European Court of Human Rights Case of Loizidou v. Turkey

43. The Delegate considered that the costs were excessive since it was not necessary for the applicant
to have been represented at most stages of the proceedings by two lawyers and additional advisers. In
addition, the applicant had obtained substantial support from the Cypriot Government.
44. The Court considers that, within the context of the applicant’s property complaints, the present
case raised complex issues of fundamental importance concerning the Convention system as a whole. It
also involved several hearings before the Commission and three hearings before the Court. The
applicant was thus entitled to avail of the services of two Cypriot lawyers and a specialist Queen’s
Counsel from the United Kingdom in order to represent her interests.
It concludes that the costs and expenses were actually and necessarily incurred and reasonable as to
quantum and should be awarded in full.
V. The Cypriot Government’s costs and expenses
45. The Cypriot Government submitted that they should also be reimbursed the costs and expenses in
bringing the case before the Court. They claimed CYP 48,315.77 in this respect. They explained that
they were seeking to recover expenses only – and not compensation – since significant resources had
been allocated to the case, an approach which had been amply justified by the two judgments of the
Court.
46. The Turkish Government made no remarks concerning this claim.
47. The Delegate of the Commission, however, opposed it.
48. The Court recalls the general principle that States must bear their own costs in contentious
proceedings before international tribunals (see, for example, Article 64 of the Statute of the
International Court of Justice and the Advisory Opinion of the Court in “Application for Review of
Judgement No. 158 of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal”, I.C.J. Reports 1993, p. 211, § 96).
It considers that this rule has even greater application when, in keeping with the special character of the
Convention as an instrument of European public order (ordre public), High Contracting Parties bring
cases before the Convention institutions, whether by virtue of Article 24 or Article 48 (c), as part of the
collective enforcement of the rights set out in the Convention or by virtue of Article 48 (b) in order to
protect the rights of their nationals. In principle, it is not appropriate, in the Court’s view, that States
which act, inter alia, in pursuit of the interests of the Convention community as a whole, even where
this coincides with their own interests, be reimbursed their costs and expenses for doing so.
Accordingly the Court rejects the Cypriot Government’s claim for costs and expenses.
Vi. Default interest
49. According to the information available to the Court, the statutory rate of interest applicable in
Cyprus at the date of adoption of the present judgment is 8% per annum.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT
1. Dismisses by fifteen votes to two the respondent State’s claim that the applicant has no entitlement to
an award of just satisfaction under Article 50 of the Convention;
2. Holds by fourteen votes to three that the respondent State is to pay to the applicant, within three
months, 300,000 (three hundred thousand) Cypriot pounds for pecuniary damage;