Akademik Veri Yönetim Sistemi
XIII Global Waqf Conference, Rabat, Fas, 25 - 27 Kasım 2025, (Özet Bildiri)
Introduction: Comparative Law of Endowments is an emerging sub-discipline that compares the laws of endowments in nation-states, as well as a field that includes comparisons of types of endowments across global legal systems. One productive way to address these two dimensions is to seek traces of endowments in the decisions of supranational courts. Disputes concerning endowments have increasingly appeared in the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in recent years. One such case is the court decision dated June 10, 2025, K.V. Mediterranean Tours Limited v. Türkiye.
Issues and problems: The dispute at issue in the ECtHR decision primarily concerned the alleged intervention of a Cypriot endowment in the proceedings, the practices in the enclosed area of Varosha in the city of Famagusta, Cyprus, and the alleged lack of impartiality of the High Administrative Court of Northern Cyprus, the appeal court for the Immovable Property Commission (IPC) cases. The case also involved the alleged length of the proceedings before the IPC. In its decision dated June 10, 2025, the ECtHR confirmed that the IPC constitutes an effective domestic remedy. The court members reiterated that the IPC has recognition as a legal avenue for Greek Cypriots seeking to assert their rights before the ECtHR. The members also held that the involvement of the Cyprus Evkaf Administration in the IPC proceedings as an interested party did not render the proceedings unfair, as the application concerned a property located within the enclosed area of Varosha. The judges also rejected allegations of impartiality by the High Administrative Court. On the other hand, the ECtHR found that Turkish authorities violated the principle of property protection. The court found that the IPC had failed to act consistently, diligently, and promptly in its examination of the claim. Overall, the court acknowledged the progress made by the IPC in processing property cases. However, under Article 46 (binding force and execution of judgments) of the European Convention on Human Rights, it held that consistent and sustained efforts should be pursued, particularly in the context of Article 46 (binding force and execution of judgments), to expedite IPC proceedings and to establish a truly effective remedy for delays.
Research methodology: In this paper, I will not discuss the accuracy of the court’s decision. While of great importance, that issue is the subject of a separate discussion. Here, I will primarily address how a supranational court decision held the concept of endowment and the fundamentals of the law of endowments. In doing so, I will focus on how the plaintiff, defendant, members of the court, and other individuals or institutions involved in the dispute understood these fundamental concepts. I will focus on how they incorporated these concepts into their claims, defenses, decisions, and statements. As part of my analysis, I will use the decision above to illustrate the function and importance of the comparative law of endowments.
Discussion, findings, and suggestion: In this context, I will highlight some significant elements that make analyzing the decision from a comparative law perspective valuable. First, I should note that the plaintiff’s country (Cyprus) and the defendant’s country (Türkiye) have different national legal systems. Furthermore, these countries are part of two distinct legal systems: Common Law and Civil Law. Thirdly, I should note that while the rules of the law of endowments in both countries were similar for most of the nineteenth century, they have followed divergent paths in the law of endowments over the last fifteen decades, considerably due to their political histories. Finally, in the face of all these differences and similarities, the relationship of a supranational court (ECtHR) to a “comparative” perspective is a substantial unit of analysis.