also referred to Article 46 and identified structural problems in the system—specifically, delays in the IPC process and the need to impose compensatory sanctions to address these delays.

“This decision opens a breach in the IPC’s structure. It shows that even though the IPC is still considered effective, the ECtHR can rule for material compensation in specific cases where delays are evident,” he said.

Erhürman concluded by emphasizing that this was the first time such issues had been identified in a case of this kind and that treating the ruling as a victory is misleading and dangerous. He urged authorities to take the matter seriously, study the ruling in depth, and prepare for the evaluation scheduled six months from now by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe.

“Failure to understand the seriousness of the ruling may bring serious consequences—not just in terms of complying with the decision, but also regarding the upcoming review by the Council of Europe.”