AS TO THE FACTS

10. The applicant, a Cypriot national, grew up in Kyrenia in northern Cyprus. In 1972 she married and moved with her husband to Nicosia. 

11. She claims to be the owner of plots of land Nos. 4609, 4610, 4618, 4619, 4748, 4884, 5002, 5004, 5386 and 5390 in Kyrenia in northern Cyprus and she alleges that prior to the Turkish occupation of northern Cyprus on 20 July 1974, work had commenced on plot No. 5390 for the construction of flats, one of which was intended as a home for her family. She states that she has been prevented in the past, and is still prevented, by Turkish forces from returning to Kyrenia and "peacefully enjoying" her property. 

12. On 19 March 1989 the applicant participated in a march organised by a women's group ("Women Walk Home" movement) in the village of Lymbia near the the Turkish village of Akincilar in the occupied area of northern Cyprus. The aim of the march was to assert the right of Greek Cypriot refugees to return to their homes. 

Leading a group of fifty marchers she advanced up a hill towards the Church of the Holy Cross in the Turkish-occupied part of Cyprus passing the United Nations' guard post on the way. When they reached the churchyard they were surrounded by Turkish soldiers and prevented from moving any further. 

13. She was eventually detained by members of the Turkish Cypriot police force and brought by ambulance to Nicosia. She was released around midnight, having been detained for more than ten hours.  

14. In his report of 31 May 1989 (Security Council document S/20663) on the United Nations Operation in Cyprus (for the period 1 December 1988 - 31 May 1989) the Secretary-General of the United Nations described the demonstration of 19 March 1989 as follows (at paragraph 11): 

"In March 1989, considerable tension occurred over the well-publicized plans of a Greek Cypriot women's group to organise a large demonstration with the announced intention of crossing the Turkish forces cease-fire line. In this connection it is relevant to recall that, following violent demonstrations in the United Nations buffer-zone in November 1988, the Government of Cyprus had given assurances that it would in future do whatever was necessary to ensure respect for the buffer-zone £ Accordingly, UNFICYP asked the Government to take effective action to prevent any demonstrators from entering the buffer-zone, bearing in mind that such entry would lead to a situation that might be difficult to control. The demonstration took place on 19 March 1989. An estimated 2,000 women crossed the buffer-zone at Lymbia and some managed to cross the Turkish forces' line. A smaller group crossed that line at Akhna. At Lymbia, a large number of Turkish Cypriot women arrived shortly after the Greek Cypriots and mounted a counter demonstration, remaining however on their side of the line. Unarmed Turkish soldiers opposed the demonstrators and, thanks largely to the manner in which they and the Turkish Cypriot police dealt with the situation, the demonstration passed without serious incident. Altogether, 54 demonstrators were arrested by Turkish Cypriot police in the two locations; they were released to UNFICYP later the same day."  

A Turkey's declaration of 28 January 1987 under Article 25 of the Convention  

On 28 January 1987 the Government of Turkey deposited the following declaration with the Secretary General of the Council of Europe pursuant to Article 25 of the Convention:  

"The Government of Turkey, acting pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms hereby declares to accept the competence of the European Commission of Human Rights and to receive petitions according to Article 25 of the Convention subject to the following:  

(i) the recognition of the right of petition extends only to allegations concerning acts or omissions of public authorities in Turkey performed within the boundaries of the territory to which the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey is applicable;  

(ii) the circumstances and conditions under which Turkey, by virtue of Article 15 of the Convention, derogates from her obligations under the Convention in special circumstances must be interpreted, for the purpose of the competence attributed to the Commission under this declaration, in the light of Articles 119 to 122 of the Turkish Constitution; 

(iii) the competence attributed to the Commission under this declaration shall not comprise matters regarding the legal status of military personnel and in particular, the system of discipline in the armed forces; 

(iv) for the purpose of the competence attributed to the Commission under this declaration, the notion of a "democratic society" in paragraphs 2 of Articles 8,9,10 and 11 of the Convention must be understood in conformity with the principles laid down in the Turkish Constitution and in particular its Preamble and its Article 13; 

(v) for the purpose of the competence attributed to the Commission under the present declaration, Articles 33, 52 and 135 of the Constitution must be understood as being in conformity with Article 10 and 11 of the Convention.  

This declaration extends to allegations made in respect of facts, including judgments which are based on such facts which have occurred subsequent to the date of deposit of the present declaration. This declaration is valid for three years from the date of deposit with the Secretary General of the Council of Europe." 

16. On 29 January 1987 the Secretary General of the Council of Europe transmitted the above declaration to the other High Contracting Parties to the Convention indicating that he had drawn the Turkish authorities' attention to the fact that the notification made pursuant to Article 25 S 3 of the Convention in no way prejudged the legal questions which might arise concerning the validity of Turkey's declaration. 

17. In a letter dated 5 February 1987 to the Secretary General, the Permanent Representative of Turkey to the Council of Europe stated that the wording of Article 25 S 3 of the Convention offered no basis for expressing opinions or adding comments when transmitting copies of the Turkish declaration to the High Contracting Parties. He added: 

"International treaty practice, in particular that followed by the Secretary General of the United Nations as depository to similar important treaties as the Statute of the International Court of Justice or the covenants and conventions dealing with human rights and fundamental freedoms, also confirms that the depository has to refrain from any comments on the substance of any declaration made by a Contracting Party." 
 

C. Reactions of various Contracting Parties to Turkey's Article 25 declaration 

18. On 6 April 1987 the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Greece wrote to the Secretary General stating inter alia that reservations to the European Convention on Human Rights may not be formulated on the basis of any provision other than Article 64. He added: 

"Furthermore, Article 25 provides neither directly nor implicitly the possibility of formulating reservations similar to the reservations set out in the Turkish declaration. The position cannot be otherwise, for if reservations could be made on the basis of Article 25, such a method of proceeding would undermine Article 64 and would sooner or later destroy the very foundations of the Convention.  

£ 

It follows that the Turkish reservations, as they are outside the scope of Article 64 must be considered as unauthorised reservations and, accordingly, as illegal reservations. Consequently, they are null and void and may not give rise to any effect in law." 

20. The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Luxembourg, in a letter of 21 April 1987 to the Secretary General stated inter alia that "Luxembourg reserves to itself the right to express £ its position in regard to the Turkish Government's declaration" before the competent bodies of the Council of Europe. He indicated that "the absence of a formal and official reaction on the merits of the problem should not £ be interpreted as a tacit recognition by Luxembourg of the Turkish Government's reservations".  

21. In a letter of 30 April 1987 to the Secretary General the Permanent Representative of Denmark stated inter alia as follows: 

"In the view of the Danish Government, the reservations and declarations which accompany the said recognition raise various legal questions as to the scope of the recognition. The Government therefore reserves its right to return to these questions in the light of future decisions by the competent bodies of the Council of Europe in connection with concrete petitions from individuals." 

"It is therefore desirable to avoid any doubt as to the scope and validity of the recognition by individual States of this right which may be raised by generalized stipulations in respect of the context in which petitions would be accepted as admissible, interpretative statements or other conditionalities."

24. The Permanent Representative of Belgium, in a letter of 22 July 1987 to the Secretary General, stated that the conditions and qualifications set forth in the declaration raised legal questions as to the system of protection set up under the Convention. He added: 

"Belgium therefore reserves the right to express its position in regard to the Turkish Government's declaration, at a later stage and before the competent bodies of the Council of Europe. Meanwhile the absence of a formal reaction on the merits of the problem should by no means be interpreted as a tacit recognition by Belgium of the Turkish Government's conditions and qualifications."  

D. Turkey's subsequent Article 25 declarations 

25. Turkey subsequently renewed her declaration under Article 25 of the Convention for three years as from 28 January 1990. The declaration read as follows: 

"The Government of Turkey, acting pursuant to Article 25 (1) of the Convention for Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms hereby declares to accept the competence of the European Commission of Human Rights to receive petitions according to Article 25 of the Convention on the basis of the following: 

(i) the recognition of the right of petition extends only to allegations concerning acts or omissions of public authorities in Turkey performed within the boundaries of the national territory of the Republic of Turkey; 

(ii) the circumstances and conditions under which Turkey, by virtue of Article 15 of the Convention, derogates from her obligations under the Convention in special circumstances must be interpreted, for the purpose of the competence attributed to the Commission under this declaration, in the light of Articles 119 to 122 of the Turkish Constitution; 

(iii) the competence attributed to the Commission under this declaration shall not comprise matters regarding the legal status of military personnel and in particular, the system of discipline in the armed forces; 

(iv) for the purpose of the competence attributed to the Commission under this declaration, Articles 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Convention shall be interpreted by giving special emphasis to "those legal and factual features which characterize the life of the society" (European Court of Human Rights, Judgment of 23 July 1968, p. 34) in Turkey, as expressed notably by the Turkish Constitution including its Preamble. 

This declaration extends to allegations made in respect of facts, including judgments which are based on such facts which have occurred subsequent to 28 January 1987, date of the deposit of the previous declaration by Turkey. This declaration is valid for three years as from January 28, 1990."

"The Government of Turkey, acting pursuant to Article 25 (1) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, hereby declares to accept the competence of the European Commission of Human Rights, to receive petitions which raise allegations concerning acts or omissions of public authorities in Turkey in as far as they have been performed within the boundaries of the national territory of the Republic of Turkey.  

This declaration extends to allegations made in respect of facts, including judgments which are based on such facts which have occurred subsequent to 28 January 1987, date of the deposit of the first declaration made by Turkey under Article 25 of the Convention. This declaration is valid for three years from 28 January 1993." 

27. On 22 January 1990, the Turkish Minister of Foreign Affairs deposited the following declaration with the Secretary General of the Council of Europe pursuant to Article 46 of the Convention:  

"On behalf of the Government of the Republic of Turkey and acting in accordance with Article 46 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, I hereby declare as follows: 

The Government of the Republic of Turkey acting in accordance with Article 46 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, hereby recognizes as compulsory ipso facto and without special agreement the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights in all matters concerning the interpretation and application of the Convention which relate to the exercise of jurisdiction within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention, performed within the boundaries of the national territory of the Republic of Turkey, and provided further that such matters have previously been examined by the Commission within the power conferred upon it by Turkey. 

This Declaration is made on condition of reciprocity, including reciprocity of obligations assumed under the Convention. It is valid for a period of 3 years as from the date of its deposit and extends to matters raised in respect of facts, including judgments which are based on such facts which have occurred subsequent to the date of deposit of the present Declaration."

28. The Secretary General of the Council of Europe acknowledged deposit of the Turkish declaration under Article 46 in a letter dated 26 January 1990 and pointed out that her acknowledgment was without prejudice to the legal questions that might arise concerning the validity of the Turkish declaration.  

29. In a letter of 31 May 1990 to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, the Permanent Representative of Greece stated inter alia as follows:  

30. By letter of 9 August 1988 the Government of Cyprus deposited the following declaration under Article 25 of the Convention:  

"On behalf of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus, I declare, in accordance with Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 4 November 1950, that the Government of the Republic of Cyprus recognizes, for the period beginning on 1 January 1989 and ending on 31 December 1991, the competence of the European Commission of Human Rights to receive petitions submitted to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe subsequently to 31 December 1988, by any person, non-governmental organization or group of individuals claiming, in relation to any act or decision occurring or any facts or events arising subsequently to 31 December 1988, to be the victim of a violation of the rights set forth in that Convention. 

On behalf of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus, I further declare that the competence of the Commission by virtue of Article 25 of the Convention is not to extend to petitions concerning acts or omissions alleged to involve breaches of the Convention or its Protocols, in which the Republic of Cyprus is named as the Respondent, if the acts or omissions relate to measures taken by the Government of the Republic of Cyprus to meet the needs resulting from the situation created by the continuing invasion and military occupation of part of the territory of the Republic of Cyprus by Turkey."

32. The declaration was renewed in the same terms on 2 January 1992. By letter of 22 December 1994 it was renewed for a further period of three years without the restrictions ratione materiae set out above. 

III. The declaration of the United Kingdom under Article 25 

33. The United Kingdom's Article 25 declaration of 14 January 1966, which has been renewed successively, reads as follows: 

"On instructions from Her Majestry's Principal Secretary of State of Foreign Affairs, I have the honour to declare in accordance with the provisions of Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed at Rome on the 4^th November, 1950, that the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland recognise, in respect of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland only and not, pending further notification, in respect of any other territory for the international relations of which the Government of the United Kingdom are responsible, for the period beginning on the 14^th January 1966, and ending on 13^th of January 1969, the competence of the European Commission of Human Rights to receive petitions submitted to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe subsequently to the 13^th of January 1966, by any person, non-governmental organization or group of individuals claiming, in relation to any act or decision occurring or any facts or events arising subsequently to the 13^th of January 1966, to be the victim of a violation of the rights set forth in that Convention and in the Protocol thereto which was opened for signature at Paris on the 20^th March 1952. 

This declaration does not extend to petitions in relation to anything done or occurring in any territory in respect of which the competence of the European Commission of Human Rights to receive petitions has not been recognized by the Government of the United Kingdom or to petitions in relation to anything done or occurring in the United Kingdom in respect of such a territory or of matters arising there."

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION 

34. Mrs Loizidou lodged her application (no. 15318/89) on 23 July 1989. She complained that her arrest and detention involved violations of Artilces 3, 5 and 8 of the Convention. She further complained that the refusal of access to her property constituted a continuing violation of Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. 

35. On 4 March 1991 the Commission declared the applicant's complaints admissible in so far as they raised issues under Articles 3, 5 and 8 in respect of her arrest and detention and Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol No.1 concerning continuing violations of her right of access to property alleged to have occurred subsequent to 29 January 1987. Her complaint under the latter two provisions of a continuing violation of her property rights before 29 January 1987 was declared inadmissible. 

In its report of 8 July 1993, it expressed the opinion that there had been no violation of Article 3 (unanimously); Article 8 as regards the applicant's private life (eleven votes to two); Article 5 S 1 (nine votes to four); Article 8 as regards the applicant's home (nine votes to four) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (eight votes to five). The full text of the Commission's opinion and the three separate opinions contained therein are reproduced as an annex to this judgment¹  

(1) For practical reasons this annex will appear only with the printed version of the judgment (volume 310 of Series A of the Publications of the Court), but a copy of the Commission's report is obtainable from the Registry.  

FINAL SUBMISSIONS TO THE COURT 

36. At the close of the hearing the Agent of the Turkish Government stated as follows: 

"In the light of what has been stated, it is my honour on behalf of the Turkish Government to urge the Court to declare that it has no jurisdiction to examine this case, based on the application lodged by Mrs Loizidou and referred to the Court by the Greek Cypriot administration. The allegations made lie outside the jurisdiction of Turkey within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention. As a subsidiary argument, we would also like the Court to find that it has no jurisdiction to examine this application filed by Mrs Loizidou on the grounds of the territorial limitation, which is an integral part of the recognition by Turkey of the jurisdiction of the Commission, pursuant to Article 25 of the Convention. 

Secondly, on behalf of the Turkish Government, I would ask the Court to declare that it has no jurisdiction to examine the application filed by Mrs Loizidou since the alleged facts occurred prior to the date on which the Turkish Declaration, recognizing the Court's jurisdiction, entered into force, pursuant to Article 46 of the Convention. Furthermore, the facts occurred prior to the date on which the Declaration, recognizing the jurisdiction of the Commission, entered into force, pursuant to Article 25." 

"On the basis of the considerations set forth above the Court is requested  

(i) to reject all the preliminary objections advanced on behalf of Turkey; and 

(ii) to affirm the existence of jurisdiction in respect of the continuing violations of Article 1 of Protocol 1 and of Article 8 of the Convention with effect from 28 January 1987 or (in the alternative) with effect from 22 January 1990."