Judgment K.V. Mediterranean Tours Limited v. Türkiye - Türkiye should further expedite property proceedings brought by Greek Cypriots in the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus”

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 140 (2025)   10.06.2025   Türkiye should further expedite property proceedings brought by Greek   Cypriots in the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus”   In today’s Chamber judgment1 in the case of K.V. Mediterranean Tours Limited v. Türkiye   (application no. 41120/17) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had   been:   a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on   Human Rights.   The case concerned the effectiveness of the Immovable Property Commission (IPC) as a legal avenue   for compensation claims brought by Greek Cypriots in the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus”. It   also concerned the participation of a religious foundation in the IPC proceedings and the alleged lack   of impartiality of the High Administrative Court (appeal panel) as a higher judicial authority for IPC   cases.   In general, the Court acknowledged the progress made by the IPC in processing property claims. It   also noted the diverse range of remedies provided, including compensation, exchange, and   restitution, and welcomed the ongoing efforts. In this case, however, the Court found that the   protracted nature of the proceedings had been mainly due to the passive approach of the IPC and   the procrastination of the “TRNC” authorities towards preparing documents and gathering evidence.   The IPC had not acted coherently, diligently and quickly enough in examining the claim.   Under Article 46 (binding force and enforcement of judgments) the Court found that consistent   and long‑term efforts had to be continued, in particular as far as expediting IPC proceedings was   concerned and creating a remedy which secured genuinely effective redress in respect of delays.   A legal summary of this case will be available in the Court’s database HUDOC (link).   Principal facts   The applicant company, K.V. Mediterranean Tours Limited, is a Cypriot company established in 1967   and based in Nicosia. Its shareholders and directors are of Greek Cypriot origin.   The company owns a building complex located in the fenced-up area of Famagusta in northern   Cyprus. It abandoned the property following the Turkish military operation in 1974 and, in July 2010,   applied to the Immovable Property Commission (IPC), claiming compensation for the loss of use of   its building complex. It also claimed restitution of the property, compensation for non-pecuniary   damage, statutory interest and legal costs.   In the absence of a reply from the relevant authorities of the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus”   (“TRNC”), K.V. Mediterranean Tours Limited applied, on 1 November 2010, for a default   judgment. Ten hearings were subsequently held between early December 2010 and end of June   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.   2012. At each of them, the “TRNC” Office of the Attorney General successfully requested   adjournments due to a missing report regarding the property.   On 23 October 2012 the company complained of delays in the processing of the case. At the   subsequent hearing, the Attorney General’s Office indicated that the “TRNC” Land Registry and   Surveys Department had not drafted a report that was needed for the preparation of the defence.   Moreover, the preliminary assessment of the case suggested that the property was registered to an   Islamic religious organisation, Abdullah Paşa Foundation, which was managed by the Evkaf   Administration  the organisation overseeing the functionality of vakıfs (foundations) and their   registered properties in Cyprus. On 23 November 2012, the IPC found that the Evkaf Administration   should therefore be admitted to the proceedings as a third party.   Two weeks later, K.V. Mediterranean Tours Limited complained to the “TRNC” Administrative Court   of unjustified adjournments and delays in the proceedings and challenged the admission of the Evkaf   Administration as a third party to the proceedings.   Three years later, in November 2015, the Administrative Court found that the Evkaf Administration   could not be admitted as a third party to the proceedings on the grounds that it would render the   restitution of the property to the applicant company impossible. The Administrative Court also held   that it did not have jurisdiction to rule on the complaint of adjournments and delays in the IPC   proceedings.   The “TRNC” authorities and the Evkaf Administration contested the decision not to admit Evkaf as a   party to the proceedings before the “TRNC” High Administrative Court, whereas K.V. Mediterranean   Tours Limited contested the decision on the adjournments and delays in the proceedings.   On 29 November 2016 the High Administrative Court held that it had exclusive jurisdiction to decide   on all matters relating to proceedings before the IPC. It held that adjournments and delays in the   proceedings were not subject to a judicial review. Referring to a judgment of the “TRNC” Famagusta   District Court of 27 December 2005, according to which the current registered owner of the property   in question was the Evkaf Administration, it held that the Evkaf Administration should be admitted   as a party to the proceedings.   The “TRNC” authorities filed their submissions with the IPC three years later, on 11 December 2019.   In January, February, June and October 2020, K.V. Mediterranean Tours Limited and its   representative refused to attend the IPC hearings. On 22 February 2024 the representative attended   a hearing before the IPC and agreed to forward to the company any proposals for compensation   which the Government might make. However, K.V. Mediterranean Tours Limited and its   representative later stated that any settlement could be reached in the course of the proceedings   before the Court.   The proceedings before the IPC are still ongoing.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Articles 6 (right to a fair hearing), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 1 of   Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention, K.V. Mediterranean Tours Limited   complained that the procedure for restitution of and compensation for its property located in the   fenced-up area of Famagusta had been protracted and ineffective, that there had been no possibility   for it to complain about the participation of a third party in the proceedings, and that the High   Administrative Court (appeal panel) judges had allegedly been involved in transactions concerning   property belonging to Greek Cypriots. It also complained of a violation of Article 14 (prohibition of   discrimination) in the enjoyment of its right under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and alleged that such   discrimination had been based on the national and ethnic origin, language and religious beliefs of its   shareholders and director.   2 The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 25 May 2017.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Arnfinn Bårdsen (Norway), President,   Saadet Yüksel (Türkiye),   Jovan Ilievski (North Macedonia),   Péter Paczolay (Hungary),   Anja Seibert-Fohr (Germany),   Gediminas Sagatys (Lithuania),   Juha Lavapuro (Finland),   and also Hasan Bakırcı, Section Registrar.   Decision of the Court   The Court proceeded on the assumption that Türkiye was responsible for the circumstances   complained of by the applicant company. However, that did not in any way call into doubt the view   adopted by the international community regarding the establishment of the “TRNC” or the fact that   the Government of the Republic of Cyprus remained the sole legitimate government of Cyprus (see   Cyprus v. Turkey [GC] and Demopoulos and Others v. Turkey (dec.) [GC].   Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Having been provided with official certificates in support of K.V. Mediterranean Tours Limited’s   property claim, the Court considered the company to be the legal owner of the property for its   assessment of the case.   The Court reiterated that, since its decision in Demopoulos and Others, it had emphasised that   property claims had to be submitted to the IPC, and the IPC had provided an accessible and effective   framework of redress for a number of applicants. The Court acknowledged the progress made by the   IPC in processing property claims, as reflected in the statistical information that had been submitted.   It also noted the diverse range of remedies provided, including compensation, exchange, and   restitution, and welcomed the ongoing efforts.   The applicant company had claimed compensation for and restitution of property in its application   to the IPC and had agreed to consider any compensation proposals that might be made. Therefore,   the proceedings could not be deemed to be ineffective. However, as regards the purported   availability of effective remedies for excessive delays in proceedings before the IPC, the Government   had failed to provide any concrete examples of cases in which complainants had successfully sought   and obtained compensation before the High Administrative Court.   In this particular case, with regard to the length of the proceedings, which had commenced in 2010   and were still ongoing, the Court observed that a significant delay had been caused by the “TRNC”   Attorney General’s failure to reply to the applicant company’s claim until December 2019. In the   Court’s view, the protracted nature of the proceedings had been mainly due to the passive approach   of the IPC and the procrastination of the “TRNC” authorities towards preparing documents and   gathering evidence. The Court found that the IPC had not acted coherently, diligently and quickly   enough in examining the claim. There had therefore been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   Articles 6 and 13   The Court pointed out that the participation of the Evkaf Administration in the IPC proceedings as a   potentially affected party had been necessary to comply with the principle of a fair trial. K.V.   Mediterranean Tours Limited had failed to convincingly demonstrate how the Evkaf Administration’s   involvement had rendered the proceedings unfair. The IPC had not automatically assigned   3 ownership to the religious foundation, and the company had had the opportunity to contest the   foundation’s ownership claims in the IPC proceedings. The issue of the third-party intervention had   also been examined in depth not only by the IPC but also by the courts. It therefore rejected as   unsubstantiated the allegations under Articles 6 and 13.   As regards the alleged partiality of the judges at the High Administrative Court, the Court considered   that there was no evidence to suggest that any of the judges on the appeal panel held a personal   bias or hostility towards K.V. Mediterranean Tours Limited. In the Court’s view, in order for a judge’s   impartiality to be called into question in this context, the pecuniary interests of the judge concerned   had to be directly related to the subject matter of the dispute at the national level. Since these   proceedings had concerned only procedural issues, the judges had had no direct interest in the   outcome. Moreover, the applicant company had not sought recusal of the judges concerned, and   the judges had no claim to the company’s property. Therefore, the Court rejected this complaint as   manifestly ill-founded.   Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   As in previous cases relating to Greek Cypriot property claims in the northern part of Cyprus, the   Court did not find it necessary to carry out a separate examination of the admissibility and merits of   complaints under Article 14 of the Convention.   Article 46 (binding force and enforcement of judgments)   The issue of excessive length of proceedings before the IPC is not a new one. In previous similar   cases, the Court has criticised the protracted nature of the proceedings and has referred to the   “TRNC” authorities’ failure to respond to the applicants’ claims before the IPC in a timely manner. It   has also made clear that it remains attentive to the developments in the functioning of the IPC   remedy and its ability to effectively address Greek Cypriot property claims (see Joannou v. Turkey).   The Court took note of the recent statistical data demonstrating progress in the IPC’s processing of   Greek Cypriots’ property claims. Although there was still room for improvement, the Court noted   the progress achieved and also the efforts made by the Turkish authorities to bring the IPC   proceedings into compliance with the Convention requirements. Nevertheless, the current case   clearly showed that consistent and long‑term efforts had to be continued, in particular as far as   expediting proceedings was concerned (especially replies from the relevant “TRNC” authorities to   property claims before the IPC) and creating a remedy which secured genuinely effective redress in   respect of delays in the IPC proceedings.   Just satisfaction (Article 41)   The Court held that Türkiye was to pay the applicant 7,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary   damage and EUR 11,000 in respect of costs and expenses. It found, by 5 votes to 2, that the question   of pecuniary damage was not yet ready for decision, and reserved it for future decision.   Separate opinion   Judges Yüksel and Paczolay expressed a partly dissenting opinion which is annexed to the judgment.   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 and Bluesky @echr.coe.int.   4 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.   Jane Swift (tel: + 33 3 88 41 29 04)   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)   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.   5