CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 août 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s1DE04B9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Published on 12 September 2022   THIRD SECTION Application no. 32879/18 Maryanne IOANNIDES against Cyprus lodged on 5 July 2018 communicated on 24 August 2022   SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicant, a British national who owns a house located inside the United Nations Buffer Zone in Cyprus, complains that she cannot get access to that house or be compensated for its use by the UN as an observation post.         QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the facts complained of occur within the jurisdiction of Cyprus (see Stephens v. Cyprus, Turkey and The United Nations (dec.), no. 45267/06, 11   December 2008)?   2.     Has the applicant exhausted domestic remedies in view of the fact that she has not challenged the constitutionality of section 19 of Law 29/1964 ‑ which forms the main basis for the non-payment of rent to the applicant in light of the Government’s obligation to provide the UNFICYP assistance, including premises, free of charge - vis-à-vis Article 23 of the Constitution or its compatibility with the Convention?   3.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1?   If so, was that interference necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest? In particular, was the interference reasonably proportionate to the aim sought to be realized, or did it impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy , [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V)?   The Government are requested to submit copies of all documents submitted as evidence before the domestic courts, including copies of all letters exchanged between the parties concerning the dispute.