(Commonwealth_ Europe) The issue of property rights in the context of a federal, bizonal, and bicommunal Cyprus presents a significant challenge, yet it is not insurmountable. Both the Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot communities recognize the fundamental rights of dispossessed owners, agreeing that remedies should include compensation, exchange, and reinstatement. However, the application of these remedies remains a source of contention, with each side holding fundamentally opposing views.
The Turkish Cypriot perspective emphasizes the need for a clear majority of property ownership within their Constituent State. They argue that current users of properties should have priority in determining their fate, suggesting that compensation and exchange should take precedence over reinstatement. Conversely, the Greek Cypriot position asserts that actual property owners should have the primary say in the disposition of their properties, advocating for reinstatement as the foremost remedy.
Different views on the duration and scope of any restrictions on property rights further complicate this disagreement. The Turkish Cypriot side proposes indefinite ceilings on reinstatement rights, a notion firmly rejected by the Greek Cypriots, who contend that any restrictions should only be temporary and applied in a non-discriminatory manner. Despite these deep-rooted differences, there have been some areas of convergence during negotiations. Negotiators have agreed upon certain criteria for specific categories of properties and stakeholders, suggesting a willingness to find a middle ground.
In moving toward a comprehensive agreement, it is essential to consider several overarching factors. Firstly, the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council, particularly those articulated by former secretaries-general, advocate for guarantees ensuring a clear majority of both population and land ownership in each community’s area. However, the subsequent resolutions do not unequivocally endorse this stance, leaving room for interpretation.
Secondly, the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), especially the case of Demopoulos and Others v. Turkey, highlight the recognition of the rights of current users of properties. The ECtHR deemed the Immovable Property Commission in Turkey an effective domestic remedy, reinforcing the idea that long-term users may acquire certain rights over the properties they occupy.
Furthermore, Antonio Guterres‘ framework from the Crans-Montana conference presents a balanced approach to property rights. It suggests that in areas subject to territorial adjustments, owners should receive preferential treatment, while current users should have priority outside these areas. However, neither should have absolute rights.
Though rejected in 2004, the Kofi Annan Plan remains a relevant reference point. It proposed a detailed property regime that addressed the Turkish Cypriot concerns regarding land ownership and the prioritization of current users. Crucially, it included provisions for a return to a regular property market, allowing for free transactions under European Union law with only temporary derogations concerning property purchases by non-residents.
Given these complexities, I propose that the new constitution for a federal Cyprus does not need to delve into intricate details regarding property rights. Instead, it can establish a framework that addresses both communities’ concerns through the following mechanisms:
- Establish criteria for the Immovable Property Commission to create a temporary regime that accommodates both communities’ interests without explicitly referencing majority ownership or user priority.
- Implement agreed-upon temporary derogations from the European Acquis on a non-discriminatory basis, similar to those outlined in the Annan Plan, ensuring fairness in property transactions.
- Facilitate the eventual liberalization of the property market following a predetermined timeframe, post-establishment of the Property Commission, and the new property regime, ensuring that all parties can participate equitably in property transactions.
These measures can reconcile conflicting views on property rights, paving the way for a sustainable and mutually acceptable solution in Cyprus.
