CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 mars 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 11 March 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 6178/18 Theodora PANAGI and Evdoxia SHIARTOU against Turkey lodged on 19 January 2018 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicants, Mr Theodora Panagi and Mr Evdoxia Shiartou, are Cypriot and British nationals, who were born in 1967 and 1970 respectively and live in London, the United Kingdom. They are represented before the Court by Mr A. Demetriades, a lawyer practising in Nicosia, Cyprus. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. The applicants, Greek Cypriots, are owners in equal shares of a house and a plot of land located in the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” (“TRNC”). This immovable property initially belonged to their mother, who gifted it to the applicants on 9 October 2001. On 9 February 2010 their mother passed away and the applicants were declared her heirs. On 21 September 2012 the applicants applied to the Immovable Property Commission (“IPC”) claiming compensation for the loss of use of their property with the relevant statutory interest following the Turkish military intervention in 1974. They also claimed restitution of the immovable property in question, moral damages, compensation for movable goods, including interests, statutory interest and legal costs. As the relevant “TRNC” authorities did not reply to the applicants’ claim, on 20 January 2015 the applicants applied for a judgment in default. The IPC adjourned the examination of the case numerous times. On 21 August 2015 the applicants complained of the delay in the proceedings before the IPC. However, they received no reply to their complaint. In this connection, the applicants point to the fact that on 29   November 2016 the “TRNC” High Administrative Court ruled that it had no jurisdiction to review the adjournments of applications for a default judgment before the IPC. The proceedings before the IPC are still pending. COMPLAINTS The applicants complain of the protracted length and ineffectiveness of the proceedings before IPC, as a result of which they have been unable to vindicate their property claim and access their home for a prolonged period of time. They further complain that they do not have an effective remedy for the inordinate length of proceedings and delays before the IPC, and for their property claim. The applicants also complain that they were discriminated against on the grounds of religion and ethnic origin. The applicants rely on Articles 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No. 1. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the length and the practical operation of the proceedings before the IPC, has there been a breach of the applicants’ rights under Articles 6 § 1 and 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (see Joannou v. Turkey , no. 53240/14, 12 December 2017)?   2.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective remedy for their complaints under Articles 6 § 1 and 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (either alone or taken in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention), as required by Article 13 of the Convention?