-
.
- Ελληνικά
He did not accept the applicant's claim of alleged infringement by the Republic of Cyprus, of the right to respect for the place of residence (Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights) by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) because the applicant did not seek effective remedy from the Cypriot courts before appealing to the ECHR, says, inter alia, a judgment of the Court notified on 7 December 2023.
The ECtHR, which examined the facts in relation to an individual application registered against the Republic of Cyprus (Stylianou v. Cyprus) concluded in the above judgment by noting that the applicant, by not submitting before the Cypriot courts the circumstances which he had put forward before the ECtHR, had prevented the Cypriot courts from assessing those circumstances and, accordingly, had failed to seek an effective domestic remedy before lodging his application with the ECtHR. Consequently, the ECtHR dismissed the application, finding the application inadmissible under Article 35 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
According to the facts of the case, the applicant, prior to his appeal to the ECtHR, had been found guilty by the Nicosia District Court in a criminal case for the construction of a house, an outbuilding and an enclosure wall without first obtaining a building permit from the competent authority. The Court also found that he owned and used the outbuildings, and that he resided in them with his family without a certificate of final approval having been issued. The District Court imposed a fine on the petitioner and issued an order to demolish and terminate the use of the shacks. On appeal in the case, the Supreme Court rejected the applicant's claims regarding the demolition order and upheld the reasoning of the Nicosia District Court.
In considering the individual appeal, the ECtHR rejected the applicant's claim that the Cypriot courts were aware that the house in question was the only residence for him and his family and accepted the Republic's objection that the applicant had not exhausted internal remedies, as, it did not appear from the case file and the submissions made before the Nicosia District Court and the High Court that he actually claimed before the Cypriot courts that the house in question was his only residence or that he and his family would be homeless if it were to be demolished. As the ECtHR notes, the applicant could not expect the Cypriot courts to investigate his personal circumstances without himself pointing them out, while he had the opportunity to submit to the Cypriot courts allegations and evidence that the demolition order would interfere disproportionately with his right to respect for his home.
In its judgment, the ECtHR concluded that it had no reason to believe that if the applicant had provided the circumstances he presented before the ECtHR, the courts of the Republic of Cyprus would not have taken them into account when considering proportionality for the purposes of issuing the demolition order. Therefore, according to the ECtHR, the applicant, by failing to communicate to the Cypriot courts the circumstances he presented before the ECtHR, prevented them from dealing with the matter and making an assessment of proportionality.
Contents of this article including associated images are owned by PIO
Views & opinions expressed are those of the author and/or PIO
Source
