Convention on the international recovery of child support and other forms of family maintenance
Depositary communications concerning
Türkiye
19-12-2016
The Republic of Cyprus has examined the Declaration deposited by the Republic of Turkey
upon ratification of the Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support
and other forms of Family Maintenance, dated 7 October 2016 and registered at the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of the Netherlands on the same date. It
is recalled that the Republic of Cyprus is bound by the Convention as a result of
its approval by the European Union.
In its Declaration, the Republic of Turkey states that its ratification of the Convention
on the International Recovery of Child Support and other forms of Family Maintenance
neither amounts to any form of recognition of the Republic of Cyprus, as party to
that Convention, nor should it imply any obligation on the part of the Republic of
Turkey to enter into any dealing with the Republic of Cyprus within the framework
of the said Convention.
In the view of the Republic of Cyprus, the content and purported effect of this Declaration
makes it tantamount in its essence to a reservation contrary to the object and purpose
of the Convention. By such Declaration, the Republic of Turkey purports to evade its
obligations under the Convention vis-à-vis another equal and sovereign State Party,
namely the Republic of Cyprus. Indeed, the Declaration prevents the realization of
cooperation between State Parties foreseen by the Convention.
The Republic of Cyprus therefore strongly rejects the aforesaid Declaration made by
the Republic of Turkey and considers such declaration to be null and void. The aforementioned
objections by the Republic of Cyprus shall not preclude the entry into force of the
Convention, in its entirety, between the Republic of Cyprus and the Republic of Turkey.
Regarding the Republic of Turkey's pretension, as expressed in the same Declaration,
that "the Republic of Cyprus is defunct and that there is no single authority which
in law or in fact is competent to represent jointly the Turkish Cypriots and the Greek
Cypriots and consequently Cyprus as a whole", the Republic of Cyprus would like to
remind of the following:
Despite, being, through binding international agreements, a guarantor of “the independence,
territorial integrity and security of the Republic of Cyprus" (Article II of the 1960
Treaty of Guarantee), the Republic of Turkey illegally invaded Cyprus in 1974 and
continues since then occupying 36.2% of the territory of the Republic.
The illegality of such aggression was made manifested by the U.N. Security Council
Resolutions 541 (1983) and 550 (1984). Resolution 541's operative para. 2 considers
“the declaration [of the Turkish Cypriot authorities of the purported secession of
part of the Republic of Cyprus] as legally invalid and « calls for its withdrawal".
Para.3 then "reiterates the call upon all States to respect the sovereignty, independence,
territorial integrity and non-alignment of the Republic of Cyprus and further calls
upon all states not to recognize any Cypriot state other than the Republic of Cyprus".
Resolution 550, operative para. 2, also "condemns all secessionist actions, including
the purported exchange of Ambassadors between Turkey and the Turkish Cypriot leadership,
declares them illegal and invalid, and calls for their immediate withdrawal". Para.
3 then "reiterates the call upon all States not to recognize the purported state of
the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" set up by secessionist acts and calls upon
them not to facilitate or in any way assist the aforesaid secessionist entity".
The European Court of Human Rights additionally, in its Judgment of 10th May 2001
on the Fourth Interstate Application of Cyprus v. Turkey, found, at para. 77, that
Turkey, which has ''effective control over northern Cyprus", is responsible for securing
all human rights under the European Convention on Human Rights and for violations
of such rights by her own soldiers or officials, or by the local administration, which
are imputable to Turkey. The responsibilities of the occupying power emanate from
international humanitarian law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Turkey is responsible for the policies and actions of the "TRNC" because of the effective
control she exercises through her army. Her responsibility is engaged by virtue of
the acts of the local administration, which survives by virtue of Turkish military
and other support (Cyprus v. Turkey, Judgment, 10 May 2001, at pp. 20-21, reiterating
Loizidou). From the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and the Security
Council Resolutions on Cyprus, it is evident that the international community does
not regard the "TRNC" (Turkey's subordinate local administration in occupied Cyprus,
condemned in the strongest terms by the Security Council) as a State under international
law (Cyprus v. Turkey, 10 May 2001, para. 61). In contrast, the Republic of Cyprus
has repeatedly been held to be the sole legitimate Government of Cyprus, contrary
to Turkey's assertions about that Government, which Turkey calls "the Greek Cypriot
Administration" with pretences "to represent the defunct Republic". The Turkish assertions
constitute a propaganda ploy to divert attention from Turkey's responsibility for
the violations in occupied Cyprus. Turkey's assertions and her assorted objections
to the Republic of Cyprus' authority, jurisdiction and sovereignty, and her claims
on behalf of the Turkish Cypriots and the "TRNC", have repeatedly been rejected by
the international community and relevant judicial bodies where such claims were fully
argued and then rejected in Cyprus's pleadings. Misrepresentations about the treatment
of Turkish Cypriots by the Government of Cyprus were made. (These claims were repeated
in Turkey's current Declaration). In fact, the European Court of Human Rights and
the Commission accepted Cyprus arguments and refutation of Turkish assertions and
exaggerations about the period prior to Turkey's invasion of Cyprus in July 1974.
It refused to pronounce on Turkey's version of the ejection of Turkish Cypriots from
offices of State (there was in fact a Turkish boycott).
It is now time for the relevant pronouncement in Resolutions and the decisions therein,
as well as in judgments of the European Court of Human Rights to be heard and acted
upon. The Court itself insisted in its 12 May 2014 Just Satisfaction Judgment that
this must happen once the Court had spoken (Cyprus v. Turkey, p. 23 Joint Concurring
Judgment of nine Judges). It should be emphasized that, as recently as 26 July 2016
(Security Council Resolution 2300), the Security Council reaffirmed all its relevant
Resolutions on Cyprus, having, over several decades, reiterated their content.
Nevertheless, the Republic of Turkey, not only flagrantly holds in contempt all relevant
U.N. Resolutions, International Law rules and the U.N. Charter on the matter, but
furthermore she continues violating international legality, by systematically questioning
the legitimacy of the Republic of Cyprus and further promoting the illegal secessionist
entity in the occupied part of the Republic of Cyprus, including through declarations,
as the one at hand.
Ukraine
08-06-2017
Statement on the Convention of 23 November 2007 on the International Recovery of Child
Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance
Reaffirming its firm commitment to respect and fully comply with generally recognised
principles and rules of international law, the Russian Federation, with reference
to the declaration of Ukraine of 16 October 2015 regarding the Convention of 23 November
2007 on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance,
states the following.
The Russian Federation rejects to the above mentioned declaration of Ukraine and states
that it cannot be taken into consideration as it is based on a bad faith and incorrect
presentation and interpretation of facts and law.
The declaration of Ukraine regarding "certain districts of the Donetsk and Luhansk
oblasts of Ukraine" cannot serve as a justification for non-compliance with its obligations,
disregard for humanitarian considerations, refusal or failure to take necessary measures
to find practical solutions for issues that have a very serious and direct impact
on the ability of residents of those regions to exercise their fundamental rights
and freedoms provided for by international law.
The declaration of independence of the Republic of Crimea and its voluntary accession
to the Russian Federation are the result of a direct and free expression of will by
the people of Crimea in accordance with democratic principles, a legitimate form of
exercising their right to selfdetermination given an aided from abroad violent coup
d'état in Ukraine which caused rampant radical nationalist elements not hesitating
to use terror, intimidation and harassment against both its political opponents and
the population of entire regions of Ukraine.
The Russian Federation rejects any attempts to call into question an objective status
of the Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol as constituent entities of the
Russian Federation, the territories of which are an integral part of the territory
of the Russian Federation under its full sovereignty. Thus, the Russian Federation
states that as it is not a party to the Convention, the Convention does not apply
to this part of its territory.
27-06-2018
The Federal Republic of Germany takes note of the Declarations submitted by Ukraine
on 16 October 2015 regarding the application of the Convention on Civil Procedure
(1954), the Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public
Documents (1961), the Convention on the service abroad of judicial and extrajudicial
documents in civil or commercial matters (1965), the Convention on the taking of evidence
abroad in civil or commercial matters (1970), the Convention on the Civil Aspects
of International Child Abduction (1980) and the Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable
Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in Respect of Parental Responsibility
and Measures for the Protection of Children (1996) and the Convention on the International
Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance (2007) to the Autonomous
Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol and of the Declarations submitted by
the Russian Federation on 19 July 2016 in relation to the Declarations made by Ukraine.
In relation to the Declarations made by the Russian Federation, the Federal Republic
of Germany declares, in line with the conclusions of the European Council of 20/21
March 2014, that it does not recognise the illegal referendum in Crimea and the illegal
annexation of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol to the
Russian Federation.
Regarding the territorial scope of the above Conventions, the Federal Republic of
Germany therefore considers that the Conventions in principle continue to apply to
the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol as part of the territory
of Ukraine.
The Federal Republic of Germany further notes the Declarations by Ukraine that the
Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol are temporarily not under
the control of Ukraine and that the application and implementation by Ukraine of its
obligations under the Conventions is limited and not guaranteed in relation to this
part of Ukraine's territory, and that only the government of Ukraine will determine
the procedure for relevant communication.
As a consequence of the above, the Federal Republic of Germany declares that it will
only engage with the government of Ukraine for the purposes of the application and
implementation of the conventions with regard to the Autonomous Republic of Crimea
and the city of Sevastopol.
03-10-2018
The Government of Finland takes note of the Declarations submitted by Ukraine on 16
October 2015 regarding the application of the Convention on Civil Procedure (1954),
the Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents
(1961), the Convention on the service abroad of judicial and extrajudicial documents
in civil or commercial matters (1965), the Convention on the taking of evidence abroad
in civil or commercial matters (1970), the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International
Child Abduction (1980) and the Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition,
Enforcement and Co-operation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for
the Protection of Children (1996) and the Convention on the International Recovery
of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance (2007) to the Autonomous Republic
of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol and of the Declarations submitted by the Russian
Federation on 19 July 2016 in relation to the Declarations made by Ukraine.
In relation to the Declarations made by the Russian Federation, Finland declares,
in line with the conclusions of the European Council of 20/21 March 2014, that it
does not recognise the illegal referendum in Crimea and the illegal annexation of
the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol to the Russian Federation.
As regards the territorial scope of the above Conventions, Finland therefore considers
that the conventions in principle continue to apply to the Autonomous Republic of
Crimea and the city of Sevastopol as part of the territory of Ukraine.
Finland further notes the Declaration by Ukraine that the Autonomous Republic of Crimea
and the city of Sevastopol are temporarily not under the control of Ukraine and that
the application and implementation by Ukraine of its obligations under the Conventions
is limited and not guaranteed in relation to this part of Ukraine's territory, and
that only the central authorities of Ukraine in Kyiv will determine the procedure
for relevant communication.
As a consequence of the above, Finland declares that it will not engage in any direct
communication or interaction with authorities in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea
and the city of Sevastopol and will not accept any documents or requests emanating
from such authorities or through the authorities of the Russian Federation, but will
only engage with the central authorities of Ukraine in Kyiv for the purposes of the
application and implementation of the said conventions.