SECOND SECTION
CASE OF K.V. MEDITERRANEAN TOURS LIMITED v. TÜRKİYE
(Application no. 41120/17)
 
JUDGMENT
(Merits)
Art 6 § 1 (civil) • Participation of a religious foundation as a third party in proceedings before the Immovable Property Commission (IPC) initiated by the applicant company in respect of property abandoned in northern Cyprus in 1974 • Fair balance between the interests of the plaintiff and the need to ensure the proper administration of justice, including the interests of the third party • Participation of third party necessary to comply with the principle of a fair trial • Absence of arbitrariness • Absence of unfairness in the proceedings as a whole
Art 1 P1 • Peaceful enjoyment of possessions • IPC failure to act with coherence, diligence and appropriate expedition in examining the applicant company’s claim
Art 46 • Execution of judgment • General measures • Respondent State required to continue efforts to accelerate proceedings before the IPC and create an effective remedy securing genuine redress in respect of delays
 
Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court. STRASBOURG
10 June 2025
 
FINAL
 
10/09/2025
 
This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of K.V. Mediterranean Tours Limited v. Türkiye,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
 Arnfinn Bårdsen, President,
 Saadet Yüksel,
 Jovan Ilievski,
 Péter Paczolay,
 Anja Seibert-Fohr,
 Gediminas Sagatys,
 Juha Lavapuro, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 41120/17) against the Republic of Türkiye lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Cypriot company, K.V. Mediterranean Tours Limited (“the applicant company”), on 25 May 2017;
the decision to give notice to the Turkish Government (“the Government”) of the complaints alleging a lack of effectiveness of the proceedings the applicant company had instituted before the Immovable Property Commission seeking compensation in respect of real property located in the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus”, a violation of its right to a fair and impartial tribunal and discrimination under Articles 6, 13 and 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;
the parties’ observations;
the comments submitted by the Republic of Cyprus;
Having deliberated in private on 13 May 2025,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
INTRODUCTION
1. The present case concerns the length of proceedings before the Immovable Property Commission (“the IPC”) and, in particular, the practice applied to the Famagusta fenced-up area in connection with the intervention of an Islamic Foundation in the proceedings, as well as the alleged lack of impartiality of the High Administrative Court (appeal panel) as a higher judicial authority for the IPC cases. The complaints raised in this application arise out of the Turkish military operation in northern Cyprus in 1974. The general context of the property issues arising in this connection is set out in the cases of Cyprus v. Turkey ([GC], no. 25781/94, §§ 13-16 and 28-33, ECHR 2001‑IV), and Demopoulos and Others v. Turkey (dec.) ([GC], nos. 46113/99 and 7 others, §§ 4-16, ECHR 2010). THE FACTS
2. The applicant company, conducting its activities in Nicosia, was established in 1967 and was represented by Mr A. Demetriades, a lawyer practising in Nicosia. 3. The Government were represented by their Agent at the time, Mr Hacı Ali Açıkgül, former Head of the Department of Human Rights of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Türkiye. 4. On 19 March 2019 notice of the application was given to the Government. 5. On 21 January 2020 the Government submitted a unilateral declaration to the Court. On 23 March 2021 the Court examined the Government’s unilateral declaration and decided not to accept it. 6. The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. 7. The applicant company is the owner of a building complex located in the fenced-up area of Famagusta, in northern Cyprus. Its shareholders and directors are of Greek Cypriot origin. 8. The applicant company abandoned its property following the Turkish military operation in 1974. 9. On 23 July 2010 the applicant company applied to the IPC claiming compensation for the loss of use of its property, together with the applicable statutory interest. It also claimed restitution of the immovable property in question, compensation for non-pecuniary damage, statutory interest and legal costs. 10. As the relevant authorities of the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” (“TRNC”) did not reply to the applicant company’s claim, on 1 November 2010 the applicant company applied for a judgment in default. 11. At hearings to examine the application for a default judgment, held on 7 December 2010, 2 February 2011, 12 April 2011, 5 May 2011, 22 June 2011, 30 September 2011, 5 December 2011, 20 February 2012, 18 April 2012 and 25 June 2012, the “TRNC” Office of the Attorney General requested adjournments on the grounds that a report regarding the property in dispute had not been provided. Its requests were granted on each occasion. 12. On 23 October 2012 the applicant company complained of delays in the processing of the case. 13. At the same hearing, the Office of the Attorney General indicated that the “TRNC” Land Registry and Surveys Department had not drafted a report that was necessary for the preparation of the defence. Moreover, the preliminary assessment of the case suggested that the property in question was registered in the name of a religious organisation, Abdullah Paşa Foundation, which was managed by the Evkaf Administration. 14. On 23 November 2012 the IPC found that the Evkaf Administration was possibly affected by the applicant company’s claim and that it should therefore be admitted to the proceedings as a third party. 15. On 6 December 2012 the applicant company complained to the “TRNC” Administrative Court of unjustified adjournments and delays in the proceedings before the IPC. It also challenged the admission of the Evkaf Administration as a third party to the proceedings. 16. On 6 November 2015 the Administrative Court found that the Evkaf Administration could not be admitted as a third party to the proceedings on the grounds that it would render the restitution of the property to the applicant company impossible. The Administrative Court also held that it did not have jurisdiction to rule on the complaint of adjournments and delays in the proceedings before the IPC. 17. The parties challenged that decision before the “TRNC” High Administrative Court: the “TRNC” authorities and the Evkaf Administration contested the decision not to admit Evkaf as a party to the proceedings, whereas the applicant company contested the decision on the adjournments and delays in the proceedings. 18. On 29 November 2016 the High Administrative Court held that it had exclusive jurisdiction to decide on all matters relating to proceedings before the IPC. As regards the applicant company’s complaint about adjournments and delays in the proceedings, the High Administrative Court held that these issues were not subject to a judicial review. 19. As regards the complaint by the “TRNC” authorities and the Evkaf Administration, the High Administrative Court referred to a judgment of the “TRNC” Famagusta District Court of 27 December 2005, according to which the current registered owner of the property in question was the Evkaf Administration. The High Administrative Court therefore held that the Evkaf Administration should be admitted as a party to the proceedings. 20. On 11 December 2019 the “TRNC” authorities filed their submissions with the IPC. 21. On 9 January 2020 the applicant company and its representative refused to attend the IPC’s hearings. Further hearings were subsequently scheduled by the IPC on 20 February 2020, on 18 June 2020 and on 22 October 2020, but the applicant company and its representative did not attend these hearings either. 22. On 22 February 2024 the applicant company’s representative attended a hearing before the IPC and agreed to forward to the applicant company any proposals for compensation which the Government might wish to make. However, later the applicant company and its representative stated that any settlement could be reached in the course of the proceedings before the Court. 23. The proceedings before the IPC are still pending. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE
Law and practice
24. For the relevant law and practice, in particular, IPC Rules, see Demopoulos and Others (cited above, §§ 33-40), and Joannou v. Turkey (no. 53240/14, §§ 39-45, 12 December 2017). 25. In particular, on 22 December 2005 Law no. 67/2005 (“the Law”) came into effect. The Law provides that all natural and legal persons claiming rights to immovable or movable property may bring a claim before the IPC. Under the provisions of the Law, the burden of proof rests upon the applicant, who must prove beyond reasonable doubt that, inter alia, the immovable property was registered in his or her name on 20 July 1974 (or that he or she is the legal heir to such a person), that he or she owned the movable property before 13 February 1975 and was forced to abandon it because of circumstances beyond his or her own volition, and that according to the Land Registry records, there are no other persons claiming rights to the claimed immovable property (section 6). 26. The Law also provides as follows:
Section 7
“In respect of applications to be made under this Law, the defendant party shall be the Ministry and/or the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus’s Attorney-General representing the Ministry. The Commission shall issue an invitation to the person who, according to the legislation of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, holds the property right or the right to use the property in respect of which a claim is made, to participate in the proceedings before the Commission. The person invited to the Commission has the same rights as interested parties in administrative cases.”
Section 8
“The Commission, after having heard the arguments of the parties and witnesses, and having examined the documents submitted, shall, within the scope of the purposes of this Law, taking into consideration the below-mentioned matters, decide as to restitution of the immovable property to the person whose right in respect to the property has been established, or to offer exchange of the property to the said person, or decide as to payment of compensation. In cases where the applicant claims compensation for loss of use and/or non-pecuniary damages in addition to restitution, exchange or compensation in return for immovable property, the Commission shall also decide on these issues. (1)  Immovable properties that are subject to a claim for restitution by the applicant, ownership or use of which has not been transferred to any natural or legal person other than the State, may be restituted by the decision of the Commission within a reasonable time period, provided that the restitution of such property, having regard to the location, and the physical condition of the property, shall not endanger national security and public order and that such property is not allocated for public-interest reasons and that the immovable property is outside the military areas or military installations.
...”
27. In the 2000s the Evkaf Administration and the Department of Religious Affairs asked the “TRNC” Famagusta District Court to declare that a religious foundation was the owner of a list of properties located in the Varosha-Famagusta region. They stated that the foundation had been founded by Abdullah Paşa, who had died in 1761. He had established a mülhak vakıf (religious endowment managed on a hereditary basis) by contributing some land he owned in that area, the relevant formalities being carried out in 1748 and the documents being still in the Turkish archives. 28. On 27 December 2005 the “TRNC” Famagusta District Court held that the properties listed in the plaintiffs’ submissions belonged to the Abdullah Paşa religious foundation. 29. In 2017 that decision was challenged by one of the owners of a property located in the area in the case of Akinita I. Th. Ioannou & Yi Limited. On 21 October 2019 the “TRNC” High Administrative Court rejected the claim but noted that, when considering a property claim, the IPC could only take into account the title deeds relating to 1974 and could not change the land registry records containing information about the owners as of 1974 or establish any fraud in respect of transfers of the relevant property. Moreover, the fact that the Evkaf Administration was a party to the proceedings before the IPC did not have any impact on the claimants’ rights once they proved that their title deeds had been issued before 20 July 1974. 30. On 31 August 2023 the High Administrative Court, in the case of Engomi Beach Hotel Ltd, reviewed a decision of the IPC from, inter alia, the perspective of diligence and good faith, having regard in particular to the manner in which the IPC had handled a default application lodged by the plaintiff. The court assessed the reasonableness of the length of the proceedings in the light of the circumstances of that particular claim, having regard to the complexity of the case, the conduct of the plaintiff and the relevant authorities. However, it dismissed the plaintiff’s claim concerning the allegedly excessive length of the proceedings before the IPC. Cases before the IPC
31. According to the currently available statistical information provided by the IPC (available at http://www.tamk.gov.ct.tr), as of 25 October 2024, 7,800 applications have been lodged with the IPC and 1,869 of them have been finalised. The IPC has awarded 482,971,921 pounds sterling (GBP) to the claimants in the relevant cases as compensation. Moreover, it has ruled in favour of exchange and compensation in three cases, restitution in five cases and restitution and compensation in eight cases. In one case it has delivered a decision ordering restitution after the settlement of the Cyprus problem, and in one case it has ruled in favour of partial restitution. RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL MATERIAL
32. For the relevant international materials, see Joannou (cited above, §§ 48-55). 33. Moreover, in the course of its examination of the Court’s judgment in the case of Cyprus v. Turkey (cited above), at its 1411th meeting in September 2021, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe noted the information provided by the Turkish authorities on the existing avenues within the framework of the IPC mechanism to address the issue of the possible unlawful sale and exploitation of the properties in question. 34. The Committee of Ministers noted, in particular, the information on the implementation of the provision according to which, following a decision by the IPC providing for immediate restitution of such properties or for their restitution after the solution of the Cypriot problem, they could not be sold or developed without the consent of their Greek Cypriot owners. 35. It noted, as regards the protection of properties from possible unlawful sale and exploitation more particularly during the period when an application for their restitution was pending before the IPC, that according to the applicable provisions, the increase in the value of the properties following the date of the application was not taken into consideration when the IPC decided whether restitution was possible (it was not possible if the property had doubled its value). 36. The Committee of Ministers invited the Turkish authorities: (1) to clarify whether the calculation of increases in property value when deciding whether restitution was possible included only increases due to development or also increases due to inflation; (2) to provide information on the regulation and application in practice of other avenues to prevent any changes to a property which was the subject of a pending claim for restitution before the IPC; and (3) to submit statistical data on the functioning of the IPC, and in particular, on the number of cases pending, the length of time they had been pending, the number of awards of compensation made and the total amount and the number of awards that had been paid in full so far, as well as the funds and staff at its disposal. 37. On 22 September 2022, at the 1443rd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies, the Committee of Ministers decided to close the supervision of Loizidou v. Turkey ((merits), 18 December 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI) (see Resolution CM/ResDH(2022)255). 38. On 21 September 2023, at the 1475th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies, the Committee of Ministers examined the execution of the Joannou judgment (cited above), in which the Court had found that in the applicant’s individual case, the IPC had not acted with coherence, diligence and appropriate expedition concerning the applicant’s compensation claim lodged in 2008 as regards her properties situated in the northern part of Cyprus (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1). In the light of the individual measures adopted and the clarifications provided by the Turkish authorities in response to the issues raised by the applicant, and their conclusion that it was not necessary to adopt general measures, as the Court’s findings were limited to the way an otherwise effective remedy had functioned in the applicant’s case, it was proposed to close the supervision of this case and a final resolution was adopted in that respect (CM/ResDH(2023)269). 39. As regards the Xenides-Arestis group of cases brought by applicants who were hindered from returning to their homes and properties in northern Cyprus, at its 1507th meeting held between 17 and 19 September 2024 the Committee of Ministers took note of the payment of an overall sum awarded to the applicant company in Rock Ruby Hotels LTD v. Turkey ((just satisfaction), no. 46159/99, 26 October 2010) by the IPC covering all aspects of its property claims, including the sums awarded by the Court, together with default interest. The Committee further decided to close its supervision of this case and adopted Final Resolution CM/ResDH(2024)207. As regards the remaining cases, since the Committee had not received confirmation of the payment of the just satisfaction award, it exhorted the Government to make the payments in these cases, together with accrued default interest, without further delay. THE LAW
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 TO THE CONVENTION
40. The applicant company complained that the procedure before the IPC by means of which it had sought restitution and compensation for its property in the “TRNC” had been protracted and ineffective and thus in breach of Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. 41. The Court finds that a question relating to the applicant company’s claim for compensation before the IPC may arise under any of the provisions relied on by the applicant company. In the circumstances of the case, the Court, which is the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, §§ 110-26, 20 March 2018, and Grosam v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 19750/13, § 90, 1 June 2023), and noting that the core of the applicant company’s complaint concerns its inability to obtain restitution of and compensation for its property, considers that this complaint should be examined solely under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, for a similar approach, Shesti Mai Engineering OOD and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 17854/04, § 64, 20 September 2011). 42. Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 provides as follows:
“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law. The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”
AdmissibilityThe parties’ arguments

(a)   The Government
43. The Government submitted that the applicant company had lodged an application with the Court prematurely, while the relevant proceedings before the IPC were still pending. The fact that the property was located in the Famagusta area, a territory subject to a special regime, could not in itself preclude the applicant company from obtaining compensation for or restitution of its property. In this connection, they cited the decision of the “TRNC” High Administrative Court in Akinita I. Th. Ioannou & Yi Limited v. the Evkaf Administration (nos. 1/2018 and 2/2018 (D.2/2019), 21 October 2019). The ruling emphasised that, insofar as property within the fenced-off areas of Varosha – abandoned in 1974 – fell under the definition of “abandoned property” under Article 159 § 1 (b) of the Constitution, the IPC had the authority to provide compensation, restitution, or exchange as appropriate. 44. Referring to the decision of the High Administrative Court of 31 August 2002 in the case of Engomi Beach Hotel Ltd (see paragraph 30 above), the Government contended that there were effective remedies in the domestic law of the “TRNC” in which the decisions of the IPC could be reviewed, including in respect of alleged excessive delays in its proceedings, on the basis of the criteria set out in the case-law of the Court. In view of the fact that the applicant company has not raised its complaints concerning the excessive length of the proceedings and that the proceedings are still pending before the IPC, the application should be dismissed for failure to exhaust domestic remedies. (b)   The applicant company
45. The applicant company contended that it had decided to apply to the Court at that time because the proceedings before the IPC had not been fair and effective, particularly in view of the long delay in reaching a decision in its case. It argued that the IPC had failed to come to a decision even though it was in possession of all the relevant information concerning its property claim. The applicant company emphasised that its property was located in the fenced-up area of Famagusta and was registered to an Islamic foundation, that fact making the restitution of its property impossible. Moreover, the proceedings before the IPC had been pending for too long through the fault of the “TRNC” authorities. Therefore, in its opinion, the IPC remedy was ineffective. (c)   Government of the Republic of Cyprus
46. The Cypriot Government submitted that the Court had to remain attentive to developments in the functioning of the IPC remedy, and that the applicant company’s case showed that the IPC could not remain an effective remedy, being part of the “Turkification” agenda. They pointed out that there were systemic flaws to the IPC procedure which had a significant impact on its efficiency. In particular, the procedure in question was unreasonably long, the present case being a notable example of unnecessarily protracted proceedings lasting more than ten years with numerous adjournments and a failure by the “TRNC” authorities to file any defence submissions for a long period of time. Moreover, they referred to specific aspects of the IPC procedure – such as provisions of section 8(2)(A) of the Law – which were flawed, difficulties with the enforcement of the IPC’s awards and the need to ensure the independence and impartiality of judges who were allegedly benefiting from the property of Greek Cypriots.

Outcome for Article P1-1: violation