A/HRC/13/24 measures they envisage taking to remedy the consequences of the continued violation of the right to property and right to respect for the applicant’s home.22 14. The Xenides-Arestis v. Turkey case (2006),23 which deals with the issue of displaced persons and violation of their property rights in the north, was again discussed by the CoE Committee of Ministers at its December 2009 meeting. It was recalled that the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers had sent a letter to the Turkish authorities informing them of the Committee’s continuing concern relating to the lack of information on the payment of the sums awarded by the judgement of the European Court of 7 December 2006. The Ministers’ Deputies expressed regret that this letter remained unanswered at the time of the meeting in December 2009 and instructed the CoE secretariat to prepare a draft interim resolution for the next examination of this case, unless the Turkish authorities have by then provided relevant information on the steps taken towards payment of the above-mentioned compensation.24 15. In the case of Alexandrou v. Turkey, where the applicant alleged that the occupation of the northern part of the island had prevented her from having access to her properties, in July 2009 the Court noted that an agreement was reached between the parties involved. The Court was satisfied that the settlement was based on respect for human rights and decided to remove the remainder of the application from its list of cases.25 16. As concerns the Orams v. Apostolides case (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales)), the European Court of Justice on 28 April 2009 held that the judgement of the court in Cyprus deciding a claim over property in the north is enforceable, although it concerns an area over which the Government does not exercise effective control.26 17. The national report submitted by Cyprus in the framework of the UPR states that abandoned Turkish Cypriot properties in the south come under the management and custody of the Minister of Interior. The Government stated that Turkish Cypriots who return from the northern part of the island or abroad and live permanently in the Government-controlled areas are entitled, with the consent of the custodian, to use their properties. The report mentions that there are several cases in which Turkish Cypriot houses and agricultural lands have been returned to the legal owners. In cases where Greek Cypriot displaced persons have been temporarily using those properties, the report states that measures are taken by the Government to provide all necessary help under alternative provisions. According to the report, compulsory acquisition or requisition of Turkish Cypriot properties, as for all properties, is only allowed under the Constitution and the law, if the public interest is served. Just and equitable compensation, as provided for by the Constitution and the law, is deposited in the special fund of the custodian. The report also mentions that Turkish Cypriot owners, who settled permanently abroad before 1974 or are residing in Government-controlled areas, are immediately eligible for payments, while 22 23 24 25 26 6 Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, Ministers’ Deputies Decisions, notes on the Demades v. Turkey case (16219/90). The case concerns the violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her home (situated in Famagusta) due to the denial since 1974 of access to her property situated in the northern part of Cyprus and consequent loss of control thereof. Council of Europe Committee of Ministers’ Deputies Decisions adopted at the 1072nd meeting, 1–3 December 2009, CM/Del/Dec (2009) 1072 on Xenides-Arestis v. Turkey (46347/99). Case of Alexandrou v. Turkey (16162/90) of 28 July 2009. Official Journal of the European Union, C 153/7 available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/ LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2009:153:0007:0008:EN:PDF. GE.10-11644