A/HRC/13/24 applicant remained the legal owner of her property situated in the north, despite having lost control thereof due to lack of access, it is recalled that CoE CMD invited the Turkish authorities to make an offer to the applicant to comply with their obligation to put an end to the violation found and to remedy its consequences. In reply the Turkish Cypriot authorities made an offer based on Law No. 67/2005 on the compensation, exchange or restitution of immovable property. It is further recalled that following the judgement of the Court of 22 December 2005 in the case Xenides-Arestis v. Turkey, this law established a compensation, exchange and restitution mechanism in the northern part of the island. CoE CMD noted that the Court is currently seized of the question of the effectiveness of this established mechanism and that its conclusions on this point might be decisive for the execution of this judgement.17 12. In relation to the Cyprus v. Turkey case (2001),18 CoE CMD at its September 2009 session examined the questions of the property rights of enclaved persons and the property rights of displaced persons. Concerning the property rights of enclaved persons, CoE CMD noted that a certain number of questions still need to be examined in depth and to this effect invited the Turkish authorities to provide before 15 December 2009 a copy of the entirety of the legislation as amended, and related decisions relevant for the examination of this issue, in particular the entire text of Law No. 41/77.19 Concerning the property rights of displaced persons, at its December 2009 session CoE CMD again referred to the critical deliberations under way in the European Court of Human Rights. CoE CMD recalled that in the meantime it is important that all possibilities of settlement offered by the mechanism, in particular on restitution of property, be preserved (protective measures).20 13. The Committee of Ministers at its December 2009 meeting decided to resume examination of the Demades v. Turkey case (2003)21 at the latest at their 1086th meeting (June 2010), in the light of information to be provided by the Turkish authorities on the 17 18 19 20 21 GE.10-11644 Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, Ministers’ Deputies Decisions, notes on the Loizidou v. Turkey case (15318/89). The European Court held that the matters complained of by Cyprus in its application entailed the responsibility of Turkey under the ECHR. In its judgement, it held that there had been 14 violations of the Convention, grouped by the Committee of Ministers into 4 categories: (1) the question of missing persons; (2) the living conditions of Greek Cypriots in northern Cyprus; (3) the rights of Turkish Cypriots living in northern Cyprus; and (4) the question of the homes and property of displaced persons. Following the judgement of 22 December 2005 in the Xenides-Arestis case, an Immovable Property Commission (IPC) was set up under Law No. 67/2005 on the compensation, exchange or restitution of immovable property. According to the information available to the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers as of June 2009, the total number of requests addressed to the IPC had reached 395. In 326 cases, the applicants had asked for monetary compensation to the value of their property, and in 14 cases an exchange of property. The IPC has reportedly concluded 59 friendly settlements (in 4 cases they stipulated the restitution of property at issue, in 1 case restitution “once the Cyprus problem has been solved”, in 52 cases compensation in the amount of the current value of the property and in 2 cases the exchange of property). By November 2009, the number of requests had reached 432, of which 81 had reportedly been resolved “amicably”, with maximum compensation of £12 million paid to the Severis family. Source: “Record Agreement was Timed for Best Effect”, Cyprus Mail, 12 November 2009. Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, Ministers’ Deputies Decisions, public notes on the Cyprus v. Turkey case (25781/94). This case concerns the violation of the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his property located in the northern part of Cyprus, insofar as he has been denied access to them and control, use and enjoyment of them since 1974. 5