A/HRC/25/21 30. With regard to property claims in the southern part of the island, on 12 March 2013, the European Court of Human Rights rejected the applications of four Turkish Cypriot property owners in the case of Ali Kamil Karamanoğlu and Others v. Cyprus on the grounds that they had not yet raised the matter of contention in the appropriate forum.34 Thus the European Court of Human Rights confirmed its approach in the admissibility decision in the case of Kazali and Others v. Cyprus, in which it could not exclude that the amended Turkish-Cypriot Properties Law 139/1991 provides an accessible and effective framework of redress in respect of complaints about interference with the property owned by Turkish Cypriots.35 31. With regard to property claims in the northern part of the island, as at 30 November 2013, a total of 5,587 applications had been lodged with the Immovable Property Commission, of which 452 were concluded through friendly settlements and 11 through a formal hearing.36 The Commission paid a total of £140,940,671 to the applicants as compensation. Moreover, the Commission ruled for exchange and compensation in two cases, for restitution in one case, and for restitution and compensation in five. In one case, the Commission delivered a decision for restitution after the settlement of the Cyprus issue, and in another case it ruled for partial restitution. On 25 November 2013, the Turkish Cypriot authorities extended the deadline for the submission of applications to the Commission for an additional term of two years, ending on 31 December 2015. 32. With regard to the complaints made by four Greek Cypriots about the length of the proceedings before the Immovable Property Commission, the European Court of Human Rights, in its admissibility decision in the case of Eleni Meleagrou and Others v. Turkey, noted that a period of some four years and eight months at two levels (including appeals against the decisions of the Commission) was deemed “not unreasonable given the newness of the procedure, the nature of the proceedings which incorporated a specific settlement procedure, the number of claims raised and the technical nature of property disputes”.37 33. Following a decision by the Higher Regional Court of Munich in Germany of 18 March 2013, more than 170 religious artefacts, including icons, pieces of church art and early historical objects, were returned to the Republic of Cyprus in July 2013. An appeal against an earlier decision of the district court of Munich, which had ruled in favour of the plaintiffs (namely, the Republic of Cyprus, the Autocephalous Greek-Orthodox Church of Cyprus, the Bishopric of the Armenians of Cyprus and the Archbishop of the Maronites of Cyprus), was thus partially rejected by the Higher Regional Court of Munich.38 The latter also confirmed that the plaintiffs could invoke their ownership rights with regard to these objects, which had been located in monasteries, museums and churches in the northern part of Cyprus before their removal. The Higher Regional Court of Munich noted that the Republic of Cyprus had not exercised control over the northern part of the island since the occupation of that territory by Turkish troops in 1974; however, the court stressed that, de jure, this part still belonged to the Republic of Cyprus, explicitly referring to Security Council resolution 541 (1983).39 34 35 36 37 38 39 10 See European Court of Human Rights, Ali Kamil Karamanoğlu and Others v. Cyprus (application No. 16865/10), decision of 12 March 2013, paras. 16 and 17. See European Court of Human Rights, Kazali and Others v. Cyprus (application No. 49247/08), decision of 6 March 2012, para. 153, and A/HRC/22/18, para. 29. See www.tamk.gov.ct.tr. See European Court of Human Rights, Eleni Meleagrou and Others v. Turkey (application No. 14434/09), decision of 2 April 2013, para. 18. See District Court of Munich I, decision (9 O 4481/04) of 23 September 2010, and Higher Regional Court of Munich, partial decision (19 U 4878/10) of 18 March 2013. Higher Regional Court of Munich, partial decision (19 U 4878/10) of 18 March 2013, para. 1.3.2.