The European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”) delivered a significant judgment on the 10th of June 2025 in the case of *K.V. Mediterranean Tours Limited v. Türkiye* (Application No. 41120/17), addressing serious procedural deficiencies in the operation of the Immovable Property Commission (“IPC”) established in the Turkish-occupied northern part of Cyprus. The Court found violations of the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”) and issued general measures under Article 46 of the Convention.
Background of the Case
The applicant, K.V. Mediterranean Tours Limited, is a company which owned a building complex situated in the northern part of Cyprus. The property was abandoned in the aftermath of the 1974 Turkish military invasion. In July 2010, the applicant lodged a claim with the IPC (referred to in the judgment as the “EAP”) seeking restitution of its property, compensation for loss of use, damages for non-pecuniary loss, statutory interest, and legal costs.
However, proceedings before the IPC remained unresolved for nearly fifteen years.
Findings of the Court
Article 6 – Right to a Fair Trial
The Court examined the applicant’s claims regarding the fairness of the IPC proceedings, particularly in light of the intervention of the Islamic religious foundation *Evkaf*, which had been admitted to the proceedings as a third party on the basis of Article 7 of Law No. 67/2005. That provision obliges the IPC to notify parties who, under the law applicable in the occupied territories, may hold ownership or usage rights over the claimed property.
The ECtHR held that the legal framework governing third-party intervention before the IPC did not violate the principle of equality of arms or fairness. The Court found that the applicant had the opportunity to contest Evkaf’s claims, that the IPC retained jurisdiction to determine ownership, and that there had been no automatic transfer of title. The participation of Evkaf as an interested party was deemed necessary to ensure the integrity and fairness of the adjudicatory process.
The Court concluded that there was no indication of arbitrariness or unfairness arising from the third-party intervention, and therefore, the applicant’s complaints under Article 6 were manifestly ill-founded.
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – Protection of Property
The Court found that the excessively protracted duration of the proceedings—approximately fifteen years—constituted a violation of the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions. The delay was primarily attributed to the passive and ineffective conduct of the IPC and the deferential stance of the Turkish-Cypriot authorities.
While the Court reaffirmed that the IPC remains, in principle, an effective domestic remedy for other applicants, it found that, in the present case, the lack of diligence and coherence amounted to a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
Article 46 – Execution of Judgments
The Court noted that the issue of excessive delay before the IPC had been addressed in previous judgments, forming part of the Court’s established case-law. Despite some statistical progress reported by the Turkish authorities, the Court emphasized that further consistent and long-term structural reforms are required to bring the operation of the IPC into compliance with Convention standards.
In particular, the Court called for:
– Expedited handling of claims,
– Concrete responses from the de facto authorities,
– And the creation of an effective legal remedy to address undue delays in IPC proceedings.
Just Satisfaction
The Court awarded the applicant company €7,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and reserved its decision on pecuniary damages for a later stage.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers are advised to consult with legal professionals for advice specific to their individual circumstances.
For inquiries or legal assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us at info@kpklegal.com.