Turkey alleged that Cyprus did not represent the people of Cyprus, and refer to the Greek Cypriot Administration. The court noted that applicant government has been recognised by the I community as the Government of the Republic of Cyprus. Recognition of an applicant government by the respondent government is not precondition of proceedings, otherwise the collective enforcement central to the convention could be neutralised by the interplay of recognition.
Jurisdiction is not restricted to the national territory of the parties, by the object and purpose of the ECHR 1958 responsibility of a Party might arise when, as consequence of military action (lawful or unlawful) it exercises effective control over an area outside its national territory. The obligation to secure the rights of the conventions derives from the fact of such control whether exercised directly, through its armed forces, or trough a subordinate local administration.
Art 25 & 46 are essential to the effectiveness of the convention since they delineate the competence of the Commission and the Court. In interpreting this provisions it must be considered the special character of the convention as a treaty of collective enforcement of HR Ireland v UK 1978 ‘unlike I treaties of the classical kind the convention comprises more than mere reciprocal engagements. It creates over and above a network of bilateral undertakings, objective obligations’
Convention is a living instrument that cannot be interpreted solely in accordance with the intentions of their authors as expressed more than 40 years ago
If substantive or territorial restriction were permissible it would diminishes the effectiveness of the convention as a constitutional instrument of European Public order. Practice of state supports this conclusion. Power to make reservation 64 is limited.
Turkey alleged that if reservations were declared invalid, as they were essential to its consent, then Turkey would be out the convention. Court notes that in reservation art 25 it was Turkey intention to accept right of individual petition and this intention must prevail. In the issue of severability of the invalid parts of Turkey’s declarations Turkey must have been aware of the consistent practice of the parties under 25 & 46 to accept unconditionally the competence of the Commission and Court. And the fact that against such practices submitted her declarations is evidence of her wiliness to run the risk that some clauses would be declared invalid without affecting the validity of the declarations themselves.
Regarding objections ratione temporis, the court joined them to Merit