Judgment Ioannides v. Cyprus - failure to pay rent for house in Nicosia used by peacekeeping forces

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 017 (2025)   16.01.2025   No payment of rent for house in Nicosia used by peacekeeping forces breached   owner’s property rights   The case Ioannides v. Cyprus (application no. 32879/18) concerned the applicant’s complaint that a   house she owned in Nicosia was used by peacekeeping forces without payment of rent. The house   had ended up being situated in the buffer zone after Türkiye invaded Cyprus in 1974.   In today’s Chamber judgment1 in the case the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously,   that there had been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the   European Convention on Human Rights as concerned the restriction on public access to the sector of   the buffer zone where Ms Ioannides’s house was located. Cyprus did not have effective control over   certain sectors of the buffer zone, and Ms Ioannides’ property was situated in an inaccessible part of   that zone. Cyprus had nonetheless taken all measures still within its power vis-à-vis Ms Ioannides’s   right to access her house, in accordance with its obligations under international law – specifically by   cooperating with the peacekeeping forces.   However, it also held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to   the European Convention because of Cyprus’s refusal to pay the applicant rent for the use of her   house by peacekeeping forces. It found in particular that the national courts had limited their   examination of the applicant’s claim to one aspect, namely the denial of access to her house   because of security restrictions, without weighing in the balance how her “consent” to the use of the   house had been obtained, the conditions set by her on that use, or what rent would be paid.   Principal facts   The applicant, Maryanne Ioannides, is a British national who was born in 1964. She left Cyprus in   1970 and now lives in the United Kingdom.   In 1973 Ms Ioannides’ father transferred to her name a two-storey house originally situated in a   residential area of Nicosia. The house ended up being situated in the buffer zone after Türkiye   invaded Cyprus in 1974.   In 2001 the State authorised UN peacekeeping forces, who were supervising entry into the buffer   zone, to use Ms Ionnides’ house. They started using the house in September 2001.   Ms Ioannides then requested “remuneration at the present market value.” The request was passed   on to the District Rent Determination Committee, which decided that the house had no rental value   and that the State had sufficiently compensated her by repairing the house.   After other unsuccessful attempts to obtain rent with various authorities, in 2007 Ms Ioannides   brought a civil action against the State in the courts claiming the return of her property, damages for   trespass and rent arrears.   The courts dismissed her action, finding essentially that Cyprus had no control over the buffer zone   or her house because of the security restrictions. In particular, in January 2018, the Supreme Court   1. Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery,   any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges   considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final   judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.   Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.   Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution.   stated that the ceasefire had made it necessary to give the peacekeeping forces permission to use   the house and that, in that context, there had been nothing the State could have done to help   Ms Ioannides assert her property rights.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), Ms Ioannides complained about the   lack of access to her property and the State letting peacekeeping forces use it without payment of   rent.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 5 July 2018.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Ivana Jelić (Montenegro), President,   Alena Poláčková (Slovakia),   Georgios A. Serghides (Cyprus),   Erik Wennerström (Sweden),   Raffaele Sabato (Italy),   Alain Chablais (Liechtenstein),   Artūrs Kučs (Latvia),   and also Ilse Freiwirth, Section Registrar.   Decision of the Court   Firstly, the Court noted that Cyprus did not have effective control over certain sectors of the buffer   zone. Ms Ioannides’ property was in effect situated in an inaccessible part of that zone.   The State nonetheless retained limited jurisdiction in the case, namely to take all appropriate   measures still within their power vis-à-vis Ms Ioannides’s right to access her house. It found that   Cyprus had taken all such measures: the Government had cooperated with the peacekeeping forces   in order to restore normal conditions, uphold law and order and protect property rights,   in accordance with its obligations under international law. Moreover, other than claiming rent,   Ms Ioannides had not identified any other measure the State could have taken to secure her   property rights.   There had therefore been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 as concerned the restriction on   public access to the sector of the buffer zone where Ms Ioannides’s house was located.   Despite the lack of effective control, the Cypriot Government had still been able to set how and   under what conditions the peacekeeping forces could use the house. In particular, they had agreed   to the peacekeeping forces using the house for several years, without paying rent. They had also   been free to decide the amount and type of compensation due. As such, the State had effectively   disposed of the property, and had thus directly interfered with Ms Ioannides’ ability to enjoy it.   The Court went on to acknowledge the extremely complex legal and factual situation on the ground   following the occupation of Cyprus and the need to prevent a resumption of fighting through the   continued presence of a peacekeeping force.   However, the courts had limited their examination of the case to one aspect of Ms Ioannides’ claim,   namely the denial of access to her house because of security restrictions. The Supreme Court   particularly, had not examined the specific way that the owner’s “consent” to the use of the house   had been obtained, the conditions set by her on that use, or what rent would be paid. The courts   had not therefore properly examined whether a fair balance had been struck between the   competing interests of the individual and of the community as a whole. They had not ascertained   2 whether Ms Ioannides had been made to bear a disproportionate and excessive burden because of   the State’s interference with her rights, in violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   Just satisfaction (Article 41)   The Court held that Cyprus was to pay the applicant 10,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary   damage and non-pecuniary damage and EUR 12,000 in respect of costs and expenses.   The judgment is available only in English.   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions,   judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int. To receive   the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on X   (Twitter) @ECHR_CEDH.   Press contacts   [email protected]e.int | tel.: +33 3 90 21 42 08   We are happy to receive journalists’ enquiries via either email or telephone.   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   Inci Ertekin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 55 30)   Neil Connolly (tel: + 33 3 90 21 48 05)   Jane Swift (tel: + 33 3 88 41 29 04)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe member   States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   3