Titina Loizidou Case Study
The applicant, Mrs. Titina Loizidou, grew up in Kyrenia in northern Cyprus. She is a Cypriot national, and a Cypriot citizen. In 1972 she married and moved to Nicosia with her husband. Mrs. Titina Loizidou claims that she is the legal owner of plots of land nos. 4609, 4610, 4618, 4619, 4748, 4884, 5002, 5004, 5386 and 5390 in Kyrenia, and she claims that since 20 July 1974 when the Turkish army occupied the northern Cyprus she has been prevented and also is still prevented by Turkish forces to gain access his properties which is mentioned above, and enjoy his property rights. On 19 March 1989, Mrs. Titina Loizidou joined a march which organized by a group of Greek Cypriot women under the name of “Women Walk Home” movement in the village of Lymbia (The village, Lymbia situates near the Turkish village of
…show more content…
Titina Loizidou to just satisfaction. At the result of this process curt decide to investigate the case following six months.
After the six months the Court gave its judgment about the case of Mrs. Titina Loizidou. The Court decided to reject the Turkey side’s claim that because of Article 50 there is no official right of applicant to just satisfaction. In contrast, said that Turkey government has to compensate pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and legal costs and expenses.
Because of pecuniary damage which is about applicant Mrs. Titina Loizidou’s economic and financial damage emerged as the result of violation of her property rights by Turkey troops, the court decided she have to compensate for the amount of CYP 300,000 by the Turkish government.
Because of Non-pecuniary damage which is about compensation of Mrs. Titina Loizidou’s undesirable feelings and harm of moral values, the Court decided that the respondent has to pay for the amount of CYP
Titina Loizidou to just satisfaction. At the result of this process curt decide to investigate the case following six months.
After the six months the Court gave its judgment about the case of Mrs. Titina Loizidou. The Court decided to reject the Turkey side’s claim that because of Article 50 there is no official right of applicant to just satisfaction. In contrast, said that Turkey government has to compensate pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and legal costs and expenses.
Because of pecuniary damage which is about applicant Mrs. Titina Loizidou’s economic and financial damage emerged as the result of violation of her property rights by Turkey troops, the court decided she have to compensate for the amount of CYP 300,000 by the Turkish government.
Because of Non-pecuniary damage which is about compensation of Mrs. Titina Loizidou’s undesirable feelings and harm of moral values, the Court decided that the respondent has to pay for the amount of CYP