HUMAN AND MINORITY RIGHTS IN GREECE:THE INHANLI LAND DISPUTE FILE

Baskın ORAN

A land dispute case, important both legally and politically;is current1y being heard in Western Thrace, a region in Greececoniguous to the Turkish frontier.l

This land dispute, which first began in 1953 as a result ofan expropriation move by the Greek Government, has gonethrough the legal phases summarized bdow, and is presentlyat the stage of recourse to the Greek Court of Appeals, the ap-penants being the Western Thrace villagers who have beendec1ared as "unlawful interferents" by the ruling of a Court ofFirst Instance in Iskeçe (Xantby).

There are certain reasons behind this case which give itdimensions surpassing those of an ordinary land dispute thatone may always come across. FirstIy, the Western Thrace villa-gers referred to, apart from being "ordinary" Greek citizens,are members of a Moslem community with rninority status, re-cognized and protected by various international treaties. Thematter attains many-faceted international dimensions in viewof the fact that this community, besides its religious ties, has<ılso racial and historicallinks with a Kin-State2•

Secondly, the Western Thrace Turks, who have aıreadybeen complaining for quite a time nowover discriminative actsagainst them on account of being a minority, believe that in this

This artiele, wrilten at the beginning of June 1982, eonstitutes part of a widerstudy on Western Thrace. i would !ike to extand my gratitude to the Tur-kish Foreign Ministry, and to the authorities of its Greek Department inpartieular, for permitting me to make use of records in their archives.

2 For the "Kin-State" concept, see lnis L. Claude Jr., National Miııorities, anIııternatioııal Problem, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1955, p. 5.

20 THE TURKISH YEARBOOK [VOL. XVIII

land dispute in particular they have been eonfronted with a situ-ation of f1agrant injustice. Considering this as the last straw,they started a passiye resistanee campaign in March 1982 whichled to the development of the Western Thrace problem into areaIIy problem-generating issuc in the aıready tense Turco-Greek relations.

The object of this artiele is to outline the stages throughwhieh the said land ease has passed so far; study the relevantdoeuments made up of international treaties, national laws, regu-lations and court rulings; determine the legal position, and then,through a comparison of this with the legal results obtainedthus far, try to ascertain whether the picture emerging can bereeoneiIed with the rule of law or not. Furthermore, the aim ofthe latter analysis is to see whether a legal issue can be treatedlawfulIy when there is a minority element to it, i.e. to examine,by treating Western Thraee as a case-study within Turco-Greekrelations, whether it is affected or not by the political ebb andf10w in such relations.

Western Thrace Region and Us Historical Past

Western Thrace is a narrow region w;th an area of 8578 sq.kilometers on Greece's border with Turkey. it stretehes from theMaritza river in the East as far as the Mesta-Karasu river inthe West. In the North, the region incIudes the Rhodope Mo-untains and in the South it ends at the Aegean Sea.

The name Thrace İs derİvcd from Thracs, who came andsettled there İn 2000 B.C. The Ottoman Turks occupied the eas-tern part of the region İn 1363 which was part of the EasternRoman (Byzantine) Empire, and İts western part in 1394. TheOttoman sovereignty over the region was until 1878 undis-putcd. In that year, foIIowing the oceupation of Eastern Thraceby the Russian arınies, a period of unrest in Western Thrace toobegan, continuing untiI 1924.

To counteract the Russian threat, the Western Thrace Turksin 1878 formed a provisional Rhodope GovernmenL The peacebrought about by the Treaty of Berlin in 1878 came to an end withthe Balkan Wars. As a result of these wars, the Ottoman Empire

1978] RIGHTS IN GREECE 21

abandoned Western Thrace to BuIgaria with the Treaty of Istem-bul in 1913. The region went through a period of great politicalactivity until it was occupied by Greece after the World War.Later, with the Treaty of Sevres, the region was annexed by Gree-ce on 10 August 1920. Section Three of the Turkish NationalPact setting out the basic principles to be attained by the Tur-kish War of Lib~ration under the leadership of Mustafa KemalPasha in the face of Greece's move to occupy Western AnatoJiain May 1919 provided for the holding of a referendum in Wes-tern Thrace but this, however, couId not become a reality. Whe-reas Eastern Thrace was brought within the boundaries drawnby the Turkish War of Indepcndence, which was crowned withsuccess in 1922, the Wcstern Thrace region was left to Greccewith the Treaty of Lausanne of 24 July 1923.

With the signing in Lausanne of a "Treaty and Protocolon the Exchange of Greek and Turkish Populations" on 30-January 1923, Turkeyand Greece decided on a compulsory exc-hange of all Greeks-Orthodox of Turkish nationality and Mos-lems of Greek nationality living in each other' s country, as from1 May 1923. There were, however, two exceptions to this arrar;-gement, namely, the Greeks settled ("etablis") in Istanbul, andthe Moslems in Western Thracc. Thus, a 130.000 - strong Tur-kisJ:ı community, who at the time outnumb~red Greeks 4 to 13,was left at the Turkish border of Greece.

The dispute to be examined in this artiele is the story of anextent of land of 1800 doenums belonging to this minority at thevillage of Inh~nlı (Evlalon) in Iskeçe (Xanthi) District.

• * *Between 1878 and 1923 Western Thrace went throegh a

rather turbulent period full of activity aimed "t demonstratingits Turkish identity. Five governments were established, one afterthe other, in the region after 1913. However, after its annexationby Greece, Western Thrace has never created any problems forthe Greek State, but has manifested a sense of Ioyalty and sta-bility that has withstood the test of various periods of crisis likethe one witnessed during the Second World War and the subse-

3 Officia i Minutes of the Lausamıe Confereııce, Firs t Series, yoU, pp. 42-49.The Greek official figures were not much differen!: 114.810 Turks against44.686 Greeks.

22 THE TURKISH YEARBOOK [VOL. XVIII

quent civil war. This could possibly be attributed, on the onehand, to the traditional passivity of a rural community whichhas lost hope of joining its kin-state, and also to its relativelyorderly life style stemming from the minority rights broughtabol't by international treaties.

Notwithstanding this however, from the 1950's onwards,the peace and quiet of this Western Thrace minority began todeteriorate at a far greater pace than before. This s;tuation, alongwith various difficulties put in the way of Turkish minority sc-hools, community, pious foundations (wakfs), and individuals,reflected particularly on land matters, the most important factorfor the cxistence of a rural community.

In such a context, the fact that Inhanlı land dispute startedin 1953 bears a particular significance.

Legal Stages of the Dispute

As has aıready been stated, the land problem of Inhanlıvillage is presentIy (October 1982) at the stage of appeaI. it hasgone through the foIlowing stages since its start in 1953:

1) The Greek Ministry of Agriculture took a decision (no.E-7785, 3 June 1953) in 1953 and stated that 2300 doenums ofland (l doenum is approximately 1000 sq. meters) in Inhanlı(Evlalon) village area had been expropriated for distributionto landless farmers. The 1800 doenums of Turkish minorityland, which has been the subject of present controversy andlegal action, was included in the said figure.

2) FoIlowing objections made, The Expropriation Comm-ission of Xanthy Province, to which Inhanh village is admini-stratively attached, declared the Ministry's decisic,n invalid in1956 (no. 403, 27 Septeınber 1956).

The Commission's decision stated that the expropriatedland had belonged to Hatipoğlu Hüseyin and Idrig AğaoğluMoIl? Mustafa for over 85 years; that this was indicated in theTurkish Imperial Ownership Certificate, no. 103 of 1873; thatthe 27 heirs of the said two men were cultivating the land, whichhad aıready been fragmentcd by way of inheritance, and thateach fragınent in the possession of heirs did not exceed 500 doe-

1978) RIGHTS IN GREECE 23

nums, the legall;mit of expropriation; thus, the land in question,which was shown as 3200 doenums in the acquisition decisionand as 2121, 250 doenums in the Ownership Register, oughtnot to b~ expropriated, the Commission conduded.

3) In the meantime, a document of Xanthy's Departmentof Agriculture (no.26999, 20 Novemb~r 1964), b~aring the sig-nature of Xanthy's Governer, lifted the ban on the Iegal sale ofpastures and meadows in Inhanlı area, permitting some Wes-tern Thrace Turks settled in Turkey to transfer their shares, byway of gift, to a certain Hüsnüoğlu Nuri of Inhanlı4•

Following objections raised by the Greek Treasury to thedecision stated in para. no. 2 above, the Greek State Properties'Council in its observation (no.175, 12 June 1969) consideredwhether the State had rights over the 1800 doenums of land in-herited by the heirs of Hatipoğlu Hüseyin Ağa and Idris Ağa-oğlu Molla Mustafa and reached the following decision:

According to Art. 2/4 of Greek Law no.147 of 1914 regar-ding the validity of Art. 78 of the Ottoman Law of 7 Ramadan1274 (Mos1em year corresponding to 1858) in areas which hadearlier been under the sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire, anyperson, who tills State land for a period of 10 years without anybreak and without any objections thereto, gains the right ofpossession of and definite setdement on such property until 20May 1917 even if he is not in possession of a certificate of regist-ration concerning such property5. What is more, these personswere issued a registration certificate (no. 103) in February 1872.

4 The purchase and salc of immovable property in Western Thrace is subjectto permission as a general principle because it is regardcd as a frontier region.See Greek Official Gazette, 7 September 1938, vol. 1, no. 310: "Law Basedon Need no. 1366/ 1938, concerning the Prohibition of the Use of thc Rightof Purchase and Sale of Property in Border and Coastal Arcas".

5 In the Ottoman Empire the Conversion of State Land into Property (Privatc)was rcgulatcd by the Land Code of 1858. The part of Art. 78 of the said Codeis as follows: "Le droit de permanence sera acquis lı toute personne qui,pendant une periode de dix annees, aura possede ct cu1tive sans conteste desterres miri ou mevkoufe, que cette personne ait ou non cntre ses mains untitre legal ou juste; la terre ne peut des lors ctre consideree comme vacante,et on doit lui delivrer, san s frais, un nouvcau tapou". For the text in Frenchof the Land Code of 1858 See, George Young, Corps de Droit O/foman, volu-me VI, Oxford, 1906. This "Droit de Permanence" (possession right) passes onto heirs also.

21 THE TURKISH YEARBOOK [VOL. XVIII

AIthough offİcials of Greek Finances have expressed doubtsabout this certİficate, it İs neverthless cIear that according to theLaw of i858 Hatipoğlu and Idris Mustafa had, at least for 10years, occupicd and possessed the said land. Even if the registra-tİon certificatc were to be taken as unreliable, what is importantis that the State lands were occupied and tilIed by the presentowners or their ancestors with the intention of possessing them,for Lo years without any objection and break before 20 May'i9i7 and up to 12 November i929 when the Presidential Decreeconcerning th~ administration of State 1ands was put into ef-fcct6• As none of the present owners possess over 500 doenums,the State must avoid expropriating the said Iands. If, however,in an effort to disprove tris line of reasoning, the departmentsconcerned were to put forward and prove a serious and soundargument, i.e. that the present owners, or their heirs, had not,within the critical dates stated, tilIed the land in dispute, eitheras a wholc or in fragments, withthe intention and purpose ofpossessing it and without objections, then a reconsiderationof the matter b::fore the Council will again becomepossible.

5) This opinion of the Council was accepted by the Direc-torate of State Properties of the Ministry of Finance (Decisionno. D-8669j3065, 13 October 1969), and was communicated tothe heirs concerned in return for a receipt (no. 8747, Lo Novem-ber 1969).

6) Af ter it announced in i969 that the expropriation of thelands of Inhanl. farmers was not legal, the Statc Properties'CounciF suddenly changed its attitude in 1974 and unanimouslyadopted a completely adverse opinion (no. 103,24 October 1974).

6 When the Law of 1914 recognized the validity of 1858 Land Code, it onlygranted 4/5 of the property rights, keeping 1 /5 as State property. The Pre-sidential Decree no. 1I, datcd 12 Novcmber 1929 mentioned above was issuedwith the purpose of turning this i /5 part over to those who had received 4/5parts earlier.

7 The name of this official establishment is given as the "State Properties'Considcration Commission" in the Court decision to be mentioned below.

The documents used in support of the present artiele are the Turkishtranslation s of Greck official documents kept in the archives of the TurkishForeign Ministry. Thc terms used in the translations are reproduced here astheyare. The likelihood of translation mistakcs should, therefore, be keptin view. Mistakes in dates and proper names in particular are frequenl.

1978 ] RIGHTS IN GREECE 2S

it said in bricf: Although the heİrs of Hatipoğlu and IdrisMustafa, relying on the Imperial Ownership Registration (TitleD~cds) (no. 103 of 1872) of their ancestors, are daiming posses-sion rights, it is understood from the Xanthi Agrict'ltural De-partment letter, (no.2 of 10January 1973), that the land, farmingthe subject matter of this case, consİsts of pastures and of public

. property (settlement places, cemeteries, roads, and the 'like)and that those making claims have never owned it. Consequentlythe land in question belongs to the Treasury.

7) This new opinion has been accepted by the State Proper-ties' Directorate of the Ministry of Finance (no. D-6864/294,13 January 1975), which has taken the decision to inform theparties concerned. Xanthy's Property Directorate has been pre-paring and servİng eviction orders since June 1981. In the caseof those not accepting them, these have b~en pasted to their doors.

8) In the face of this situation, the Western Thrace farmersfiled in 127 cases of objection. On i April 1982, a MagisterialCourt in Xanthy consolidated all the 127 cases of objection andtook adecisian which led to considerable reaction in the Tur-kish press, and to an abandonment by the villagers of Inhanhof their passiye attitude. They organized asit-in demonstrationthat included womenfaik and children, which went on for daysin the Clock Square of Xanthy.

The Xanthy Magisterial Court ruling said in brief: Altho-ugh the Iands, won by tilling them for 10 years according to thelaw of 1858, have been transferred to those working on the~with full registered ownership rights in line with the PresidentialDecree of 1929, this practice relates only to lands that can becultivated, and is not valid in the case of different eategory oflands Le. winter and summer pastures, roads, threshing plc;lces,squares and other comman places. it is probable that the cate.-.gories of these lands in 1872 were like that (pasture, place ofcomman use and the like)judging by the Certificate no. 103 of1872~The land is referred to as winter pasture and for this reasonserious doubts arise as to tbe legality of the certificate of regist-ratian. Of eourse, the present condition of occupied propertiesİs different from that at th~ outset, because as a r~sult of theeffects of natural forees and the interventibn of teehnical forcesand of human b~ingsby a long chalk, their greater part has beco-

26 THE TURKISH YEARBOOK [VOL. XVIlI

me cultivable. But this cannot have a bearing on the case, beca-use the critical point is the category in 1872.Therefore, the landbelongs to the Treasury as the successor of the Ottoman Empire.

Analysis of the Documents

The legal story of the land dispute between villagers ofTurkish ongin and the Greek authorities can be summarizedthus on the basis of documents. At the moment of writing, thevilhıgers of Inbanlı have an appeal pending before the GreekCourt of Appeals. We sl>al1now try to examine these doeumcntsas a whole and one by one, and interpret them, and endeavour,from a stnedy legalistie point of view, to reaeh a conclusionas to what the outcome of this appeal should legaııy be.

1- The Greek authorities, at the outset of the dispute, haveadmitted in an indirect way, through the decision of the Mi-nistry of Africtılture referred to in Para. no. i above, that thesaid land of 1800 doenums is in the possession of InhanIı far-mers; because of the fact that an expropriation order is tanta-mount to acknowledging that the land is under private ownership.As amatter of fact, the doeuments mentioned in paras. nos.2, 3, 4, and 5 refer to this decision and acknowledge ownership.

Apart from the above, two other documents substantiatethe ownership of Int,anlı villagers over their 1800 doenums ofland. One of these documents is a topographie map issued withthe approval of the Greek Ministry of Agrieulture, indicatingthat the said land is properly numbered as property belongingto the Turks (No.T /6217 of 5 June 1961). The other is a propertyregister similarly indieating the names of the Turks as the prop-rietors, giying at the same time precise information as to the areapossessed by each of them.

II- Until 1974, the situation followed the normal procedureinvolved in an expropriation, aeknowledging the ownershipof Inhanlı vilIagers over the said Iands; but after this date, howe-ver, the Greek authorities suddenly aItered their attitude. Theybegan to araue that the Inhanlı villagers had no private owners-hip right over the said 1800 doenums and demanded the seizureof these "unlawfully interfered" State Iands.

r

1978 ] RIGHTS IN GREECE 27

The contradiction between the Council opınıon of 1969,which found the cIaims of the Inhanlı villagers justified, andthat of the same Council in 1974,which said they were unjustified,is explained by the presence of a "secret" Ietter, dated LO Janıı-ary 1973 and received by this body from the Agricultural Dep-artment of Xanthy. When the lawyer of Inhanh villagers askedto see this letter by submitting a formal appIication on 28 January1982, he received a reply (no. 47296,29 January 1982)from theDirectaraf Xanthy Agricultural Department stating that it couldnot be handed to him because it was "confidential". the 1974opinion, on the other hand mentioned in para. no. 6 above, refersto it by stating: "It is understood from the Xanthy AgriculturalDepartment letter, no. 2 of 10 January 1973, that ... " ete. andopenly ereates the impression that the substance of the letterdoes not go beyand arguing that the disputed land is a landbelonging to the public.

111- But, in these documents, the matters which draw one'sattention are not confined to this alone. When theyare exami-ned one by one, or are compared with each other, one comesacross definite errors, inconsistencies and contradietions. Inorder to determine these correetly, it is necessary to look at theland registry record of the said land taken from Ottoman LandRegisters8•

This Certificate of Registration is exactly as foIIows:District: Gumuldjine- Yenidje KarasuVilIage or Quarter: InchaIIuLocaIity: At the viIIage of Inehallu,Kind and type: KıshlakValue: 30.000 Kurush [piasters]Donum: 1800Border: On the one side of the Kİshlak belonging to the Farm

is the Oksuzlu Pasture, then Mukmul Spring, and the Bey~koy border and then Beke Obası and pasture.

8 Copy in latin characters issucd and confirmed as authentic by the Directo-rate General of Land Registar and Cadastre of Turkey, dated 31 October1968, no. 12610. .

2B THE TURKISH YEARBOOK [VOL. XVIII

Reason of Acquisition: Rendered necessary by a dccision ofright.

Owner: Hatipoglu Hussein Aga and Idris Agaoglu Moııa Mus-tafa.

No. of Registration Issued: 103Jts Date: February 1288, control page and general No. 65/

272.

Once in possession of the vital document of this land dis-pute, we can move on to a closer examination of the Greck do-cuments.

The Council opinion of i974 referred to in para. no. 6states that the 1800 doenums of land, are "pasture and landbelonging to the public" whereas, says the opinion, the certifi-catc of registration talks only of "cultivable lands" and not of"pasture or lands in the service of the public".

First of all, the certificate of registration talks of "Kishlakbelonging to the Farrn" and not of cultivable land. i shall, in awhile, dweıı upon this term "Kishlak" in particular.

Secondly, this opinion of the Council is definitely in cont-radiction with the interpretation of "Kishlak" mentioned inthe Xantlıy Cont decision referred to in para. no. 8 above. Thislast decision interprets the term "Kishlak" in the certificatc ofregistration as "pasture" by saying: "It is probable that the ca-tegories of these lands in 1872were pasture and place of commonuse, judging by the certificate of registration," and it goes onto state that this pasture has presently b~en turned into "culti-vable Iand". fn short, according to the Council opinion of 1974,the disputed land in the certificate of registration is "cultivableIand"; and today it is "Iand belonging to the public". On theother hand, according to the Court ruling of i982, the same landis just the opposite: in the certificate of registration it is "com-rnon pasture", and presently (due to the effect of various factors)it is "cultivated Iand".

The following is the outcome of contradiction between thetwo official documents: The term "Kİsbıak", which forms thecrucial point of this legal problem, whether intentionally or nothas been used by Greek authorities, without a full comprehens-

1978] RIGHTS IN GREECE 29

ion of its real meaning. What has to be done before artythingelse then, is to determine what meaning, or meanings, thisOttoman land term eonveys.

For the deseription of "kishlak" one can refer to Young'sbook9: "Les kiehlaks, paturages d'hiver, sont des terrains quipar suite de la doueeur du elimat, de leur situation abritee et del'abondanee de l'herbe et de l'eau, eonvİennent partieulierementa faire sejourner et paturer les troupeaux pendant l'hiver."

The same souree alsa reproduees Art. 24 of the OttomanLand Code mentioning this term, at the top of the same page,under "Acquisition des Terres Miri":

"Art. 24: Les Paturages d'hiver (kiehlak) et les Pilturagesd'ete (yailak) a l'exception de eeux qui sont abandonnes a l'usagemiri ordinaires, lorsqu'ils sont ab antiquo possedes par tapau,a titre partieulier au par indivis (sic: individus). Toutes les dis-positions applieables aux terres miri le sont egalement a ces pa-turagcs d'hiver et d'ete. Les deux espeees de yailaks et de 'kieh-laks' (c'est a dire ceux des eommunes ct des partieuliers) sontsoumis aux droits sur les paturages dits 'yailakie' et 'kichlakİl~'proportionnellement a leur rapport"

From the Imperial eertifieates of registratian and fromArt. 24 of the 1858 Ottoman Land Code whieh is the souree ofthese eertifieatcs, both reeognized by Greece, we understandthat "kishlaks" and "yaylaks" are of two kinds. The first eate-gory are those with registration certificates and subject to pri-vate ownership (whieh is regul(l.ted by Art. 24)10. The secondkind, are those left in the possession of one, or more than one vil-1(I.geas joint property (regulated in Art. to1).

The eertificate of registration issued in 1872 has, as amatterof fact, made this differenee clear by its deseription ("Kishlak

9 Young, ap.cif., yol. VI, p. 52, footnote 24.10 The French translation of Art. 24 quoted aboyc is a little different than its

original text in üttoman Turkish and is Iiablc to cause confusion in asimilarproportion; bccause in the original text it is stated that "kishlaks" and "yai-Iaks" with certificates of registration are no different from the "arazi-i mez-rua" (cultiyated Iand), instead of from "miri arazi" (State Iand). For text,See Atif Bey's Arazi KanU/ıu Şerhi (The Interpretation of Land Law), Is-tanbul, 1330 [1914]. p. 102. I would like to thank Professor Gündüz Ökçünfor bringing this book in arabic characters to my attention and for kindlyreading it to me.

30 THE TURKISH YEARBOOK [VOL. XVIII

beIonging to the Farm") and at the same time indicated that the"kishlak" in the certificate of registration is of the first kind.

To sum up:The "kishlak", term used in Greek official texts without

any definition and in a contradictory way, all the same constitutcsthe crucial point in this nry dispute, and is of two kind. Thefirst, as has been .stated in a very explicit manner by Atif Bey onpage 103 of his book, entitled, "The Interpretation of LandLaw", is the kind plaeed in private charge by title deeds; andbecause of this, it is in "no way different" from "Iand used forfarming" (arazi-i mezrua).

The second is the kind reserved to common use in villagesand considered under the type of "allocated land" (arazi-i met-ruke). In the case of Inhanlı farmers, judging by the certificateof registration of i872 in their possession, thdr land can onlybe classified in the first category, and their 1800 docnums ofland is property subject to private ownership, irrespective of itspast or present state of cultivation.

Anyway, sinee Greeec has regarded as valid the provisionsof the Code of 1858 concerning the aequisition of State Iands,she must take actions in accordance with the Code and recognizethe registration certificate delivered on the basis of that Code.Besides, the Convention and Protocol of 30 January 1923 con-cerning the Exchange of Turkish and Greek Populations (Art.16/2), the Athens Agreement of 1926 (Art. 9/1), the AnkaraConvention of 10 June 1930 (Arts. 15, 17, and 29), and finallyıhe Ankara Agreement of 1933 (Art. 12) guarantee the propertyrights of the Western Thrace Turks!!. Anyone of these two po-

ıı Convention Conceming the Exchange of Grcek and Turkish Populations,30 January 1923.Art 16/2: "Les Hautes Parties contractantes s'engagent mutuellement ilce qu'aucune pression direete ou indireete ne soit exercee sur [es populationsqui doivent etre echangees pour leur faire quitter leurs foyers ou se dessaisirde leurs biens avant la date fixce pour leur depart. Elles s'engagcnt cgale-ment il ne soumettre les emigrants, ayant quitle ou qui doivent quittcr lepays, il aucun impôt ou taxe extraordinaire. Aucune entrave ne sera apportecau libre exercice, par les habilants des regions exceptees de l'echange en vertude l'Artiele 2, de leur droit d'y rester ou d'y rentrer et de jouir libremcnt deleurs libertes et de leurs droits de propricte en Turquie et en Grece. Cette

1978] RIGHTS IN GREECE 31

ints would suffice, in a legal state of affairs, to prevent the Tn-hanlı villagers from being regarded as "unlawful interferents".

Conclıısion

Despitc this legal position, the Greek authorities, beingunable to cxpropriate the minority's lands because they wereinferior to the cxpropriation limit (500 doenums) as a resultof inheritcnce, resorted, this time, to the argument of "unlawfulinterference" and have chosen to subject the Western Thrace

disposition ne sera pas invoquee comme motif pour empecher la Iibrealienation des biens appartenant aux habitants desdites regions exceptces deI'echange et le depart volontaire de ceux de ces habitants qui desireDt quitterla Turquie ou la Grece."The Athens Agreement of i December 1926, Art. 9/ I."Les proprietes rurales et urbaines restees en dehors de I'application de lamesure prevue dans I'artiele i, de meme que celles situees dans la region deGrece exceptee de l'echange, seront restituees il leurs proprietaires, Iibres detoutes charges, dans un delai d'un mois il partir de la mise en vigueur du pre-sent accord."The Ankara ConveDtion of 10 June 1930.Art. 15: "Toutes les mesures qui ont entravc I'exercice des droits garantisaux etablis par les Conventions et Accords conelus, notamment celles con-ccrnant le droit de contracter mariage, le droit d'acquerir et de vendre desprorpictes, le droit de Iibre circulation ainsi que toutes autres restrictionsordonnees par les autorites heIleniques il I'egard des personnes visees dansI'article precede'nt, seront levees des la mise en vigueur de la presente Co n-vention, sans attendre la distribution des certificats d'etablis prevue dans ledernier alİnea de I'article prccedent." Art. 17: "Sous reserve des dispositionscontenues dans fes alineas 3 et 4 de I'artiele 16, le droit de propriete des etab-lis Musulmans presents dans la zone de la Thrace Occidentale exceptee deI'echange, ainsi que des personnes beneficiant du droit de retour, aux termesde I'article 14 de la presente Convention, sur leurs biens meubles et imme-ubles sis dans la zone de la Thrace Occidentale exceptee de I'echange, n'est,en aucun sens, affccte par les dispositions de la presente Convention. Toussaisies ou sequestres operes sur les biens mentionnes dans I'alinea precedentde cet artiele seront leves sans aucun retard, la rcİntegration du proprietaireou de son representant legal dans la libre et pleine possession et jouissancede ces biens ne pouvant etre differee il aucun titre." Art. 29: "Sous reservedes dispositions du droit commun et de celles de I'artiele 25 de la presenteConvention, il ne sera procede il ravenir il aucune saisie ou mesure restrictivequelconque il I'egard des biens dont la propriete n'aura pas ete transferee ilI'un des deux Gouvernements, en vertu de la presente Convention et leursproprietaires seront libres de jouir, et disposer de leurs biens et de les ad mi-nistrer comme bon leur semble."

32 THE TURKISH YEARBOOK [VOL. XVIII

villagersto illegaI action. it is hard to avoid reaching this conc-lesion whenone compares the results of the documents referredto above with the existing de (aclo situation.

The Turkish villagers of Inhanh have been faced sincc 1974with the danger of being dispossessed of their lands; and jud-ging by the course of the case, whicl> I have tried to summariz~İn tbis artiele, such dispossession secms imminenL There is talk,İn themeantime, that th~ tand is tc be aııoeated to a privateconstruetion company, the "Ektenepc,l".

Sinee what has been stated above ca rı in no way be attribl'tedto any ilIegaI attitude by the Western Thraee Trrkish minoritytowards their own State, it can be arguedthat the situation ema-nates from two sources: one, from the old desire of the GreekGovernment to Heııenize the region, whieh was put to practieeas soon as the Lausanne Peaee Treaty was signedl2, and Iwo,from the state of Tureo-Greek relations. The latter point seemsto b~ as important as the former especially sinee the ı950's.

As a matter of fact, the beginning of the Inhanli Iand disputecoineides with the start of Greek agitations in Cyprus aimedat uniringthe Island with Greece, the last example of GreekIrredentism. Furthermore, when the bloody incidents reacheda climax in 1964 and began to threaten the very existeneeof theTurkish Community on the Island, a eountermeasure of theTurkish Government has been one of the causes behind thestepping up of the pressı-re on the Western Thraee Turkish mi-nority13. For instanee, teaeher appointments to the minority's

12 See the confession by the Greek Minister of Agriculture Mr. Bakkalbashiquoted in Haluk Bayülken, "Turkish Minorities in Greece", Turkish Year-bookof International Relations for 1963, Ankara, 1965, pp. 160-161.

13 In 1964 the Turkish Government abrogated, using Art. 36, the Treaty onSettiement, Trade and Navigation of 30 October 1930 between the two co-untries: As aresult, Greek nationals working in Turkey were foreed to returnto ıheir country. This, in turn"had an indireet diminishing effect on the GreekOrthodox minority in IstanbuL. Those married with the Greek national s andthose' whose business suffered from the rising tension ehose to go and settlein Greece. The majority of these have retained their Turkish nationality lothis day. At present there are about 60 to 70 thousand Greeks of Turkish na-tionality living in Greece, mostiy around Athens.The Greek pressures on the Western Thraee communily, compared with theones faeed by the Istanbul Greeks when the Turkish Government decided to

1978] RIGHTS IN GREECE :'13

schools were stoppcd after 1964. The authoritics also began tointerfcrc with the communal elections. It is not without interestto rememb~r that the opinion given in favour of the Trcasuryby the Greek Statc Propertics' Council in a complcte disrcgeı.rdof its earlier opinion, bears the date of October 1974; whilcTurkey's troop landings on Cyprus as an implcmentation of

reciproeate the same way, have been by far, mueh heavier and more effective.In Istanbul, a metropolitan area with same 4 miııion habitants enjoying İn-eomparable edueational, social, economie ete. advantages eompared to themedioere rural area that is the Western Thraee, the Greek minority was ableto send its children to French, British or American sehools or to re-start amore prosperous business in Athens by transforming the old center in İstanbulinto a braneh. There was definitly more opportunities in a Greece now in-tegrated to Europc, for an Istanbul Greek who derived his economie powerfrom trade business; while the Western Thrace Turk who depended eomple-telyon his land and who, as a result, had no such horizontal mobility, had nochoice but suffer pressure or else leave everything bchind to go and "exiie"himself in Turkey, with no land to tiıı or business to start. However, it is esti-mated that since 1923 approximately 250.000 members of this minority had tomigrate to Turkey.ün the other hand, the fact that the Community's population has remainedalmost the same over the years due to a very high birth rate (3%) and attach-ment to land, causes a great dea iof disturbance to the Greek authorities whoregard this nature of the Turkish minority as a faetor upsetting the balancevis-il-vis the drop in the numerical strength of Greeks in Istanbul and whoare stepping up their pressure in conneetion with land matlers partieularly.Turks in Western Thrace can purehase no immovable property nar repair theold ones without a specia\ permit in virtue of the law mentioned in footnote4 above; but the Greek banks have standing instructions to provide ChristianGreeks with the necessary Ioans if a Turk deeided to seıı his land.The pressure on Iand issues goes beyand the administrative measures. As amatler of faet, the Law on Moslem Wakfs no. i091 passed in November 1980in open violation of the Lausanne Treaty and other agreements aıready men-tioned, is the most conerete example of this behaviour, since it provides theauthorities with a real opportunity to deprive the Moslem community of itsmost important reIigious and economie backbane.As it was alsa stated by foreign diplomatic observcrs in Western Thrace, theGreek authorities, fearing that the mattcr may be brought to an internationalplatform by the Minority, and in particular fearing the likelihood of compla-ints bcing made to the UN and Lar the European Human Rights Commissian,to the Islamie Conferenee and to t h e signatories of the Lausanne Treaty,have announeed that theyare not "for the time being" considering to issuethe necessary deerees for the implementation of Arts. 5-19 of the said Law.But aıı wiıı of course depend on the fastiduousness of Turkeyand on the stateof bilateral rclations.

34 THE TURKISH YEARSOOK [VOL. XVIlJ

the Guarantee Agreement of 195914 have taken place in July-August 1974.

The fact that in this land dispute case, the Greek decisionsprior to 1974 observed the rule of law, whereas after this datehUlnan rights violations were stepped up radically by using lawas a tool for the purpose, c1early proves that the [".te of the Tur-kish rninority of Wcstern Thrace is deterrnincd by the ebb andflow of the Turco-Greek relations.

The recent increase of pressure and violations of humanrights in this region can no doubt be explained by the also recentdeterioration of Turco-Greek relations because of the Aegeanquestion. This new problem-gcnerating issue covers such majorand serious problems as off-shore oil exploration, delimitationof continental shelf and territorial waters, the expansion of Greckair space, the militarizatian of the islandsIs, all of which are of anatne to upset the political balance in the Balkans and theEastem Mediterranean.

The Turkish side gives the İmpression that it has b~en appl-ying the principle of rcciprocity for about a year now. TheBill reeently submittcd to the Consultative Assembly providesfor the implementation of the principle of reciprocity to act aga-inst the pressure being applied to Turkish minorities abroad. lt İsreported that this measure bs aıready begun to yield some res-ults. As amatter offact, Western Thrace Trrkish sourees reportthat traetor driving licences and permits for house rcpairs arebecoming obtainable sinee the last two months.

14 Treaty of Guarantce, Art. 4: "In thc event of a breach of the provisions of thepresent Treaty, Greeee. Turkeyand the United Kingdom undertake to con-sult together with respeet to the representations or measures necessary toensure observance of those provisions. In so far as common or concertedaction may not prove possible, each of the three guaranteeing Powers reser-ves the right to take aetion with the sole aim of re-establishing the state ofaffairs created by the present Treaty."As is known, upon a Greek coup aiming at overthrowing President Makariosand al uniting the Island to Greece (Enosis) Turkish Premier Ecevit, af terconsultations with London that yielded no result for common action, usedthis artiele and sent Turkish troops to the Island to counter the coup thatendangered the very existence of the Turkish Cypriotes.

15 Greek islands very elose to Turkish shores, namely Mitylenos, Chios, Samos,and Nicaria are demilitarized by virtuc of Art. 13 of Lausanne Treaty. Theseislands are unlawfully remilitarizcd now by Grecce.

1978] RIGHTS IN GREECE 35

Of course, the applieation of the principle of r-:::ciproeityin the field of human and minority rights violations should b~eonsidered no remedy for the sufferings of p~ople WhO,O:l eitherside of the frontiers, Iive as peaeeful and loyal dtizens. Tpeideal rcmedy for this age-old problem remains in considcringthe reciproeal minorities a real human bridge joining -rathertha.n separating.- the two countries, and in formulating the nati-onal policies aeeordingly.