Turkey failed to persuade the Council of Europe’s ministerial committee that it has fulfilled its obligations under a landmark European Court of Human Rights ruling concerning property rights in Cyprus.

The decision was taken during the committee’s examination of the property dimension of the Cyprus’ case against Turkey.

According to the foreign ministry, member states approved a proposal submitted by Cyprus requesting the preparation of an interpretative question concerning paragraph 63 of the ECHR’s previous judgment in 2014.

The proposal received the support of 25 member states, while two countries voted against while 19 abstained.

The move means the committee will continue supervising the execution of the judgment rather than bringing the process to a close, as Turkey had sought.

The committee is responsible for monitoring the implementation of judgments delivered by the ECHR and examining whether states have complied with their legal obligations under the convention.

The issue under discussion concerns the implementation of the court’s rulings relating to property rights affected by the Turkish invasion of 1974 and the remedies available to refugees whose property has been usurped.

Cyprus argued during the proceedings that clarification is required regarding the interpretation and implementation of specific parts of the judgment and requested that preparations begin for a possible referral under Article 46.3 of the ECHR.

That provision allows the committee to refer a question to the ECHR where difficulties arise regarding the interpretation of a judgment during the execution process.

According to the foreign ministry, Turkey opposed the proposal and argued that the threshold required for such a step had not been met.

The ministry said Turkey also requested a written legal opinion on the procedure being followed, yet no such request was accepted by the committee.

Foreign Minister Constantinos Kombos welcomed the outcome following the conclusion of the meeting.

“Today, in the context of this discussion, Turkey did not achieve its goal,” he said.

Kombos said Turkey had sought to secure closure of the supervision process concerning the property aspect of the case.

He added that the result reflected coordinated work by the foreign ministry, the legal service, and the deputy European affairs ministry.

“This is not the end of the road. Several significant efforts are still required,” he said.

The committee has instructed its secretariat to begin preparing the draft interpretative question that could be referred to the ECHR.

The matter is expected to return to the committee during its session in June next year.

A final decision to submit the question to the court would require the support of a qualified majority of member states, equivalent to at least 31 votes.

The decision keeps open international supervision of the property element of the case while discussions continue regarding the interpretation of the court’s judgment and the measures required for implementation.

Reaction from the Turkish Cypriot side focused on the procedural nature of the outcome.

Turkish Cypriot leader Tufan Erhurman said the decision did not constitute a finding that Turkey had failed to implement the judgment and stressed that no referral to the ECRHR had yet taken place.

According to Erhurman, the committee authorised the preparation of an interpretative question but did not itself decide to seek a ruling from the court.

He also said the decision did not alter the legal position of the Immovable Property Commission (IPC) operating in the north.