Cyprus v Turkey: ECHR 10 May 2001

Hudoc (Grand Chamber) Missing persons: No violation of Art. 2, Art. 4; Violation of Arts. 2 and 5 with regard to lack of effective investigation; No violation of Art. 5 with regard to alleged detention; Not necessary to examine Arts. 3, 6, 8, 13, 14 and 17; Violation of Art. 3 with regard to relatives; Not necessary to examine Arts. 8 and 10 with regard to relatives; Displaced persons: Violation of Art. 8, P1-1 and Art. 13; Not necessary to examine Arts. 14+8, 14+13 and 14+P1-1, 3, 17 and 18; No violation of Art. 2 with regard to access to medical services; Greek Cypriots in northern Cyprus: No violation of Arts. 5, 6 and 11; Violation of Art. 9; No violation of Art. 9 with regard to the Maronite population; Violation of Art. 10 with regard to censorship of school books; No violation of P1-1 with regard to alleged failure to protect property from interferences by private persons.
The abolition by the Turkish authorities of the Greek language secondary schools in Northern Cyprus constituted a breach of A2P1.
L Wildhaber P
25781/94, [2001] ECHR 331, (2002) 35 EHRR 30, (2001) 11 BHRC 45, ECHR 2001-IV, (2001) 11 BHRC 45
Worldlii, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights A2P1
Cited by:
CitedRegina on the Application of B and others v Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office CA 18-Oct-2004
The applicant children had been detained in immigration camps in Australia. They escaped and sought refuge in the British High Commission in Melbourne and claimed diplomatic asylum. They claimed in damages after being returned to the authorities in . .
CitedA v Essex County Council SC 14-Jul-2010
The claimant, a severely disabled child sought damages, saying that for well over a year, the local authority had made no provision for his education.
Held: His appeal against the striking out of his action failed. The correct approach had . .
CitedEweida And Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Jan-2013
Eweida_ukECHR2013
The named claimant had been employed by British Airways. She was a committed Christian and wished to wear a small crucifix on a chain around her neck. This breached the then dress code and she was dismissed. Her appeals had failed. Other claimants . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 January 2021; Ref: scu.166112