Grand Chamber – Turkey – claims for just satisfaction in respect of Court’s finding, in principal judgment, of violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention
I. Entitlement to just satisfaction
Court’s finding in principal judgment that denial of access to property in northern Cyprus was imputable to Turkey is res judicata – applicant entitled to compensation.
Conclusion: respondent State’s claim dimissed (fifteen votes to two).
II. Pecuniary damage
Given uncertainties inherent in assessing economic loss caused by denial of access, sum awarded on equitable basis.
Conclusion: respondent State to pay applicant specified sum (fourteen votes to three).
III. Non-pecuniary damage
Award made in respect of anguish, helplessness and frustration suffered by applicant.
Conclusion: respondent State to pay applicant specified sum (fifteen votes to two).
IV. Applicant’s costs and expenses
Awarded in full.
Conclusion: respondent State to pay applicant specified sum (thirteen votes to four).
V. Cypriot Government’s costs and expenses
In principle not appropriate that States which act in interests of Convention community be reimbursed costs and expenses.
Conclusion: Cypriot Government’s claims dismissed (unanimously).
R Bernhardt
[1998] ECHR 60, [1996] ECHR 70, 15318/89, (1996) 23 EHRR 513, (1997) 23 EHRR 513, (1998) 26 EHRR CD 5, [1998] HRCD 732
Bailii, Bailii
Citing:
Admissibility – Loizidou v Turkey ECHR 4-Mar-1991
Admissibility . .
Preliminary Objections – Loizidou v Turkey ECHR 23-Mar-1995
(Preliminary objections) The ECHR considered the situation in northern Cyprus when it was asked as to Turkey’s preliminary objections to admissibility: ‘although Article 1 sets limits on the reach of the Convention, the concept of ‘jurisdiction’ . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights
Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.533669