A/HRC/19/22 according to which all natural and legal persons claiming rights to immovable or movable property could bring a claim before the Immovable Property Commission, “provides an accessible and effective framework of redress in respect of complaints about interference with the property owned by Greek Cypriots”.38 The Grand Chamber had also stressed that, despite the fact that the Commission was recognized as a domestic remedy for cases involving Greek Cypriot properties in the north, the Demopoulos decision was not to be interpreted as an obligation to make use of the Commission. Claimants could choose to await a political solution; however, if they wished to lodge an application before the Court, its admissibility would be decided in line with the principles and approach of the Demopoulos decision.39 29. In cases where the European Court of Human Rights had already issued a judgement on the merits prior to the Demopoulos decision, however, the Court continued examination in 2011 of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction. For example, in the case of Anthousa Iordanou v. Turkey (just satisfaction), the Court held, on 11 January 2011, that Turkey was to pay the applicant €143,000 in pecuniary damage, costs and expenses following its earlier judgement of 24 November 2009, in which the Court found that the applicant had been denied access to and control, use and enjoyment of her properties in the north as well as any compensation for the interference with her property rights.40 The Court reiterated its case law according to which objections based on non-exhaustion of domestic remedies raised after an application has been declared admissible cannot be taken into account at the merits stage or at a later stage.41 Furthermore, in the case of Loizou and others v. Turkey (just satisfaction), the Court decided, on 24 May 2011, to award €1.3 million in pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.42 30. On 13 and 14 September 2011, the Committee of Ministers’ Deputies of the Council of Europe decided to classify under its enhanced procedure 33 individual cases concerning interference in property rights in the northern part of the island and/or respect for home. 43 Enhanced supervision is applied to cases requiring urgent individual measures or revealing important structural problems. It is also applied to repetitive cases linked to cases already 38 39 40 41 42 43 European Court of Human Rights, Grand Chamber, Demopoulos and others v. Turkey Decision (46113/99, 3843/02, 13751/02, 13466/03, 10200/04, 14163/04, 19993/04, 21819/04), 1 March 2010, para. 127. Ibid., para. 128. European Court of Human Rights, Anthousa Iordanou v. Turkey (46755/99), judgement (merits) of 24 November 2009 and judgement (just satisfaction) of 11 January 2011. European Court of Human Rights, Demades v. Turkey (16219/90), judgement (merits) of 31 July 2003, and Alexandrou v. Turkey (16162/90), judgement (merits) of 20 January 2009. European Court of Human Rights, Loizou and others v. Turkey (16682/90), judgement (merits) of 22 September 2009 and judgement (just satisfaction) of 24 May 2011. Council of Europe Committee of Ministers’ Deputies Decisions adopted at the 1120th meeting, 13 and 14 September 2011 (CM/Del/Dec(2011)1120) on Loizidou v. Turkey (15318/89), Eugenia Michaelidou Developments Ltd and Michael Tymvios v. Turkey (16163/90), Demades v. Turkey (16219/90), Alexandrou v. Turkey (16162/90), Papi Andreou v. Turkey (16094/90), Sophia Andreou v. Turkey (18360/91), Diogenous and Tseriotis v. Turkey (16259/90), Economou v. Turkey (18405/91), Epiphaniou and others v. Turkey (19900/92), Evagorou Christou v. Turkey (18403/91), Gavriel v. Turkey (41355/98), Hadjiprocopiou and others v. Turkey (37395/97), Hadjithomas and others v. Turkey (39970/98), Hapeshis and Hapeshi-Michaelidou v. Turkey (35214/97), Hapeshis and others v. Turkey (38179/97), Ioannou v. Turkey (18364/91), Iordanis Iordanou v. Turkey (43685/98), Iordanou Anthousa v. Turkey (46755/99), Josephides v. Turkey (21887/93), Kyriakou v. Turkey (18407/91), Loizou and others v. Turkey (16682/90), Lordos and others v. Turkey (15973/90), Michael v. Turkey (18361/91), Nicolaides v. Turkey (18406/91), Olymbiou v. Turkey (16091/90), Orphanides v. Turkey (36705/97), Ramon v. Turkey (29092/95), Rock Ruby Hotels Ltd v. Turkey (46159/99), Saveriades v. Turkey (16160/90), Skyropiia Yialis Ltd v. Turkey (47884/99), Solomonides v. Turkey (16161/90), Vrahimi v. Turkey (16078/90) and Zavou and others v. Turkey (16654/90). 11