CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 décembre 2024

.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 } .sC02E897A { margin-top:42pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } Published on 20 January 2025   FIRST SECTION Application no. 20913/24 K.E. against Cyprus lodged on 11 July 2024 communicated on 20 December 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the continuing failure of the domestic authorities to examine the applicant’s application to acquire Cypriot citizenship since 2014. The applicant is a minor. He was born in Cyprus in 2013. His mother is a Cypriot national of Turkish Cypriot origin. His father is Turkish. His father entered Cyprus in 2007 after having met his mother abroad while studying. The parents subsequently divorced. The applicant lives in the occupied areas of Cyprus with his mother. He has a passport issued by the self-declared “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus”. In 2014 he applied for Cypriot citizenship. In 2019 he filed an administrative recourse (no. 1520/19) before the Administrative Court challenging the authorities’ failure to examine his application for citizenship. In 2022, the authorities informed him that while section 109(1) of Law No. 141(I)/2002 prohibited the registration of a Cypriot citizen if any of his parents had entered Cyprus illegally, his case fell under an exception which allowed his registration as a Cypriot citizen, but his application would be placed on a list to be examined by the Committee of Ministers “as soon as the Minister of Interior made such order”. In 2024 the Administrative Court issued a judgment according to which the authorities ought to take any measure they had failed to take thus far with regards to the applicant’s application for Cypriot citizenship. The applicant’s application for citizenship remains pending. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention the applicant complains that by failing to register him as a Cypriot citizen, despite having recognised that he is entitled to such citizenship, the authorities have breached their positive obligations to respect and safeguard his right to private life. Relying also on Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the failure of the State to take a decision in relation to his registration, as well as the State’s failure to abide by the Administrative Court’s judgment, is discriminatory, based on the applicant’s ethnic origin and the fact that he is a child of a “mixed” marriage, and lacks objective justification. The applicant further complains, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention, that the arbitrary denial of citizenship on grounds of his ethnic origin, constitutes discrimination in relation to a right set forth by law, namely, his right to Cypriot citizenship on account of his Cypriot origin, birth and upbringing in Cyprus. Lastly, under Article 13 of the Convention, relating to all above ‑ mentioned Articles, the applicant complains of the absence of an effective remedy capable of enforcing the judgment of the Administrative Court. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Do the facts of the present case fall within the ambit of Article 8 of the Convention? In particular, what legal or practical consequences does the domestic authorities’ delay in examining the applicant’s application for Cypriot citizenship and the fact of not possessing such citizenship have on the applicant’s private life?   2.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life contrary to Article   8 of the Convention on account of the domestic authorities’ failure to examine his application for citizenship? Does the State have a positive obligation to provide a practical framework which would allow for the effective examination of the applicant’s request for registration as Cypriot citizen?   3.     Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of his rights under Article 8, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 8?   4.     Has there been a breach of Article 1 of   Protocol No. 12   considering the applicant’s allegation that despite the State’s admission that he is entitled to the Cypriot citizenship, he is being arbitrarily denied that citizenship on account of his Turkish-Cypriot ethnicity?   5.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his Convention complaints, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?   In their reply the parties are requested to provide information on the possibility of filing a recourse under section 36 of the Law on the General Principles of Administrative Law (L. 158(I)/1999) and whether such remedy would be adequate and effective in the circumstances of the present case.