REPORTS FROM THE CYPRIOT PRESS ABOUT THE JUDGMENT OF THE ECHR

Turkish Cypriot has won his case against Turkey at the European Court of Human Rights

According to KIBRIS newspaper (21.02.03),  Turkish Cypriot Ahmet Cavit An has won his case against Turkey at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). The newspaper mentioned that the ECHR decided that "Ankara controls the life in the `TRNC/ and this means that Turkey is  an occupying power".
The decision of the ECHR says that "because of the large number of Turkish troops in the North, the residents of North Cyprus are being controlled by Ankara".
Ahmet Cavit An, who is a doctor, in 1989 established the Association "Forward for a Federal and Independent Cypriot State", to the Court  in 1992 and this ended only yesterday. The ECHR convicted Turkey to pay Cavit An 15 thousand euro as  moral distress, 4 thousand and 715 euro as expenses of the Court, and 19 thousand and 715 euro as punishment.

_________________________

Turkey found guilty of human rights violations in Cyprus

Nicosia, Feb 21 (CNA) -- The European Court of Human Rights has found Turkey guilty of violating the human right of Turkish Cypriot doctor Ahmet Djavit An to peaceful assembly by refusing him permission to visit Cyprus' southern government-controlled areas and the UN-controlled buffer zone to meet with Greek Cypriots.

22.2.03- Cyprus Mail

European Court fines Turkey for barring Turkish Cypriot from crossing to bi-communal meetings, By a Staff Reporter

TURKEY has been found guilty of violating a Turkish Cypriot doctor's human rights by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and ordered to pay a total settlement of '19,715. The Court heard that paediatrician Ahmet Djavit An had repeatedly been barred  by the Turkish Cypriot authorities from crossing to the government controlled areas to participate in bi-communal meetings. The doctor said their continuous refusal was in breach of the European Convention for Human Rights.The ruling, made on Thursday, voted in favour of Djavit An and said Turkey's refusal to grant him permission to cross into the Republic and the
UN-controlled buffer zone to meet with people from the other community was in violation of two articles of the European Human Rights Convention, which protected individuals' rights to freedom of peaceful assembly. The Court said that between March 8, 1992 and April 14, 1998 only six out of 46 requests for such permits had been granted.Turkey was ordered to pay '15, 000 for non-pecuniary damages and '4,715 for legal costs and expenses. The court voted in favour of the plaintiff by six votes to one. The Turkish judge sitting at the bench made the only rejection. Turkish claims that Ankara could not be held responsible for events in the areas of Cyprus it occupied were dismissed. It was clear, from the large number of troops engaged in active duties in the occupied territories, that the Turkish army exercised effective control over that part of the island, it said. Therefore, such control demanded Turkey's responsibility for the policies and actions of the Turkish Cypriot regime, the ECHR added.But, the Turkish government argued the doctor had not exhausted all domestic remedies to deal with the situation in the north. Nevertheless the court rejected these claims and said Turkey had not proved any of the remedies it had suggested would have rectified the situation or compensated the applicant in any way. However, the court stressed this ruling was not to be wrongly interpreted as a general statement that remedies were ineffective in the Turkish Cypriot regime, or that applicants were absolved from having normal recourse to remedies that were available and functioning. The EHRC said it believed all the meetings Djavit An had wanted to attend had been designed to promote dialogue between Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots, with the hope of securing peace on the island.Accordingly, the ruling concluded there had been interference with the applicant's rights to freedom of peaceful assembly.

Cyprus Weekly, 22.2.03
NEWS European Court fines Turkey in landmark decision
By Annie Charalambous
In a landmark decision with major political repercussions, the European Court of Human Rights yesterday fined Turkey 15,000 euros for violating a Turkish Cypriot's right to cross over to the free area and participate in bi-communal meetings.
"It's a very important case because the Court reconfirmed that Turkey is responsible for human rights violations in the northern part of Cyprus," Nicosia lawyer Achilleas Demetriades, who won the unprecedented case of Titina Loizidou v Turkey, told The Cyprus Weekly.
"This means that any Turkish Cypriot who wants to cross the Green Line and is not permitted to do so, can take Turkey to the European Court, because his human rights are violated," he added.
Ahmet Djavit An, a 53-year-old paediatrician living in occupied Nicosia and a harsh critic of the oppressive Denktash regime and of the Turkish military presence in the north, lodged his application against Turkey in 1992 and was declared admissible in 1998.
The Strasbourg-based Court found Turkey guilty of breaching the Convention's Articles 10, 11, and 13 which relate to freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and right to an effective remedy, according to a ECHR press release.
The Court also recalled that states like Turkey, that had ratified the European Convention on Human Rights, could be held responsible for acts and omissions of their authorities that produced effects outside their own territory.
"Such responsibility could also arise when, as a consequence of military action, the state concerned exercised effective control of an area outside its national territory," the release said.
"The obligation to secure, in such an area, the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention, derived from the fact of such control, whether it be exercised directly, through its armed forces, or through a subordinate local administration," it added.
The Court also said it was obvious, from the large number of troops engaged in active duties in northern Cyprus, that the Turkish army exercised effective control over that part of the island.
"Such control entailed her responsibility for the policies and actions of the 'TRNC'. Those affected by such policies or actions therefore came within the 'jurisdiction' of Turkey," it added.  The Court also dismissed the Turkish government's argument that domestic remedies had not been exhausted.
Between March 1992 and April 1998, Djavit , who is also the Turkish Cypriot co-ordinator of the Movement for an Independent and Federal Cyprus, was only allowed to cross and take part in bi-communal meetings six out of 46 requested times.
"The Court considered that all the meetings the applicant wished to attend were designed to promote dialogue and an exchange of ideas and opinions between Turkish Cypriots living in the north and Greek Cypriots living in the south, with the hope of securing peace on the island," the release said.
"The refusals to grant these permits to the applicant in effect barred his participation in bi-communal meetings, preventing him from peacefully assembling with people from both communities," it added.The Court also fined Turkey 4,715 euros for costs and expenses.
On the same day of the Court's judgement, the Deputy Secretary-General of the CoE, Mrs Maude de Boer-Bucchiciko, criticised Rauf Denktash for preventing contact between Greek and Turkish Cypriot young people. She told The Cyprus Weekly correspondent in Strasbourg Angelos Marcopoulos that the CoE will support such contacts, and denounced Denktash's most recent claims that the Greek and Turkish Cypriots "cannot live together without bloodshed.''

24.2.03- Turkish Cypriot columnist says that after the decision on Ahmet Cavit An's case many other Turkish Cypriots would appeal to ECHR against Turkey, which violates their rights.

Kazim Denizci of AFRIKA (24.02.03) writes in his regular column that after the decision of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) regarding the case of the Turkish Cypriot doctor Ahmet Cavit An, many more Turkish Cypriots would appeal -to the ECHR against Turkey, accusing it of violating their rights since the 1974 Turkish invasion of Cyprus.  Mr Denizci writes, inter alia, the following:
".The case, which our friend Ahmet Cavit An began, has come to an end within ten years. At this case, which was filed ten years ago, Turkey is convicted. I congratulate Ahmet An. Of course there will be more. Because this case will be a precedent, the other cases, which have been or will be filed, will not last for so long. There will be no freedom of movement because it is restricted by Turkey. Cases will be filed for Turkey's bringing population into the northern part of the island after 1975, turning us into a minority and having our will under occupation. Cases will be filed because it has divided Cyprus into two and distributes false title deeds, .because it has taken away from us our money, our passport, our identity, because it interferes into our elections and it is proved that it exerts pressure via its army and ambassador, because it has its secret services to follow journalists, .because of the beating and suicide incidents in the army, because of the bombing incidents and the confiscations and because of the fact that it has by force taken our innocent people out of the house they were living and its soldiers have beaten them. .Nilgun Orhon, who has been thrown out from the school she was teaching because of the article she had been writing and for 16 months is unemployed and dragged to courts, will also appeal to the ECHR..
In the same way that the Turkish Cypriots pay the price since 1974, their savior and its cooperators will pay the price for this account. There must be a price for this illegality and this injustice. And this price must be paid. The case of our friend Ahmet Cavit An has opened a way. Our duty is to walk on this course. .".

More Turkish Cypriots to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights
Under the title "Assault to the European Court of Human Rights" YENI DUZEN (17.03.03) reports that many Turkish Cypriots are preparing to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) because their rights are violated by the pseudostate, the Turkish Cypriot leader Rauf Denktas and the so-called Prime Minister, Dervis Eroglu. The paper also stresses that more than five thousand Turkish Cypriots have already appealed to the ECHR.
According to the paper, the Turkish Cypriots will appeal to the European Court of Human Rights because the occupation regime violates their right of movement since it prevents them from crossing to the free areas and visiting their houses, properties and the graves of their ancestors, which are in the areas controlled by the Cyprus Republic. Moreover the Turkish Cypriots consider as a violation of their rights the fact that the puppet regime prevents them from participating in meetings and conferences that take place in the free areas and because the pseudostate prevents them from receiving education from the free areas, violating their right of learning.
The paper also writes that more than five thousand Turkish Cypriots have already appealed to the ECHR and refers to the case of Ahmet An by which Turkey was convicted to pay a twenty thousand EURO for damages because the puppet regime prevented him several times from crossing to the free areas.
YENI DUZEN provides its readers with information regarding the ECHR, giving the address of the Court in Brussels and stressing that the main difficulty that the Turkish Cypriots will face is the fact that according to the ECHR/s laws, a person must firstly go through all legal proceeding in his country and then appeal to the ECHR.

 

Attack to European Court of Human Rights
2003-03-17 | Yeniduzen |

People wishing to see their houses and the graveyards of their relatives in the South but not able to do so because of the prohibition of freedom of movement; wishing to study in South Cyprus and saying our education rights are prohibited, and saying our information rights are prevented because it is forbidden to attend the cultural activities, conferences and panels to be held in the South part of the island are applied or preparing to apply for a European Court of Human Rights.

ATTACK to European Court of Human Rights
One of the important obligatory for the application for the European Court of Human Rights is that with the exception of special conditions, all internal remedies should be taken before going to an international Court. For the application, its enough to post the application to the
address Le Greffieer de la Cour Europeenne des Droits de LHomme Counseil de LEurope, F67075 STRASBOURG CEDEX.
Everybody in the North started to say that it will be sought their rights through European Court of Human Rights. These applications vary from gaining rights of freedom of movement, freedom of speech to the freedom of information. In addition, there are some people who are preparing to bring a suit against the administrators by claiming that their
psychologies are broken by them.
People wishing to see their houses and the graveyards of their relatives in the South but not able to do so because of the prohibition of freedom of movement, wishing to study in South Cyprus and saying our education rights are prohibited, and saying our information rights are prevented because it is forbidden to attend the cultural activities, conferences and panels to be held in the South part of the island are applied or preparing to apply for a European Court of Human Rights.

After The Hague!
What is this European Court of Human Rights? What kind of suits could be brought? What are the methods of applications? The cost, the lawyer or going to the Court are not required for bringing a suit to the European Court of Human Rights. The applications are to be
carried out through a letter and its free.
More than 5 thousands Turkish Cypriots are already applied for the European Court of Human Rights. This number was less than 5 before The Hague failure. The suit was brought by Ahmet An with the claim of prohibition of free movement and freedom of speech by passing through the South Cyprus and making a meeting there, and he won 20 thousands Euro
compensation as a result of the European Court of Human Rights decision.
Similarly, Adali family opened a case by claiming that internal remedies were not taken enough to be found the murderer of Mr. Kutlu Adali who was killed by unknown persons. These cases were brought the Court before The Hague and regarding the Ahmet An Case, the Court reached a conclusion that there had been a the violation of freedom of movement and freedom of speech.

What is this European Court of Human Rights?
European Court of Human Rights is an international establishment which aims to protect basic rights of people. Everybody could apply for the Court in accordance with the rights given by the Additional Protocols Number 1, 4 and 6 of Declaration of International Human Rights.
One of the important obligatory for the application for the European Court of Human Rights is that with the exception of special conditions, all internal remedies should be taken and passed at least six months. It is enough the send a letter and the photocopies of the national Court decisions to the European Court of Human Rights.
The Structure of the European Court of Human Rights European Court of Human Rights gives decision on the issues under the civil authority such as the parliament, courts, etc. However, the Court has no right to break the national court decisions and give another
decision on behalf of them. It could be applied for the European Court of Human Rights through a letter, fax or e-mail and this then should be confirmed in written. The official languages of the Court are English and French but an application in one of the language of the signatory countries is also accepted. Applications do not need any cost. And judicial help could be provided to the people who need a lawyer to be represented but not able to do so.

Turkey again found guilty in ECHR By a Staff Reporter
Cyprus Mail,  Saturday, July 19, 2003

THE EUROPEAN Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has found Turkey guilty of violating the human rights of a Turkish Cypriot doctor by repeatedly disallowing him to cross the Green Line.
Turkey recently raised an objection to the case citing the Turkish Cypriot side s reopening of the checkpoints on April 23. Ankara stated the case of the doctor Ahmet Cavit An, was no longer valid.
However the ECHR said that since the applicant was referring to instances which took place between 1992 and 1998, Turkey s objection did not stand. The ECHR ordered Ankara to pay 15,000 euros in compensation to An, and over 4,000 euros in costs.
An told Politis newspaper that during the period in question he had tried to cross to the south 147 times and was refused 122 times. An also said that the Turkish Cypriot administration had also tried to bribe him to drop his application at the European Court by offering him funding for his books, something which he had previously been refused.

 

A slap in the face to Turkey

2003-07-18 / Politis / Pavlu Ksanthuli
Cavit: "A Denktash advisor attempted to bribe me"

The regime rejected 122 applications by the doctor to get to the free areas!

The European Court overruled Turkey's objection regarding the Cavit case after the opening of the barricades. Turkey is called to pay him 20,000 euros.
The European Court of Human Rights gave Turkey a second slap in the face, overruling its objection to the appeal of doctor Ahmet Cavit An. The Turkish-Cypriot himself, in his statements to Politis, blamed a close Denktash collaborator that he attempted to bribe him in order to withdraw his appeal to the ECHR against Turkey! The decision of the European Court was issued a few days ago and concerned Turkey's objection to last February's conviction forbidding the Turkish-Cypriot doctor to visit the free areas. Turkey claimed that after April 23, when the barricades opened, the appeal by Ahmet Cavit An had no legal grounds, but the argument was rejected without being referred to the ECHR, since the Turkish-Cypriot's appeal concerned the years 1992-1998. Ankara is called to pay the Turkish-Cypriot doctor the amount of 15 thousand euros as a general compensation and an additional amount of 4717 euros for expenses.

 Attempted bribery

In his statements to Politis, the Turkish-Cypriot doctor mentioned that a Rauf Denktash advisor attempted to bribe him "in a very specific way" on the occasion of book writing. As Mr Ahmet An said, during the years 1996 and 2002, he wrote nine books and applied for a grant to the so-called "ministry of education" of the pseudostate regarding one of the books which dealt with the biography of distinguished Turkish Cypriots from 1782 to 1899 (Kibris' in Yetistirdigi Degerler). According to Mr An, the "ministry of education" adopted a stalling tactic for two years, sending a memo to the "ministry of finance", though, which was approved but not signed. Then, a Rauf Denktash advisor approached the Turkish-Cypriot doctor and asked him to withdraw his appeal against Turkey, which was pending before the ECHR, in return for the publication of his books and the permission to move freely to the free areas. "This was a double attempt of bribery in the years 2001 and 2002" noted Ahmet Cavit An, adding that "I rejected the attempted bribery and waited for the result of my appeal in the ECHR, while my book got published on private donations."

 He was denied access

The Turkish-Cypriot doctor stated to Politis that from September 8 1992 until April 14 1998, he had filed 147 applications to the occupation authorities to allow him to visit the free areas (58 for political reasons, 47 for cultural reasons, 25 for medical reasons and 17 for social reasons.) From the 147 applications, 122 were rejected by the Denktash regime and 22 were approved. It should be noted that most applications were filed for participation to bicommunal assemblies. The ECHR, as it was pointed out in the decision, rejected Turkey's position that it bears no responsibility about what is happening in the northern part of the island and ruled that due to the military occupation, Turkey is answerable for violations of the European Convention. The European Court of Human Rights pointed out that the rights of the applicant for freedom of assembly were infringed upon in violation of article 11 of the Convention.

 A landmark decision

Legal circles regard the decision of the European Court in the Ahmet Cavit An case against Turkey as a landmark, since it relied on the legal precedent of the Titina Loizidou case, according to which Turkey controls the northern part of Cyprus and is therefore responsible for human rights issues. This is in fact the second clear conviction of Turkey, which now has to pay the compensations awarded by the ECHR. The most essential part of the court decision, with great political dimensions, must have been the rejection of Turkey's claims that there were certain legal remedies in the northern part of the island that Mr Cavit should have exhausted before appealing to the European Court. "There are no effective remedies" in the occupied areas, distinctly notes the ECHR. During the judicial process, the Republic of Cyprus was also asked to intervene and the Republic responded, by sending the State Attorney Stella Ioannidou. Turkey contested the presence of the Republic of Cyprus, claiming that Cavit was not a citizen of the Republic, which was rejected.

 

Dr. Cavit sends a letter to the ECHR
2003-09-24 | Simerini |

The Turkish-Cypriot doctor Ahmet Cavit sent a letter to the European Court of Human Rights, where he is pointing out that the compensation awarded to him from Turkey and paid through the pseudostate proves that the occupation regime is a subordinate administration to Ankara.

The amount of 20 thousand pounds that, according to the decision of the European Court, Turkey is obliged to pay to Dr. Cavit due to the violation of his right to go to the free areas was deposited in the Turkish-Cypriot doctor's bank account through the pseudostate. As Ahmet Ciavit's attorney, Christos Clerides, stated to First Radio, his client received pressure to accept the compensation in Turkish lira.

Mr. Clerides, after the dispatch of Dr. Cavit's letter, considers the matter closed, adding that there is no concern over the prospect of recognition of the pseudostate or the setting of a precedent for other cases for which the payment of compensations is pending on Turkey's part.

The Government Spokesman Kypros Chrysostomides, called to comment today on information that the Turkish-Cypriot doctor Ahmet Cavit An was notified that the amount awarded by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) as a compensation to him from Turkey was deposited in his bank account in the occupied through the pseudostate and not Turkey, mentioned that "the occupation regime is considered subordinate administration to the occupation power" and "therefore, if there is any kind of payment, it is payable on Turkey's part, because it is Turkey that was convicted by the court."

At the same time, he noted that "the issue is likely to be diversified, if compensation is about to be paid to a Greek-Cypriot, who has appealed to the ECHR and has been awarded compensation."

The Spokesman said that the information that the amount was deposited by the pseudostate is purely journalistic and that there is no official briefing on the issue.

Called to comment on information that the payment of the compensation to Titina Loizidou through the so-called 'compensations committee' of the pseudostate will be carefully planned, Mr. Chrysostomides said that he doesn't wish to make any comments.

In reply to another question, he mentioned that "if the payment is made on behalf of Turkey - which is reasonable and expected, because it is Turkey that was convicted by the European Court - and since it (the pseudostate) is a subordinate administration, no issue is likely to be raised."

Asked whether this is true and whether compensations will be paid to a Greek-Cypriot in the same way, the Spokesman said that at this point "the situation is likely to be differentiated."

Discussing with Titina and Ahmet.../ 7 DAYS

2003-11-20 | Phileleftheros |  Kyriakou Tsimilli

The night was important. Symposiums organised by Ecologists have been a successful institution for many years now. Plenty were the speakers invited to talk about their concern on plenty issues of social, political and economic nature, briefing the participants and inciting interesting discussions.

But, the last Wednesday was full of symbolisms: the joint fight, the two parallel courses of two Cypriots that gave meaning to the concept of active citizen and broadened it. We already know Ms. Titina Loizidou, but we barely know Mr. Ahmet Javitt An. That diversification is the core of the course of our two compatriots, who incited by their passion for justice, their rights (which eventually turned out to be our rights as well) and their love for our country have bravely appealed against Turkey, which has been infringing on their rights.

To what extend was the 'positive' atmosphere spoiled by those two? Each deserves a different answer. On one hand, there was the lonely course of Ahmet, who had not have the fortune of actually enjoying the political support of any political factor from either side of the occupation divide line, which he had strongly questioned. On the other hand, there was Titina, the fight of whom has been supported. Nevertheless, she took the initiative to start her fight despite the outlook of wishing not to spoil the 'positive' climate, which some people have been persisted in seeing. One way or another, those who prepared themselves to consent to flagging the demands on rights through compensations and other tricks, were found, in embarrassment, at any rate. Thus, the two Cypriots spoke about their course of claiming from Turkey, their fight on our rights. The crucial questions could be raised again:

Reminding the need to fully respect the human rights, and therefore the political rights as well, and secure their peaceful enjoyment strongly questions any prearranged 'settlement' on permanent deprivation of the right to be elected on people that are considered "citizens in the wrong zone" due to their origin or religious. Let alone that, imposing quotas on such basis is completely groundless. Unless, as the 'wizards' might say, the sovereign people accept and vote for the painful, long ago declared compromise! But, how could we possibly accept that the respect and the peaceful enjoyment of human rights are on the approval of whatever opportune majority, that might decide to infringe on the rights of even a small minority of our compatriots?

As years go by, the link between these two cases would constitute the most substantial effort to reproach each other, liberate (let's not forget about it) and actually reunify our country. We have not reached yet to the phase of being able to theoretically teach Civics, based on our experience. They and we still have a long way to go. However, we have to admit that it would be unreasonable to abandon them in their lonely pioneer course. Titina and Ahmet, we would thank you for everything you have done so far, no matter how things turn out!