CHAKKAS AND OTHERS v. CYPRUS
Inadmissible
George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Päivi Hirvelä;Paul Mahoney
1. The common feature of these three applications is that they are brought by Cypriot nationals who complain that the children of women displaced from the north of Cyprus after 1974 were not entitled to refugee cards (and thus the benefits to which the holders of such cards were entitled), whereas the children of displaced men were entitled to such cards. The difference in treatment was removed in 2013, that is, after the introduction of the present applications: see relevant domestic law and practice at paragraph 7 below. 2. The applicants are all either displaced women or the children of displaced women. A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. The applications were lodged on 29 July 2009, 8 April 2010 and 25 May 2011 respectively. The applicants in application nos. 43331/09 and 27877/10 are represented by Mr Loukis G. Loucaides. The applicants in application no. 36144/11 are separately represented by Mr Andreas S. Angelides. Mr Loucaides and Mr Angelides both practise in Nicosia. 3. The legislative provisions which, at the material time, granted refugee cards to the children of displaced men but not the children of displaced women were unsuccessfully challenged before the Supreme Court in Vrountou v. the Republic (appeal no. 3830): see paragraphs 8 and 9 below. The final judgment of the Supreme Court in that case was given on 3 March 2006. 4. Following the Supreme Court’s judgment in Vrountou v. the Republic, Evangelia and Markella Chakkas, the applicants in application no. 36144/11, brought their own challenge to the refugee card scheme, lodging that challenge with the Supreme Court on 7 August 2006. They too alleged that, in according preferential treatment to the children of displaced men over the children of displaced women, the scheme was discriminatory and contrary to Article 14 of the Convention. That challenge was rejected by the Supreme Court at first instance on 19 January 2007 and on appeal to the revisional jurisdiction of the court on 1 December 2010, in each case for the reasons the court had given in its Vrountou v. the Republic judgment. 5. A scheme of aid for displaced and other affected persons was introduced by the Council of Ministers by decision no. 13.503 of 19 September 1974. Under the scheme, displaced persons were entitled to refugee cards. The holders of such cards were (and still are) eligible for a range of benefits including housing assistance. For the purposes of the scheme the term “displaced” was determined by the Council of Ministers as being any person whose permanent residence is in the occupied areas, or in an inaccessible area or in an area which was evacuated to meet the needs of the National Guard. 6. A circular on the implementation of the scheme was issued by the Director of Care and Rehabilitation of Displaced Persons Service (“SCRDP”) on 10 September 1975. In relevant part it reads: “(a) When a displaced woman marries a non-displaced man, the husband and children cannot be registered or considered as displaced persons; (b) When a displaced man marries a non-displaced woman, the non-displaced wife will be registered on the refugee identity card of the husband. The children will be considered as refugees and will be registered on the refugee identity card of their father.” 7. Although the scheme was progressively extended, it was not until the passage of the Census Bureau (Amendment) (No. 2) Law of 2013 (N. 174(I)/2013) that children of displaced women became entitled to refugee cards on the same terms as the children of displaced men. 8. The pre-2013 scheme was unsuccessfully challenged before the Supreme Court by Maria Vrountou: Vrountou v. the Republic (appeal no. 3830). Ms Vrountou was the daughter of a displaced woman; she was refused a refugee card on 6 March 2003. Before the Supreme Court she claimed, inter alia, that the decision was in violation of the principle of equality safeguarded by Article 28 of the Constitution of Cyprus and in breach of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No 1. She claimed that the scheme also breached Article 13 of the Convention. 9. That challenge was dismissed at first instance on 12 May 2004 and on appeal by the Supreme Court (revisional jurisdiction) on 3 March 2006, the latter finding that it was unable to extend the application of the scheme to the children of displaced women when the legislature had not done so. Ms Vrountou lodged an application (33631/06) with this Court on 25 July 2006 and the Court gave judgment in her case on 13 October 2015.