VZCZCXRO9280
PP RUEHAG RUEHAST RUEHDA RUEHDBU RUEHDF RUEHFL RUEHIK RUEHKW RUEHLA
RUEHLN RUEHLZ RUEHNP RUEHPOD RUEHROV RUEHSK RUEHSL RUEHSR RUEHVK
RUEHYG
DE RUEHIT #0373/01 2741620
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 011620Z OCT 09
FM AMCONSUL ISTANBUL
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 9238
INFO RUEHZL/EUROPEAN POLITICAL COLLECTIVE
RUFOADA/JAC MOLESWORTH RAF MOLESWORTH UK
RHMFISS/JOINT STAFF WASHINGTON DC
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC
RUEUITH/ODC ANKARA TU
RUEKJCS/DIA WASHDC
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 ISTANBUL 000373 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PGOV PREL PHUM OSCE GR TU
SUBJECT: ECHR DECISION COULD OPEN FLOOD OF PROPERTY CASES 
 
This cable is SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED, please handle 
accordingly. 
 
¶1. (U) Summary:  The European Court of Human Rights has 
handed down a ruling against Turkey in a case of property 
rights for Greek citizens and inherited property in Turkey. 
The ECHR determined that the confiscation of the Greek 
citizen's property by the Treasury was illegal not only 
according to domestic Turkish laws, but also in light of the 
European Human Rights Convention.  The decision is important 
because it may invite potentially thousands of other 
applications to the ECHR for cases in which the confiscation 
of the property of Greek Orthodox Turkish citizens by the 
Turkish Treasury violated the inheritance rights of Greek 
citizen relatives.  End Summary. 
 
¶2. (U) According to the ECHR judgment issued September 29, 
2009, following the death of Greek citizen Polikseni Foka 
died in 2000, her Greek citizen brothers applied for the 
rights to her property but did not receive a favorable 
judgment from the Turkish courts.  The brothers then applied 
to the ECHR in 2002 with the claim that Turkey violated the 
European Human Rights Convention provision on property 
rights.  According to the ECHR judgment, the brothers further 
alleged that they had been discriminated against on the basis 
of their ethnic origins and religious convictions. 
 
¶3. (U) The relevant property consisted of immovable and 
movable property, particularly three buildings in Istanbul 
and income from rents, deposits, and valuable documents and 
deeds. In July 1987, the Istanbul 3rd Civil Court decided 
that the total of the above-mentioned property would be 
transferred by way of inheritance to Polikseni Foka, who was 
later transported by the police to a psychiatric center 
(where she stayed until her death in 2000.) However, in 1997, 
10 years after her entry into the center, the Turkish 
authorities using decrees from 1964, annulled the 1987 
decision by which Foka had inherited the property.. According 
to these decrees, a Greek national has no right to inherit in 
Turkey. Additionally, Turkey required that there be 
reciprocity with the inheritance laws of Greece.  Turkey 
contended the Greek Government applied similar provisions to 
persons of Turkish origins living in Greece and therefore 
Turkey could not grant greater property rights to Greek 
citizens. 
 
¶4. (U) Under the 1997 decision, the property was transferred 
to the Turkish Treasury, depriving Foka of her income from 
rent after she had already paid the inheritance tax which was 
due to the State.  The applicant brothers in the case pointed 
out that the 1964 decrees had been annulled in 1988 and 
therefore Foka's property was unlawfully confiscated by the 
Treasury in 1997.  The brothers argued to the ECHR that "the 
confiscation of Foka's property had been illegal, arbitrary, 
and abusive even under the domestic law of Turkey."  The ECHR 
also affirmed the Greek Government's contention in the case 
that in Greek law there was no provision prohibiting Turkish 
citizens from inheriting immovable property in any place or 
region of Greece, rendering moot Turkey's argument about 
reciprocity.  The ECHR found that there had been a violation 
of Article 1 of Protocol Number 1 to the European Convention 
of Human Rights and that there was no need to examine the 
additional complaints of the applicants regarding 
discrimination. In the judgment, the court invited Turkey and 
the applicants to submit, within three months, their written 
observations on the matter and to notify the Court of any 
agreement that they may reach. 
 
¶5. (SBU) Kezban Hatemi, a lawyer for the Greek Orthodox 
Ecumenical Patriarchate, said that there were many other 
Greek citizens, like the Foka brothers, whose inheritance 
rights were not accepted by the Turkish judiciary. "Instead 
of making impartial, bipartisan decisions, they brought the 
issue to this point because of their prejudice because these 
people are Greeks or Christians."  According to Hatemi, 
Turkey may face thousands of other cases as there is no 
statute of limitations for inheritance cases. 
 
¶6. (SBU) Comment:  The Greek Orthodox community in Turkey - 
less than 2,000 by most estimates - has shrunk significantly 
since 1955 as families moved out of Turkey seeking a more 
welcoming environment.  As many have returned to Greece and 
obtained full Greek citizenship, such cases may become more 
common as families battle for inheritance rights. With some 
exceptions where domestic legal decisions continue, the 
Turkish authorities generally give effect to the ECHR 
 
ISTANBUL 00000373  002 OF 002 
 
 
decisions. For this reason we think the ECHR decision may 
cause an upsurge both in the number of similar cases brought 
to Turkish courts, as well as those that had already passed 
through the Turkish court system and are now eligible for the 
ECHR.  End Comment. 
WIENER