17.05.2014 Views

INFORMATION NOTE No. 30 on the case-law of the Court May 2001

INFORMATION NOTE No. 30 on the case-law of the Court May 2001

INFORMATION NOTE No. 30 on the case-law of the Court May 2001

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

determine <strong>the</strong> ownership <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> house in questi<strong>on</strong>. As regards <strong>the</strong> initial proceedings, she<br />

lodged an appeal with <strong>the</strong> Supreme <strong>Court</strong> requesting that <strong>the</strong>y be suspended until <strong>the</strong><br />

outcome <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> proceedings dealing with <strong>the</strong> divisi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> estate or those regarding <strong>the</strong><br />

establishment <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> ownership <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> house. In March 1996, <strong>the</strong> Supreme <strong>Court</strong> rejected<br />

her request and refused her leave to appeal. The Enforcement Office fixed a deadline for<br />

<strong>the</strong> applicant to remove <strong>the</strong> house. The <strong>of</strong>fice agreed to postp<strong>on</strong>e <strong>the</strong> deadline <strong>on</strong>ce but<br />

rejected <strong>the</strong> applicant’s following request. In <strong>May</strong> 1996, <strong>the</strong> District <strong>Court</strong> also refused to<br />

postp<strong>on</strong>e <strong>the</strong> fixed deadline. The <strong>of</strong>fice finally ordered that <strong>the</strong> house be pulled down.<br />

The applicant lodged an appeal asking for an immediate stay <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> demoliti<strong>on</strong> order. The<br />

<strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Appeal turned down her request and refused to grant her leave to appeal against<br />

<strong>the</strong> District <strong>Court</strong>’s decisi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>May</strong> 1996. The applicant was refused leave to appeal by<br />

<strong>the</strong> Supreme <strong>Court</strong>. The house was finally pulled down and she was asked by <strong>the</strong><br />

Enforcement Office to bear <strong>the</strong> costs <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> enforcement. She unsuccessfully appealed<br />

against <strong>the</strong> <strong>of</strong>fice’s decisi<strong>on</strong> and was refused legal aid. In <str<strong>on</strong>g>No</str<strong>on</strong>g>vember 1996, <strong>the</strong> Real<br />

Estate <strong>Court</strong> issued a decisi<strong>on</strong> by which <strong>the</strong> applicant was awarded a plot where <strong>the</strong><br />

house had been. As regards <strong>the</strong> proceedings c<strong>on</strong>cerning <strong>the</strong> ownership <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> house, <strong>the</strong><br />

District <strong>Court</strong> found, in July 1997, that <strong>the</strong> house was part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> estate <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> applicant’s<br />

mo<strong>the</strong>r. Accordingly, at <strong>the</strong> time <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> District <strong>Court</strong>’s judgment <strong>of</strong> <strong>May</strong> 1990, <strong>the</strong> house<br />

did not bel<strong>on</strong>g to <strong>the</strong> applicant. In February 1997 and 2000, <strong>the</strong> competent authority<br />

granted <strong>the</strong> applicant building permits for <strong>the</strong> plot <strong>of</strong> land.<br />

Admissible under Articles 8 and 1 <strong>of</strong> Protocol N° 1.<br />

FREEDOM OF RELIGION<br />

ARTICLE 9<br />

Restricti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>on</strong> religious activities <strong>of</strong> Greek Cypriots and Mar<strong>on</strong>ites in nor<strong>the</strong>rn Cyprus:<br />

violati<strong>on</strong>/no violati<strong>on</strong>.<br />

CYPRUS - Turkey (Nº 25781/94)<br />

Judgment 10.5.<strong>2001</strong> [Grand Chamber]<br />

(See Appendix I).<br />

FREEDOM OF RELIGION<br />

C<strong>on</strong>victi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> Jehovah's Witness for refusing to do military service: friendly settlement.<br />

STEFANOV - Bulgaria (Nº 32438/96)

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!