No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
European Convention on Human Rights—applicability to acts performed outside national territory— acts in Northern Cyprus possibly within Turkish jurisdiction—territorial limitation of declarations of acceptance—dynamic interpretation of provisions on enforcement
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 February 2017
Extract
Loizidou v. Turkey. 310 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A).
European Court of Human Rights, March 23, 1995.
The applicant, a Greek Cypriot woman, stated that since July 20, 1974, Turkish troops had prevented her from returning to land in Northern Cyprus that she owned and had intended to use, inter alia, for her family home. Furdiermore, she alleged that her arrest and detention by Turkish Cypriot policemen for ten hours after she had crossed die cease-fire line in 1989, when participating in a women's march aimed at asserting the Greek Cypriot refugees’ right to return to their homes, violated her human rights. Rejecting in part die preliminary objections raised by the respondent Government, die Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights held that die facts of die case are capable of falling widiin Turkish jurisdiction as a result of die presence of Turkish troops on the territory of Cyprus, so that the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) may be applicable to these acts.
- Type
- International Decisions
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of International Law 1996
References
1 See, e.g., Cyprus v. Turkey, App. Nos. 6780/74 and 6950/74, 2 Eur. Comm’n H.R. Dec. & Rep. 125, 135–36 (1975); Cyprus v. Turkey, App. No. 8007/77, 13 Eur. Comm’n H.R. Dec. & Rep. 85, 146 (1978).
2 Article 1 reads: “The High Contracting Parties shall secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in Section 1 of this Convention.” European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Nov. 4, 1950, Art. 1, 213 UNTS 221.
3 Soering v. United Kingdom, 161 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) at 35–36 (1989) (responsibility of state party in extradition case for foreseeable and direct consequences taking place abroad), upheld in Cruz Varas and Others v. Sweden, 201 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) at 28 (1991), and in Vilvarajah and Others v. United Kingdom, 215 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) at 34 (1991) (concerning expulsion decisions); Drodz and Janousek v. France, 240 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) at 29 (1992) (affirming principle that state parties are responsible for “acts of their authorities producing effects outside their own territory”).
4 The first declaration, under Article 25, contained different wording by which the competence of the Commission was restricted to “acts and omissions of public authorities in Turkey performed within the boundaries of the territory to which the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey is applicable” (emphasis added), see 310 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A), para. 15 [hereinafter Decision]. This wording was apparently changed after it became clear that it could be interpreted as including acts performed by Turkish authorities abroad, since they are governed by the Turkish Constitution. See the Commission’s decision on admissibility in this case, App. No. 15318/89, para. 6 (Mar. 4, 1991).
5 Its basis was the famous line from the Tyrer judgment that the Convention is a “living instrument … which must be interpreted in the light of present-day conditions.” Tyrer v. United Kingdom, 26 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) at 15 (1978).
6 See Loizidou v. Turkey, App. No. 15318/89 (July 8, 1993) (pardy concurring, partly dissenting opinion of Commissioners Nørgaard, Jörundsson, Gözübüyük, Soyer and Danelius to die Comm’n Report), reprinted in Decision, para. 2 of Judge Gölcüklü’s dissenting opinion.
7 Belilos v. Switzerland, 132 Eur. Ct. H.R. at 28 (1988) (holding that the invalidity of die Swiss interpretative declaration did not prevent Switzerland from being bound by its acceptance of the competence of the Court).
8 The Court affirmed this position in the subsequent judgment in Mansur v. Turkey, 321 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A), para. 44 (1995). However, it pointed out that, from the date of acceptance onwards, all acts and omissions of state parties must be in conformity with the Convention, notwithstanding the fact that the impugned situation already existed before that date.
9 See, e.g., the two aforementioned decisions on admissibility in Cyprus v. Turkey, App. Nos. 6780/74 and 6950/75, 2 Eur. Comm’n H.R. Dec. & Rep. 125, 136–37 (1975), and App. No. 8007/77, 13 Eur. Comm’n H.R. Dec. & Rep. 85, 148–50 (1978). The Commission also indicated that even acts performed in the territory of another state may be covered by the ECHR if the acting state has sole jurisdiction. See Hess v. Federal Republic of Germany and United Kingdom, App. No. 6231/73, reprinted in 2 Europaische Grundrechte-Zeitschrift 482, 484–85 (1975), and Vearncombe Case, App. No. 12816/87, reprinted in 49 Zeitschrift für auslandisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht [Heidelberg J. Int’l L.] 512, 514 (1989).
10 This reasoning can be detected in the Commission’s decision on admissibility in the present case. See Loizidou v. Turkey, App. No. 15318/89, para. 40 (1991) (referring to its earlier case law in Cyprus v. Turkey, App. No. 8007/77, 13 Eur. Comm’n H.R. Dec. & Rep. 85, 148–50 (1978), reprinted in id., para. 33).
11 See also Treaty on European Union, Feb. 7, 1992, Art. F, 1992 O.J. (C 224) 1.
12 See Opinions of the Parliamentary Assembly on the accession of Lithuania (Opinion No. 168 (1993), para. 5 (May 11)); of Slovenia (Opinion No. 169 (1993), para. 5 (May 12)); of Estonia (Opinion No. 170 (1993), para. 4 (May 13)); of the Czech Republic (Opinion No. 174 (1993), para. 7 (June 29)); of the Slovak Republic (Opinion No. 175 (1993), para. 7 (June 29)); of Romania (Opinion No. 176 (1993), para. 4 (Sept. 28)).
13 See Decision, para. 62.