Myra Xenides- Arestis v. Turkey

46 XENIDES-ARESTIS v. TURKEY DECISIONwhere the family has its roots but where no longer lives (Loizidou, merits,op. cit., § 66). Concerning the applicant's complaint under Article 1 ofProtocol No. 1, the respondent Government contend that it relates in essenceto freedom of movement, guaranteed under Article 2 of Protocol no. 4which Turkey has not ratified. They argue that the right to peacefulenjoyment of property and possessions does not include, as a corollary, theright to freedom of movement.(b) The applicantThe applicant disputes the arguments of the respondent Governmentrelying essentially on the reasons given by the Court for rejecting similarobjections raised by Turkey in its judgments in the cases ofLoizidou v. Turkey (preliminary objections and merits, op. cit.), Cyprus v.Turkey (op. cit.), Demades v. Turkey (op. cit., § 46) and EugeniaMichaelidou Developments Ltd and Michael Tymvios v. Turkey (op. cit.,§ 31).Furthermore, she distinguishes the instant case from that ofLoizidou v. Turkey (merits, op. cit.) in so far as Article 8 of the Conventionis concerned, since unlike Mrs Loizidou, the applicant is complaining of aninterference with her right to respect for the home in which she lived withher husband and children and of which she is the owner. This is irrespectiveof whether the area in which her home is situated is the same as that whereshe grew up and her family has its roots. In addition, she notes that therespondent Government have not submitted any arguments as to whetherthere is any justification for the interference with her right under Article 8.The applicant points out that her property is part of the fenced up area ofFamagusta which is under the occupation and overall control of the Turkishmilitary. She maintains that that this continuous denial amounts to aninterference with her rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. In thisconnection, she submits that the respondent Government do not deny thatthe applicant is unable to access, possess or use her property.Finally, the applicant contends that her proprietary rights are violatedbecause of her country of birth and language, religion and ethnic origin, inbreach of Article 14 of the Convention. In this regard, she refers to theCommission's report of 4 June 1999 in the case of Cyprus v. Turkey(op. cit., §§ 333 and 334). The applicant avers that the omission of therespondent Government to submit any arguments concerning her complaintunder this provision amounts to a clear acceptance of a violation ofArticle 14 of the Convention.(c) The Cypriot GovernmentThe Cypriot Government adopt the observations submitted by theapplicant in this respect.