ECtHR - Cyprus v. Turkey , Application no. 25781/94, 10 May 2001

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly versionPDF version of SummaryPDF version of Summary
Country of Applicant: 
Date of Decision: 
ECtHR - Cyprus v. Turkey , Application no. 25781/94, 10 May 2001
Court Name: 
European Court of Human Rights Grand Chamber
Relevant Legislative Provisions: 
Council of Europe Instruments > ECHR (Frist Protocol) > Art 1
Council of Europe Instruments > ECHR (Frist Protocol) > Art 2

Turkey’s continual and severe failure to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances of disappearance of Greek-Cypriots, who were at the time under the control of its agents, constituted a violation of Articles 2,3 and 5 of the ECHR. The circumscription of freedom of movement, religion and association of Greek-Cypriots in Northern Greece constituted violations of Articles 9 and 10 and the continual violation of Article 1 Protocol 1 by virtue of preventing Greek Cypriot owners from having access to, control and use of their property was also found by the Court.


In July and August 1974, Turkey conducted a military operation and occupied the northern part of Cyprus.

In 1983, the leader of Turkish Cypriots proclaimed the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC), and in 1985 the “TRNC Constitution” was enacted.

In 1981 the United  Nations  Committee  on  Missing  Persons  (“CMP”), was  set  to  draw  up comprehensive lists of missing persons of both communities specifying as appropriate  whether  they  were  still  alive  or  dead.

The events of July and August 1974 and their aftermath gave rise to three previous applications lodged by Cyprus against Turkey under former Article  24  of  the  Convention.  The  first two  applications  led  to  the  adoption  in 1976  of  a  report  under former  Article  31  of  the  Convention  in  which  the European Commission of Human Rights  expressed  the  opinion  that  the  respondent  State  had  violated Articles 2, 3, 5, 8, 13 and 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

The arguments relied upon by the government and summarised by the Commission related, inter alia, to the large – scale killing of Greek-Cypriots as well as a high numbers of missing persons; displacement of Greek-Cypriots to the South without the possibility to return to their homes; loss of ownership rights; restriction of movement for minority groups staying in northern Cyprus; eradication of Greek-language secondary schools in the North, and severe and unjustified censorship of primary-school books; restriction of freedom of religion; and acts of discrimination and harassment towards the Turkish Cypriot Gypsy community in northern Cyprus. 

The third application lodged by Cyprus led to the adoption of another report in 1983, wherein the Commission expressed the opinion that the respondent State was in breach of its obligations under Articles 5 and 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol  No.  1.

Decision & Reasoning: 

Preliminary Issues

1) As to the issue of the Cyprus Government standing to bring an application before the ECtHR, the Court reiterated that the Republic of Cyprus has remained the sole legitimate government of Cyprus (as it was concluded in Loizidou  v. Turkey), and therefore its locus standi under former Article 24 (current Article 33) of the Convention could not be in doubt.

2) As to Cyrpus’ legal interest in bringing the  application, The Court did not deem the complaint raised in the instant application to be res judicata.

Indeed, the application  was  to  be  distinguished  from  the earlier  applications  in  that  it  set  out  new  violations  of  the  Convention, invoked complaints which were not the subject of any definitive finding by the Commission in its earlier reports, and was premised on the notion of continuing violations of Convention rights.

3) As to the respondent State's responsibility under the Convention, the  Court  held that the matters  complained  of  fell  within  the “jurisdiction” of Turkey within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention and  therefore  entailed  the  respondent  State's  responsibility.

Indeed, the Court reiterated that the responsibility of a Contracting  Party  could  also  arise  when,  as  a  consequence  of military action , it exercises effective control of an area outside its national territory (Loizidou  v. Turkey). Indeed, any other finding would result in a regrettable vacuum in the system of human-rights protection in the territory in question.

4) As to the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies, the Court held that for  the  purposes  of  former  Article  26  of  the  Convention,  remedies available in Northern Cyprus were to be regarded as “domestic remedies” of the respondent State, regardless of the invalidity of the acts of the “TRNC” authorities from the standpoint  of  international  law. Accordingly,  the  inhabitants  of  the  territory  were required  to  exhaust  these  remedies, unless  their  inexistence  or  ineffectiveness could be proved. The latter issue of effectiveness was addressed by the Court with regard to each complaint when assessing the merit.

To underpin its conclusion, the Court made strong reference to the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice in the  Namibia  case, where the Court held that international  law  recognises the  legitimacy  of  certain  legal  arrangements  and  transactions  in situations of de facto authority when ignoring those acts would only be to the detriment of the inhabitants of the territory.

Substantial issues

A) Alleged violations of the rights of Greek-Cypriot missing  persons and their relatives

1. The Court concluded that there had been a continuing violation of Article 2 on account of the failure of  the  authorities  of  Turkey to  conduct  an  effective investigation aimed at clarifying the whereabouts and fate of Greek-Cypriot missing persons who disappeared in life-threatening circumstances.

The Court maintained that, under Article 2 of the Convention read  in  conjunction  with  Article  1, the Contracting States have the procedural obligation of to effectively investigate not only when  individuals have been killed as a result of the use of force by agents of the State (McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom), but also upon the sole proof that an individual, who was last seen  in  the  custody  of  agents  of  the  State,  subsequently  disappeared  in  a context which may be considered life-threatening, as that which is clearly demonstrated in the present case.

Moreover, the Court affirmed that  the respondent  State's  procedural  obligation  could not be  discharged through  its  contribution  to  the  investigatory  work  of  the United  Nations  Committee  on  Missing  Persons (CMP), incapable to meet the standards of an effective remedy under Art. 2. .

2. The Court concluded there had been no breach of Article 4, being  of  the  view  that   it had not been substantiated that during the relevant period any of the missing persons  were  still  in  Turkish  custody  and  were  being  held  in  slavery or servitude.

3. The  Court  concluded  that,  there  had  been  a  continuing  violation  of  Article  5  on account of the failure of the authorities of the respondent State to conduct an effective investigation into the whereabouts of the missing Greek-Cypriot  persons  in  respect  of  whom  there  was  an  arguable  claim  that  they were in custody at the time they disappeared.

On the other hand, the Court found that there had been no violation of Article 5 by virtue of actual detention of Greek-Cypriot by the Turkish authorities due to the absence of sufficient evidence in this respect.

4. The court found that there had been a continuing violation of Article 3 in respect of the relatives of the Greek-Cypriot missing persons.

In fact, the Court maintained that the silence of the authorities of the respondent State in the face of the real concerns of the relatives of the missing persons had attained a level of severity which was to be categorised as inhuman treatment within the meaning of Article 3 (see also Çakici v. Turkey).

B) Alleged violations of the rights of displaced persons to respect for their home and property

1. The Court found a continuing violation of Article 8 by Turkey by reason of the refusal to allow the return of any Greek-Cypriot displaced persons to their homes in northern Cyprus.

Such conclusion was underpinned by two main observations. Firstly, the situation impugned by the applicant Government had no basis in law within the meaning of Article 8 § 2, since it was enforced only as a matter of policy.

Secondly, the inter-communal talks could not be invoked as the only means to solve the displaced persons’ complaint in order to legitimate a violation of the Convention.

2. The Court  concluded  that  there  had  been  a continuing violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 by virtue of the fact that Greek-Cypriot  owners  of  property  in  northern  Cyprus,  were  being  denied access to and control, use and enjoyment of their property because of an administrative practise of the Turkish authorities, and were also being denied any compensation for the interference with their property rights.

As the above was codified into Article 159 of the TRNC Constitution, the Court found that any complaint was unassailable, and thus the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies was not applicable.

Additionally, the Court recalled its conclusion in Loizidou, wherein it found that Article  159  of  the  TRNC  Constitution was invalid  for  the  purposes  of  the  Convention.

3. The Court held a violation of Article 13 by reason of the respondent State's  failure  to  provide  to  Greek  Cypriots  not  residing  in   northern  Cyprus  any  remedies  to  contest  interferences  with  their  rights under Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

C) Alleged Violations arising out of the living conditions of Greek Cypriot and Maronites living in northern Cyprus

1. The  Court  found no  violation  of  Article  2  on account of an alleged practice of denying access  to  medical  services  to  Greek  Cypriots and Maronites  living  in northern Cyprus.

The Court acknowledged that Article 2 § 1 obliges States to take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within its jurisdiction; and, as it relates to the present case, a violation of Art. 2 may occur when an individual's life is put at risk through the denial of health care which a State has undertaken to make available to the population generally. (L.C.B. v. the United Kingdom). However, despite some shortcomings in individual cases, the Court observed that general access to medical services was available to them and it had not been established that the lives of any patients were put in danger on account of delays.

2. The Court dismissed the complaint under Art. 5 concerning acts of threat and actual aggression carried by the Turkish population against the Greek Cypriots without any appropriate counter-reaction of the authorities. Indeed, the Court found that those facts had to be more properly addressed from the angle of the requirements of Article 8.

3. The Court  found no  violation  of Article  6  by  reason  of  an  alleged  practice  of denying to the Greek-Cypriot population a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal in the determination of their civil rights and obligations.

The court held that, for the settlement of disputes relating to civil rights and  obligations  defined  in  “domestic  law, there  was  a  functioning court system in the “TRNC””  which  was available  to  the Greek-Cypriot population, and had no flaws in its legal framework with regard to independency and impartiality.

Moreover, the Court affirmed that the illegality of the TRNC under international law was irrelevant from the standpoint of the Convention system.

4. The Court found a violation of art. 9 on account of restrictions placed on their freedom of movement which considerably curtailed their ability  to  observe  their  religious  beliefs,  for instance by hampering their access to places of worship outside their villages. On the contrary, the Court found no violation of art. 9 in respect of the Maronite population living in northern Cyprus, holding that there was insufficient evidence in this respect.

5. The  Court  found a  violation  of Article 10 insomuch as school-books destined for use in their primary school were subject to measures of censorship on the alleged ground  that  their  content  was  capable  of  fostering  hostility between the ethnic communities in northern Cyprus, no matter how innocuous their content was.

Secondly, the Court observed that there were no possible remedies available in this respect.

6. The  Court  found  no  violation  of  Article  11  by reason of an alleged practice of denying Greek  Cypriots  the  right  to  freedom  of association; indeed the Court considered that this claim was insufficiently substantiated.

7. The Court found a continuing violation of Art. 1 of the Protocol no. 1 (right to property), because the Greek Cypriots right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions  was not secured in case of their permanent departure from that territory, and their possessions could not  be  bequeathed  by  them  on  death,  and  passed  to  the authorities  as  “abandoned”  property.

In this respect, the Court was not persuaded that legal proceedings would hold out any prospects of success, having  regard  to  the  respondent  Government's  view  that  the  property  of  deceased  Greek  Cypriots passed to the authorities in accordance with the notion of “abandoned”.

8. The Court found a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 because no Greek-language secondary-school was available to Greek Cypriots. Whilst the Article does not  specify  the  language  in  which  education  must  be given, the Court held that having  assumed  responsibility  for  the provision of Greek-language primary schooling, the failure of the “TRNC” authorities to make continuing provision for it at the secondary-school level was a denial of the substance of the right having regard to the impact of this circumstances on families. Indeed, parents were de facto compelled to part from their children and send them to the south of Cyprus if they wanted to have their children to continue their education through the medium of the Greek language.

9. The Court found a violation of Art. 8. The Court came to this conclusion observing that Greek Cypriots who had permanently left the northern part of Cyprus (included school-children) were not allowed to return even if they had left a family  behind, and severe restrictions were placed also on simple visits. Furthermore, the Community was in several ways intrusively monitored in respect of its contacts and movements.

In the absence of any legal basis for these restrictions, the Court also held that it was not to be considered whether the interferences at issue could be justified with reference to the provisions of Article 8 § 2.

10. The Court found a violation of Art. 3 because of the discrimination amounting to degrading treatment suffered by the Greek Cypriots living  in  Karpas.

Indeed, the court recalled that discrimination based on race can constitute an affront to human dignity and therefore gives rise to an issue under art. 3 irrespective of  the relevance  of Article  14 (see also Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the  United  Kingdom).

The Court then observed that the severe restrictions on the exercise of basic freedoms above described were directed at the Karpas Greek-Cypriot community only on ethnic grounds, with the purported effect of extinguishing it with the passage of time.

D) Alleged Violations of the Turkish Cypriots and the Turkish-Cypriot Gypsy community in northern Cyprus

1. The Court concluded that it had not been established that there had  been  an  administrative  practice  of  violation  of  the  rights protected by  Articles 3,  5,  8,  10  and  11  against  Turkish Cypriots  who  were  opponents  of  the  regime  in  northern  Cyprus.

Whilst it could not be excluded that  by  reason  of  their  political  opposition  to  the ruling parties in northern Cyprus Turkish  Cypriots’ rights were being interfered with,  it  could not conclude  that  during the period under consideration an administrative practice of suppressing all dissent existed.

In addition, the Court noted that the individuals concerned did not exhaust the possible remedies available in the “TRNC” legal  system.

2. The Court concluded that it had not been sufficiently substantiated that there had  been  an administrative  practice  violating  the  rights  of the Turkish-Cypriot Gypsy community  under  Articles  3,  5,  8  and  14  of  the  Convention.

Despite acknowledging some individual cases of suffered hardship at the hands of the “TRNC” authorities, the Court did not consider that these individual cases proved the existence of an administrative practice of violation of the invoked rights.

3. The Court found a violation of Art. 6 on account of the legislative practice of authorising the trial of civilians by military courts.

As per Ireland  v.  the  United  Kingdom, unlike  individual  applicants,  a Contracting State is entitled to challenge under the Convention a law in abstracto as long as  it is couched in terms sufficiently clear and precise  to  make  the  breach  immediately  apparent.

That said, the Court found no reason to doubt that the military courts under analysis suffered from the same defects of independency and impartiality which were highlighted  in  Incal  v.  Turkey due to structural  links  between  the  executive  power  and  the  military  officers serving on the “TRNC” military courts.

4. Because of insufficient evidence, the Court held that no violation of art. 10 had been established by virtue of alleged restrictions on the right of Turkish Cypriots living in northern Cyprus to receive information from the Greek-language press.

5. The Court found that  it had not been established that there had been a violation of the right to freedom of association or assembly under Article 11 as a matter of administrative practice.

Indeed, the Court maintained that the applicant did not substantiate that the  “TRNC”  authorities  had  made  any  attempt  to  prevent  the  creation  of  bi-communal  organisations  between Turkish Cypriots living in the north and Greek Cypriots in the south during the period under consideration.

6. The Court found that it had not  been  established  that  there  had  been  a  violation  of  Article  1  of Protocol No. 1 because the  applicant had not substantiated that Turkish  Cypriots  living  in northern  Cyprus were prevented from accessing  their  property  in  the  south by  “TRNC”  authorities; and because sufficient remedies existed  to  secure redress against private interferences, and the existence of an administrative practice of condoning such interferences had not been substantiated.

7. The Court found no violation of Article 13 had been established, since the applicant government had not proved beyond reasonable doubt  the “TRNC”  failure as a matter of administrative  practice  to  secure  effective  remedies  to  Turkish  Cypriots living in northern Cyprus. 


Alleged  violations  of  the  rights  of  Greek Cypriot missing persons and their relatives.

The Court held that there had been a breach of Arts. 2, 3, 5.

The Court held that there had not been a breach of Art. 4.

The Court held that it was unnecessary to necessary  to  examine  the  complaints  under  Articles  3,  6,  8, 10, 13, 14  and  17.

Alleged  violations  of  the  rights  of  displaced persons to respect for their home and property

The Court held that there had been a violation of Art. 8, 13, and Art. 1 of  Protocol No. 1

The court held that it was unnecessary to examine whether there had been a violation of Art. 3, 17, 18, and Art. 14 taken in conjunction with Articles 8 and 13.

Alleged  violations  arising  out  of  the  living conditions of Greek Cypriots in Northern Cyprus.

The Court held that there had been a breach of Arts. 3, 8, 10, 13, 19, and Articles 1, 2 of  Protocol  No.  1.

The Court held that there had not been a breach of Arts. 2, 5, 6, 9, 11.

The Court held that it was unnecessary to  examine  the  complaints  under  Articles  14  of  the  Convention  taken  in  conjunction with Article 3 and other relevant Articles.

Alleged  violations  in  respect  of  the  rights  of Turkish  Cypriots,  including  members  of  the  Gypsy community, living in Northern Cyprus.

The Court held that there had been a breach of Art. 6.

The Court held that there had not been established a violation of the rights of Turkish  Cypriots under Arts. 3, 5, 8, 10, 11, 13 and Art. 1 of Art. 1 of Protocol No. 1; nor it had been established a violation of the rights of members of the Turkish-Cypriot Gypsy community under Articles 3, 5, 8 and 14.

Alleged  violations  of  other  articles  of  the Convention

The Court held that it was unnecessary to examine  separately  the complaints under Articles 1, 17, 18 and former Article 32 § 4 of the Convention.

Subsequent Proceedings : 

On 12 May 2014, the Court considered Cyprus’ claim for just satisfaction for the violations relating to the missing persons and the enclaved (Cyprus v Turkey). To this effect the Court decided that Turkey should pay 90 million Euros in total, and in particular 30 million Euros to the relatives of the missing persons and 60 million Euros to the enclaved. The award was based on article 41 ECHR according to which ‘the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party’ in cases of violations of the Convention or its Protocols.

Execution of the judgment by the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers

In several decisions and resolutions, the CoE Committee of Ministers found that adequate execution measures have been adopted relating to the living conditions of Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots in northern Cyprus (see interim resolutions CM/ResDH(2005)44 and CM/ResDH(2007)25).

With regard to the issues relating to the rights of missing persons, the CM welcomed the progress made by the Committee on Missing Persons in Cyprus (CMP) in the research for and identification of the missing persons. The CM also reiterated that Turkish authorities have to adopt a proactive approach to providing the CMP with all the assistance it needs.

As to the issues relating to the property rights of enclaved Greek Cypriots, the CM expressed its appreciation for the measure taken, but it also indicated that it would later examine possible consequences on these issues of the separate Court’ judgment on just satisfaction of 12 May 2014.

In June and September 2015, the CM reiterated its invitation to the Turkish authority to pay the sums awarded in that judgment. 


The judgment was followed by several dissenting opinions.

1) Partly Dissenting Opinion of Judge Palm, Joined by Judges Jungwiert, Levits, Panţîru, Kovler and Marcus-Helmons

Judge Palm held that, as it did in its Loizidou  v.  Turkey judgment, the Court should have avoided elaborating a general theory concerning the validity and effectiveness of remedies in the “TRNC” for three principal reasons. Firstly, the principle of judicial restraint should have been given free rein since it was superfluous for the Court to express any view on the legal significance of the remedies in Northern Cyprus in order to decide all the complaints raised.

Secondly, recognising the “TRNC” judicial authorities for the purposes of Art. 13 undermines the firm position taken by the international community, according to which the “TRNC”'s statehood is “legally  invalid”.

Thirdly, requiring those subject to an occupying  authority  to  have  recourse  to  its courts  as  a precondition  to  have  their  complaints  examined  by  this  Court  is   an  unrealistic  proposition  given  the obvious  and  justifiable  lack  of  confidence  in  such  an administration of justice.

2) Partly dissenting opinion of Judge Costa.

Judge Costa contested the decision of considering unnecessary the breach of Art. 14 taken in conjunction with art.  9 against the Greek Cypriots living in Northern Cyprus, this decision being merely based on the fact that the Court had already recognised the discriminatory treatment  serious  enough  to  amount  to  inhuman  and  degrading  treatment  under Article 3.

The judge firstly pointed out that as a matter of general principle nothing prevents finding a violation of an article of the Convention taken both alone and in conjunction with Art. 14. (see Chassagnou  and  Others  v.  France). Secondly, the judge was not convinced that a violation under Article 3 necessarily encompasses everything and takes precedence over  all  other violations.

That said, the Judge highlighted that the religious ground was rather relevant in the isolation of the Greek-Cypriot community so that there was nothing illogical in finding also a violation of Article 9 taken together with Article 14.

The judge also contested the majority’s finding that no practice of denying the protection of Turkish-Cypriot Gypsy community’ rights had been established. In this respect, he claimed that the failure to bring an action before the local courts cannot be interpreted as a lack of evidence of an administrative practice of rights’ violation and was not sufficient to dismiss the complaint.

3) Partly dissenting opinion of Judge Fuad

Firstly, Judge Fuad contested the finding of a violation of Art.1 of Protocol No. 1 by the respondent State. By embracing several remarks included in dissenting opinions expressed in Loizidou  v.  Turkey, the Judge held that the stand of the majority was exclusively based on the unquestioned position of the international community that the Turkish presence was illegal.  In his opinion it was inappropriate to leave such a stand unquestioned by the Court itself.

Secondly, the judge objected to the finding of violations relating to to Greek-Cypriot missing persons and their relatives. Firstly, the judge did not agree that the CMP procedures were not of themselves sufficient to meet the standard of an effective investigation under Article 2. Secondly, the judge maintained that the facts giving rise to an obligation  to  conduct  effective investigations into the fate of missing Greek-Cypriots fell outside the scope of the jurisdiction of the Court. Indeed, Turkey only accepted  the  compulsory  jurisdiction  of  the Court by its declaration of 22 January 1990 in relation to matters raised in respect of facts which have occurred subsequent to that date.  In this sense, Judge Fuad also claimed that alleging a continuing violation up to the present could not serve the purpose of bypassing the temporal limits of the Court’s jurisdiction. Thirdly, the judge did not agree that it had been established that any of the violations relied upon in relation to Greek  Cypriots  living  in  the  Karpas  region  of  Northern  Cyprus  were imputable to Turkey.

Considering the events that lead to the division of Cyprus, Judge Fuad embraced the dissenting opinion of Judge Gölcüklü  in Loizidou, who claimed Northern Cyprus to be a sovereign authority, independent and democratic, despite the lack of recognition by the international community.  Therefore, Judge  Fuad did not agree that  unless Turkey had been held accountable for the alleged violations in the Karpas, no other  State  would have  been; and he affirmed that to determine whether Turkey could be held accountable for  any violation  it was essential to examine the role of its troops in northern Cyprus at the time of each relevant fact.

4) Partly dissenting opinion of Judge Marcus-Helmons

In line with Jude Palm’s opinion, Judge Marcus-Helmons held that the conclusion of the majority to consider TRNC courts capable of triggering the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies was reached by giving the Advisory  opinion  in Namibia case before the ICJ  an  unduly  wide interpretation. Indeed the opinion did not concern either the  exhaustion  of domestic  remedies  or  the  validity  of  courts  established  by  an  illegal government, and set up an exceptional rule only referred to habitual  acts  necessary  for  the proper functioning of life in society when disregarding them would only be to the detriment of the inhabitants of the territory. Whereas, in the present case requiring the exhaustion of those remedies constituted an additional obstacle to secure an end  to  the suffered violations  by applying to Strasbourg.

Similarly, the judge argued that the majority had disregarded the travaux préparatoires of the Convention, wherein it is affirmed that exhaustion must be effected “according to generally recognised rules of international law”.

Consistently, the Judge also held that courts  established  illegally  in  northern  Cyprus  did  not  either satisfy  the requirements  of  Article  6  of  the  Convention,  which  requires  inter  alia: “...[a] tribunal ... established by law...”; or  the requirements  of  Article  13.

The judge also dissented from the majority by holding that there had been a violation of  article 2 as a result of the “TRNC” authorities' refusal to  afford  Greek  Cypriots  and  Maronites  living  in  northern  Cyprus  access  to medical care in another part of the Island. In his opinion this amounted  to a violation of the State's undertaking under Article 2 to protect everyone's right to life by law, insomuch as this right undoubtedly  includes  freedom  to  seek  and to  enjoy  the  best  physically available medical treatment.

Finally, the judge held that not allowing the practise one’s religion  constituted a violation in itself,  but  additional  restrictions  on  account  of  a specific religion  transformed  the  measure  also into the separate violation under Art. 14.

Case Law Cited: 

ECtHR - Mitap and Müftüoglu v. Turkey, No. 15530/89 15531/89

ECtHR - Ireland v. UK, 18 January 1978, Series A No. 25

ECtHR - Guerra and Others v. Italy, 116/1996/735/932

ECtHR - Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom, Application No. 9310/81

Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen v. Denmark, Application Nos. 5095/71, 5920/72 and 5926/72

ECtHR - Salman v. Turkey [GC], Application No. 21986/93

ECtHR - Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, Application Nos. 9214/80, 9473/81 and 9474/81

ECtHR - Akdivar v Turkey, Application No. 21893/93

ECtHR - Çakıcı v Turkey, Application no. 23657/94

ECtHR - Lithgow and Others v. the United Kingdom, Application Nos. 9006/80, 9262/81, 9263/81, 9265/81, 9266/81, 9313/81, and 9405/81

ECtHR - Philis v Greece, Application No. 12750/87

ECtHR- James and Others v. the United Kingdom, Application no. 7601/76; 7806/77

ECtHR- McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, Application no. 18984/91

ECtHR - Kurt v Turkey, Application no. 24276/94

ECtHR - Kaya v. Turkey, Application no. 22535/93

Mikolenko v. Estonia , no. 16944/03, 5 January 2006

ECtHR - Ergi v. Turkey, No. 23818/94, 28 July 1998

Quinn v. France, No. 18580/91, 22 March 1995

US - Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 227; 7 Wall.700 (1868), Supreme Court of the US

US - Horn v. Lockhart, 21 L.ed. 658 ; 17 Wall. 570 (1873), Supreme Court of the US

US - Williams v. Bruffy, 96 U.S. 178, Supreme Court of the US

UK - Adams v. Adams [1970], English high Court

ECtHR - Van Mechelen and Others v. the Netherlands, No. 55/1996/674/861-864, 23 April 1997

Tanrikulu v Turkey, No. 23763/94, 08 July 1999

ECtHR - Sargın and Yağci v. Turkey, Applications Nos. 14116-14117/88, 8 June 1995

ECtHR, Belilos v. Switzerland, No.10328/83, 29 April 1988,

ECtHR - Young, James and Webster v. the United Kingdom, Nos. 7601/76 7806/77, 18 October 1982

ECtHR - Open Door and Dublin Well Woman v. Ireland, Nos. 14234/88 14235/8829, October 1992

ECtHR - Chassagnou and Others v. France judgment, nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, 29 April 1999

ECtHR - Yaşa v. Turkey, No 22495/93, 2 September 1998,

ECtHR - Loizidou v Turkey (Application no. 40/1993 and 435/514)
Other sources cited: 

- International Court of Justice Reports, Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice in the Namibia case (Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in  Namibia  (South  West  Africa)  Notwithstanding  Security  Council Resolution 276 (1970), 1971 

-Dillon Report submitted to the United States Congress in May 1998

United Nations

- UN Security  Council  on  11  May  1984  in  its  Resolution  550  (1984)

- UN Security  Council , Resolution 541  (1983) 

- UN Secretary-General's Set of Ideas of 15 July 1992

- UN Security Council resolutions of 26 August 1992

- UN Security Council resolutions of 25 November 1992

- UN Security  Council Resolution 276 (1970)

- UN  document  S/1995/1020,  Annex  IV,  30 November  199

- Report of the Secretary-General of the United Nations (S/1995/1020 of 10 December 1995)

- UN Security  Council  document  of  23  May  2000 (A/54/878-S/2000/462)

- UN Secretary-General's progress reports of  10 December 1995 and 9 March 1998 on the humanitarian review carried  out  by  UNFICYP  in  1994-95  concerning  the  living  conditions  of  Karpas  Greek Cypriots (so-called “Karpas Brief”)

Council of Europe

- Commission Report  in  the  East  African  Asians  v.  the  United Kingdom case adopted on 14 December 1973 (Decisions and Reports 78-A)

- Commission Report of 10  July  1976 

- Commission Report of  4  October  1983 

- Commission's report in the Greek case, Yearbook 12, p. 194

- 20 January 1979 , Committee of Ministers of the Council of   Europe Resolution DH (79) 1

-Resolution DH  (92)  12 

- Committee  of Ministers'  decision  of  21  October  1977

- Rule  55  of  the  Rules  of  Court

- Former  Articles  45, 48  , 24,  26, 28, 31, 32 of the ECHR

- Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, Art. 5

Legal Scholarship

-Ch. Rousseau, Droit international public, Sirey, Paris, 1953,

-D.P.  O'Connell,  International  Law,  Stevens,  London,  1965, 

- M.  Sorensen  ed.,  Manual  of  Public  International  Law,  Macmillan, London, 1968.

-N. Quoc Dinh, Droit international public, LGDJ, Paris, 1975.

- G. Schwarzenberger and E. Brown, A Manual of International Law, 6th ed., Professional Books Limited, Oxon, 1976.

- O. Schachter, International Law in Theory and Practice, M. Nijhoff Publishers,  Dordrecht,  1991.

- E.J. de Aréchaga and A. Tanzi, “International State Responsibility”,

in  M.  Bedjaoui  ed.,  International  Law:  Achievements  and  Prospects, Unesco, Paris, 1991.

- J.M.  Arbour,  Droit  international  public,  2nd  ed.,  Yvon  Blaise, Quebec, 1992.

- J.  Combacau  and  S.  Sur,  Droit  international  public,  4th  ed., Montchrestien, 1999.

- The  Convention  on  Human  Rights  and  Biomedicine, signed at Oviedo in 1997.


Authentic Language: 
State Party: 
National / Other Legislative Provisions: 
Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus - TRNC Constitution - Art. 71
Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus - TRNC Constitution - Art. 159
Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus - Law no. 52/1995
Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus - Decision of the TRNC Council of Ministers of 11 February 1998
Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus - TRNC Constitution - Art. 12