On 27th of January, 2010, the European Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee adopted the draft resolution prepared by the Christian Democrat parliamentarian Ria Oomen-Ruijten on Turkey’s 2009 progress report. The draft motion, which is expected to be finalized by 10th of February, was approved by 60 committee members while 11 members abstained. The report draws attention to the obstacles encountered in Turkey’s ongoing reform process; it includes some striking points regarding the long-lasting Cyprus problem that have the ability to endanger the fate of the negotiations held by the Cypriot leaders on the Island.

First of all, the draft resolution, similar to its previous examples, emphasizes the dilemma between legislation and efficient implementation. In this context, the European Parliament calls for enhanced efforts to intensify the implementation of legislation in specific areas such as women’s rights, freedom of religion, freedom of speech and expression, zero tolerance to torture, non-discrimination and fight against corruption. With regard to the restrictions on freedom of press, it reveals the EP’s deep concern on the imposition of an “unprecedented fine on a media group” and frequent website bans. On the other hand, by emphasizing the unhealthy links between media and business interests, the document recommends some precautions that will restrict the scope of business activities of media group owners. Although the logic behind this argument can be understood, MEPs fail to put forward a clear roadmap for the reform. Taking into account the general functioning of the liberal economy throughout the world, including EU countries, it is baseless to claim that media group owners should make an option between media and business activities. Otherwise, this initiative can be perceived as a state intervention to the economy.

The closure of the Democratic Society Party (DTP) and a ban on a number of its democratically-elected members is mentioned as one of the prominent set backs by the report. According to the MEPs, since participation in the political arena should be open to all segments of the society, the usage of democratic rights should not be curbed inappropriately and all political actors should work on a common understanding of uniting Turkish society on the basis of equal rights for every citizen. At this point, the report states that while the Government should continue to transform its political will into concrete reforms, the opposition parties should support the initiatives and show efforts to overcome sensible concerns. Furthermore, it is envisaged that the PKK should shoulder its responsibilities in ending the violence through laying down its arms and responding to the political will.

The Ergenekon case is once more integrated into the EP’s documents and it is defined as a historical opportunity to improve the functioning of the democratic institutions and promote the rule of law. However, it is also included that the trial process should respect the rights of the suspects and not be used to put pressure on journalists, academicians and politicians who oppose the policies of the Government.

With regard to the judiciary reform, the EP welcomes the approval of the reform strategy; however, calls for the immediate implementation of the package since it perceives the reform as vital for the success of the modernization of Turkey. In this context, it states that the efforts should focus on the maintenance of the impartiality and the independence of the judiciary, alignment of Turkish judiciary with the main principles put forward by the European Court of Human Rights and lastly, restructuring the Supreme Board of Judges and Prosecutors as to guarantee its capacity for representation, objectivity, impartiality and transparency.

In the report, the Constitutional Court’s annulment of legislation limiting the jurisdiction of military courts constitutes one of the serious impediments before the judiciary reform and especially civil courts’ supervision over military activities. The Parliament regrets the Highest Court’s decision and states that this ruling forestalls the reform initiatives. At this point, we need to open a parenthesis since the Parliament’s reaction is not revealing the whole picture regarding the issue. Although, this development can be considered as a hindrance before the limitation of military judiciary’s competence in political terms and the decision's timing can be disputed, it is not realistic and lawful to claim that the ruling is illegal. Since there was an apparent breach of procedural law, each judge of the Court had voted in favor of the annulment decision.

As will be remembered, in June 2009, the government had proposed an amendment in Turkish Criminal Procedural Code which included two-tier legal reforms. Firstly, in line with the well-established precedents of the ECHR, Turkish military courts would not be able to try civilian persons in times of peace whether those committed a crime within the competence of military judiciary or not. Secondly, the amendment envisaged the transfer of trial competence from military courts to civilian courts provided that the military personnel in question were accused of committing the catalog crimes enshrined in the Turkish Criminal Code, with the exception of state of emergency. While it seems prima facie that the proposed amendments were compatible with the aim of the judicial reform process, the government’s apparent failure to follow the legal methodology rightfully resulted with the annulment of the related amendments. It is not possible in the Turkish legal system, as well as in other democratic legal systems, to adopt a legislation which is in breach with the Constitution. Consequently, before introducing such a critical regulation on such a sensitive topic, the government should have amended the related articles in the Constitution and in the Military Code which is more specific in content than the Procedural Code. This example once more proves that the political actors should first intensify the legal dimensions of the issues before solely making political comments. Otherwise, those comments will remain baseless and only serve to negative critiques.

To continue with the EP Foreign Affair Committees’ draft report, statements regarding the Cyprus problem are most probably the most striking parts of the document. The mentioned section of the report is as follows:

“29. Calls on the Turkish Government actively to support the ongoing negotiations, and to contribute in concrete terms to the comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus issue, based on a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation, in line with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions and the principles on which the EU is founded; calls on Turkey to facilitate a suitable climate for negotiations by withdrawing its forces, by addressing the issue of settlements of Turkish citizens on the island and also by enabling the return of the Famagusta sealed -off section to its lawful inhabitants in compliance with the UNSC Resolution 550(1984);…”

At first, it has to be noted that although Parliament resolutions or recommendations do not have a legal binding effect on the negotiating countries, these documents are important since they show the attitude of the Parliament which will have a final say on the accession of the candidate country. Thus, the current composition of the European Parliament does not reveal positive signals regarding Turkey’s EU bid.

It is interesting that the final version of the draft resolution was shaped by the last-minute amendments proposed by both Greek and Greek Cypriot parliamentarians from various political groups. In line with those changes, the report was heavily relied on the expectations from Turkey. MEPs, disregarding the current fragile situation in the ongoing negotiations in the Island, preferred to overlook the responsibilities of the other parties such as Greece, Greek Cypriot administration and even England. On the contrary, they interfered as a spokesman of the Greek Cypriots’ interests.

This initiative alone is enough to understand the accelerating “Europeanization” of the Cyprus problem. Day by day, the European Union has been diversifying its tools which will enable it to act as a dominant player in the “battle field.”

Another example for the “Europeanization” of the Cyprus issue is the recent Orams judgment. The Court of Appeal in the UK confirmed the ECJ’s decision dating back to April 2009 and stated that UK should recognize and enforce the original ruling of the Nicosia court even if it concerns a legal matter regarding a land in the northern part of the Island. The ECJ said that, “the suspension of the application of Community law in the areas where the Government of the Republic of Cyprus does not exercise effective control and the fact that the judgment cannot, as a practical matter, be enforced where the land is situated do not preclude its recognition and enforcement in another Member State.” Accordingly, the decision of the Nicosia court which envisaged the demolishment of the Orams couple’s house in Northern Cyprus is going to be enforced by British authorities and in the current case, the Orams couple will probably face various sanctions. Besides, thousands of foreigners are expected to be influenced by this judgment and those people are under risk to be charged for trespass and illegal possession in their home country. Consequently, the ECJ as the highest judicial authority of the EU interfered the Cyprus property problem through applying the EU law. Even if the ruling can be disputed in legal terms, it is apparent that it will seriously endanger the fate of the negotiations looking for a comprehensive and permanent solution to this log-lasting problem. It’s very probable that the Greek Cypriot side, with the psychological advantage, will try to drag out the peace negotiations in order to gain as much as it can. Besides the politicians, a probable polarization between the two communities will serve to the continuance of the deadlock. It is not realistic and also fair to search for a solution to the property problem which has already gone beyond the will of the Cypriot communities, in the context of the EU, where Turkey and the Northern Cyprus are not well represented.