Displaced persons

In addition to causing extensive material damage and having a disastrous impact on the economy, the invasion and occupation forced more than 200,000 Greek Cypriots out of their homes, meaning that 25% of the island’s population in 1974 became refugees.

In its judgment on the Interstate Application of Cyprus v. Turkey (2001), the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that the latter violated the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in relation to the property rights of Greek Cypriot refugees. The Court judged that displaced Greek Cypriots remain the legal owners of their properties in the occupied section and that they should be allowed by Türkiye - which refuses, so far, to comply with the ECtHR’s judgment – to fully enjoy their property rights.

The ECtHR has also recognised Türkiye's liability in several individual cases of Greek Cypriot displaced persons. Some indicative examples:

a) In 1998, in the case of Mrs. Titina Loizidou (application n.15318/89) – a Greek Cypriot refugee from Kyrenia – the Court found Türkiye liable for breaching the ECHR for denying the applicant access to her property. It was the first time Türkiye was found to violate the ECHR with regard to the property right of the displaced Greek-Cypriots. The Court, in an additional judgment on Just Satisfaction in 1998, ruled that Türkiye should pay Mrs. Loizidou 300,000 Cypriot pounds in pecuniary damages. Türkiye finally, in 2003, complied with the judgment after a tug-of-war that lasted for years. It has thus only partly complied with the Court's judgment, as Mrs. Loizidou continues to be denied free access to and use of her property. In September 2022, the supervision of the execution of the Loizidou case was terminated, as the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe decided, by a marginal majority, that Türkiye had taken all necessary measures in accordance with the ECtHR Judgment. The Committee’s decision was based on the availability of the Immovable Property Commission as an effective domestic remedy. The supervision of the property rights issue, however, is being continued in the framework of the Interstate Case Cyprus v. Turkey.

b) In December 2005, the ECtHR found that Türkiye was liable for the violation of the rights of Mrs. Xenidis-Arestis (application n.46347) to her property pursuant to the Convention. In a later judgment (December 2006), the Court ruled that Türkiye was to pay Mrs. Xenides-Arestis €800,000 euros in pecuniary damage for denying her use and enjoyment of her property in occupied Famagusta. Türkiye was to comply within three months from the date on which the judgment became final (23 May 2007). No action was taken within the prescribed period.

c) The Court’s judgment of 22/4/2008 on the Demades (application n.16219/60) case stresses that all displaced Greek Cypriot remain the owners of their property and that damages awarded by the Court only concern the loss of use.

d) It is also noted that on 28/4/2009, the European Court of Justice delivered a ruling on the Meletis Apostolides v. David Charles and Linda Elizabeth Orams case – in which the British couple were accused by Greek Cypriot refugee Mr. Apostolides of trespassing and occupying the land that belonged to his family – pointing out that a judgment by a Cypriot court sitting in the area of the island effectively controlled by the Cypriot Government, but concerning land situated in areas not under its control, is recognized and enforceable in all EU member states.

e) On 19 January 2010, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales confirmed, just as the abovementioned ECJ ruling on the same case, that the initial decision on the Apostolides v. Orams case by the judicial authorities of the Republic of Cyprus should be fully implemented in the European Union as a whole.