A/HRC/16/21 May 1964, raised complaints under several articles of the ECHR20. The Court decided to adjourn the examinations of the applicants’ complaints against the Republic of Cyprus concerning the lack of investigation following the discovery of the remains of their relatives between 2006 and 2009 and the trauma and anguish which they suffer as a result21. C. Property rights 19. On 22 April 2010 the Parliament of the Republic of Cyprus passed a law amending the Turkish-Cypriot Properties Law, under which the abandoned Turkish Cypriot properties in the south are administered by the Minister of Interior (Custodian)22. While previously only Turkish Cypriot property owners who lived in the Government-controlled areas or moved abroad before 1974 could claim their property, the amendment extends this right also to those who went abroad after 1974 23 . It also establishes the actionable right of Turkish Cypriot property owners to have recourse to the district courts in case of alleged violation of their right guaranteed by the ECHR or its Protocols, but only after their claim has been rejected by the Minister of Interior. If the court finds a violation, compensation or restitution of property may be granted. In exceptional cases, there is a possibility of lifting the custodianship over a particular property 24 . The changes to the Turkish-Cypriot Properties Law were announced by the Cyprus Government in its declaration to the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Sofi v. Cyprus, which ended with a friendly settlement25. 20. On 1 March 2010 the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights decided as to the admissibility of the application Demopoulos v. Turkey and seven other cases 26 , wherein the applicants claimed to have been deprived of their property rights following the 1974 Turkish intervention in northern Cyprus. The Grand Chamber concluded that Law 67/2005 of December 2005, according to which all natural and legal persons claiming rights to immovable or movable property could bring a claim before the Immovable Property Commission (IPC)27, “provides an accessible and effective framework 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 6 The applicants complained against Cyprus under article 2 (right to life), article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment), article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and article 14 (prohibition of discrimination in the enjoyment of Convention rights). Emin and six other cases v. Cyprus, Greece and the United Kingdom Decision (59623/08, 3706/09, 16206/09, 25180/09, 32744/09, 36499/09 and 57250/09), 3 June 2010. Ibid. Turkish-Cypriot Properties (Administration and Other Matters) (Temporary Provisions) Law of 1991 (Law 139/1991, as amended). “House lifts blanket restriction on return of Turkish Cypriot property”, 23 April 2010, http://www.cyprus-mail.com. Turkish-Cypriot Properties (Administration and Other Issues) (Temporary Provisions) Amending Law of 2010 (Law 39(I)/2010). Sofi v. Cyprus Decision (18163/04), 14 January 2010. The applicant complained that she was denied access to and enjoyment of her immovable property in the district of Larnaca, which disclosed a continuing violation of article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions), a continuing violation of article 8 (right to respect for one’s home), a violation of article 14 (prohibition against discrimination in enjoyment of Convention rights) in that she had been discriminated against as a Turkish Cypriot and article 13 (right to an effective remedy). Grand Chamber’s Demopoulos and Others v. Turkey Decision (46113/92), 1 March 2010. The IPC was set up under Law No. 67/2005 for the compensation, exchange and restitution of immovable properties following the Court’s judgment in the Xenides-Arestis v. Turkey (46347/99) case. It officially began its activities on 17 March 2006. As of 30 November 2010, 773 applications have been lodged with the IPC (330 in 2010) and 130 of them have been concluded through friendly settlements and four through formal hearing. The IPC has paid 49,164,000 pounds sterling to the