8.  The applicant was born in 1933 and lives in Nicosia. 9.  The applicant claimed that she was the owner of 109 plots of land in the District of Kyrenia. However, she submitted claims for just satisfaction only in relation to 63 plots of land. She alleged that as a result of the 1974 Turkish military intervention, she had been refused access to her properties, which were located in the area under the occupation and overall control of the Turkish military authorities. In May 1996 the applicant transferred part of her properties to her children. On 11 February 2008 she informed the Court that on 30 June 2003 she had transferred to her daughter the ownership of ten plots of land. 10.  On 24 November 2008 the applicant filed an application (no. 72/2008) with the Immovable Property Determination, Evaluation and Compensation Commission instituted by Law no. 67/2005 (the “Commission”), a body with jurisdiction to award compensation for Greek-Cypriot immovable properties in the “TRNC”. She requested financial compensation (10 million euros (EUR)) for the loss of use of the 63 plots of land for which she had claimed just satisfaction before the Court. She specified that a total of 53 plots had been transferred to her children in 1996 and 2003 (see paragraph 8 above and paragraphs 10 and 46 of the Court's judgment of 20 January 2009). She moreover underlined that another plot (identified by serial number 63 in the list of her properties) had been included in her application due to an oversight. This plot, located in Lapithos, had been registered in the name of her son, Mr Yiannos Alexandrou, since 1973. 11.  On 15 April 2009 two of the applicant's children (Alecos Alexandrou and Yiannos Alexandrou) filed another application (no. 16/2009) with the Commission in order to obtain compensation with respect to 11 plots of land which had previously been owned by their mother and her late sister (Mrs Efthymia Tymviou). 12.  In a decision of 17 April 2009, the Commission first noted that only the following 9 plots were currently registered in the applicant's name:
(a) Vasilia, registration no. 5946, sheet/plan XI/5.W.2, plot no. 32/41, use: building site; share: whole; area: 557 m²;
(b) Vasilia, registration no. 5960, sheet/plan XI/13.W.1, plot no. 392, 5/1, use: building site; share: whole; area: 641 m²;
(c) Vasilia, registration no. 5964, sheet/plan XI/13.W.1, plot no. 400, use: building site; share: whole; area: 641 m²;
(d) Vasilia, registration no. 5962, sheet/plan XI/13.W.1, plot no. 5/6, use: building site; share: whole; area: 762 m²;
(e) Vasilia, registration no. 5967, sheet/plan XI/13.W.1, plot no. 5/7, use: building site; share: whole; area: 780 m²;
(f) Vasilia, registration no. 447, sheet/plan XI/5E1&E2, plot no. 140/2, use: field; share: ½; area: 22,408 m²;
(g) Vasilia, registration no. 78, sheet/plan XI/5, plot no. 27/2, use: field; share: ½; area: 40,691 m²;
(h) Vasilia, registration no. 5970, sheet/plan XI/13.W.1, plot no. 397, use: building site; share: whole; area: 604 m²;
(i) Vasilia, registration no. 5371, sheet/plan XI/5, plot no. 28/1, use: field; share: ½; area: 5,212 m².
However, on 28 January 2009 the applicant had revoked her claims concerning the properties described under (a) and (b) above. 13.  In the light of the above and having taken into account the relevant documents submitted to it, the Commission ordered the restitution of one of the properties claimed by the applicant's children; it further invited the Ministry Responsible for Housing Affairs to pay to the applicant and to her children 1,500,000 British Pounds (£) as compensation in lieu of the properties as well as for loss of use. The Commission concluded as follows:
“This in turn will satisfy the claims of the applicant before the European Court of Human Rights in [their] entirety. The restitution and payment of compensation shall become valid upon the European Court of Human Right's decision to strike the case out of its list under Article 37 § 1 (a) and/or Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention.
The applicant of application no. 72/2008 expressed satisfaction that the damage[s] suffered with respect to the claimed properties were fully recovered and, in turn, she informs the Court regarding her application no. 16162/90, inter alia, declaring full satisfaction with this remedy. The applicant attached the letter to the Court expressing her request from the Court to strike case no. 16162/90 out of the list under Article 37 § 1 (a) [and/or] (b) of the Convention since the restitution and compensation reached [were] of a kind to provide a solution to the matter.
Also, the applicant shall not seek any damages from the respondent State in the principal judgment in respect of any damages, including loss of use, pecuniary and/or non-pecuniary damages, arising from the judgment of the Court to constitute a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
In addition, the applicant declares that she considers the case settled and that she will not institute any further proceedings before the Court, national or international authorities in respect to her claimed properties and also shall not pursue to apply for just satisfaction under Article 41 of the Convention.”