CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 24 août 1999

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389FD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:16pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sBA8DCCFC { width:35.45pt; display:inline-block } .s8CD1BA8C { width:6.58pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s31BEBB9E { width:7.26pt; display:inline-block } .sE55CAA3E { width:1.26pt; display:inline-block } .s796BDE8F { width:14.11pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s3985515B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s3DF4F774 { width:37.36pt; display:inline-block } .s4A80122B { width:295.85pt; display:inline-block } .s8EFC8F8 { width:32.36pt; display:inline-block } .sFBBFC6C9 { width:290.51pt; display:inline-block } THIRD SECTION   DECISION   AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF   Application no. 29092/95 by Dinos RAMON against Turkey     The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section) sitting on 24 August 1999 as a Chamber composed of     Sir   Nicolas Bratza, President ,   Mr   J.-P. Costa,   Mrs   F. Tulkens,   Mr   W. Fuhrmann,   Mr   K. Jungwiert,   Mr   K. Traja, Judges ,   Mr   F. Gölcüklü, ad hoc Judge ,   with   Mrs   S. Dollé, Section Registrar ;     Having regard to Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;     Having regard to the application introduced on 4   September   1995 by Dinos Ramon against Turkey and registered on 7   November   1995 under file no.   29092/95;     Having regard to the reports provided for in Rule 49 of the Rules of Court;     Having regard the fact that no observations have been submitted by the respondent Government within the time-limit fixed for that purpose;     Having deliberated;     Decides as follows: THE FACTS     The applicant is a Cypriot national born in 1937 and living in Nicosia. Before the Court he is represented by Mr Achilleas Demetriades, a lawyer practising in Nicosia.     The facts of the case, as they have been submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows:     Until 15 August 1974 the applicant was living with his family in a flat he was renting at 5 Iras street in Famagusta in the northern part of Cyprus. His surgery was at 36 Socratous street in Famagusta.     On 1 August 1972 the applicant entered into a contract with a public body, the Boghaz Improvement Board, for the purchase of a plot of land at Boghaz in the District of Famagusta. He has provided a copy of the relevant contract, in which the plot of land in question is described as “part of plot No. 343/1 according to the map attached”. The applicant has also provided a copy of a letter he addressed to the President of the Boghaz Improvement Board on 22 April 1974 to the effect that by that date the applicant had paid the agreed price in full. However, no title deed had been issued in the applicant’s name before 15 August 1974, as the procedure for the parcelling out of plot No. 343/1 had not yet been completed.     The applicant claims that by 15 August 1974 he had nearly finished the construction of a clinic/health centre on the plot of land he had purchased. On that date, the applicant fled Famagusta as the Turkish troops were advancing. He has since been unable to gain access to or use his home, surgery and plot of land, in respect of which he was issued with a statement of ownership by the Republic of Cyprus on 6 December 1991. The applicant has been informed that persons unknown to him have taken over the plot of land and completed the construction of the clinic/health centre, which they now operate as a hotel.     COMPLAINTS     The applicant alleges a violation of Article 8 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.     He states that since the Turkish invasion of the northern part of Cyprus in July 1974 and since 29 January 1987, when Turkey accepted the competence of the European Commission of Human Rights to examine individual petitions against it, Turkey prevented him from exercising his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his movable and immovable property.     PROCEDURE     The application was introduced on 4 September   1995 and registered on 7   November   1995.     On 23 January 1997 the European Commission of Human Rights decided to communicate the complaints under Articles 8 of the Convention and 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the respondent Government and invited them to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the application before 4 April 1997.     On 2 April 1997 the Government requested the Commission to adjourn the proceedings until the Court completed its consideration of the Loizidou case (Eur. Court HR, Loizidou v. Turkey judgment of 18 December 1996 (merits), Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI).     On 18 April 1997 the Commission decided to suspend the request for the submission of supplementary observations by the Government until 5 September 1997. On 13 September 1997 it laid down a new time-limit for that purpose until 8 December 1997. At the request of the Government, the President of the Commission agreed to four extensions of that time-limit until 7 July 1998. On 30 November 1998, and after the expiry of the above-mentioned time-limit, the Government again requested a further extension. On 21 December 1998 the Government were informed that no further extension could be granted. No observations were submitted.     On 1 November 1998, by operation of Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, the case fell to be examined by the Court in accordance with the provisions of that Protocol.     THE LAW     The applicant complains that since the Turkish invasion of the northern part of Cyprus in July 1974 and since 29 January 1987, when Turkey accepted the competence of the European Commission of Human Rights to examine individual petitions against it, Turkey prevented him from exercising his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his movable and immovable property. He alleges that Turkey has violated Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.     Article 8 of the Convention ensures respect for private and family life, home and correspondence. Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 guarantees property rights.     The Court notes that the respondent Government have not provided any observations on the admissibility of the case, although they have been given ample opportunity to do so. It must, therefore, be assumed that they do not contest the admissibility of the application.     The Court considers that the application raises serious questions of fact and law which are of such complexity that their determination should depend on an examination of the merits. It cannot, therefore, be considered manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. No other ground for declaring the application inadmissible has been established.     For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,   DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE , without prejudging the merits of the case.           S Dollé   N. Bratza   Registrar   President