You are currently viewing Επιστολή προς ΑΒΤΑ (2014)

To whom it may regard,

It has come to our attention that one of your Association’s members, Direct Traveller LTD (ABTA
Number: K8266 & W9805) promotes holiday packages to the illegally occupied by Turkish forces,
northern part of the Republic of Cyprus. By supporting and promoting an illegal pseudo-state, a result
of the brutal Turkish military invasion, Direct Traveller LTD is in direct conflict with many UN
resolutions and International law. In addition, their actions ignore the extensive and on-going
violations of human rights which occur from the day Turkey invaded Cyprus, a country which is a full
member of the European Union since 2004. The pseudo-state that this ABTA member promotes, the
so-called “TRNC”, is recognised only by Turkey and represents nothing more but four decades of pain
and suffering of the 200,000 refugees, the families of the 1619 missing persons and the descendants
of the thousands of brutally murdered soldiers and civilians.

UN Resolution 550 (1984), “Reaffirms the call upon all States not to recognise 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 this the aforesaid secessionist entity.” The Council of Europe,
responding to Cyprus΄ Interstate Applications, has found Turkey, through the relevant reports of the
European Commission of Human Rights, responsible for serious violations of the European
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, in the part of Cyprus
occupied by Turkey (Cyprus v. Turkey, Joint Apps. 6789/74 and 6950/75, 26 May 1975; Cyprus v.
Turkey, App. 8007/77, 10 July 1978). In addition, the European Court of Human Rights in its decision
regarding the Fourth Interstate Application by the Cyprus Government against Turkey, (Cyprus v.
Turkey, App.25781/94, Judgment of 10 May 2001), finds Turkey guilty of gross violations of human
rights in Cyprus and in continuing violation of a number of articles of the ECHR (Articles 3, 8, 9, 10, 13
of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention). Furthermore, in the landmark case of
Titina Loizidou, a Greek-Cypriot refugee from Kyrenia, the European Court of Human Rights held that
the denial to the applicant of access to her home in the occupied by Turkey territories of Cyprus and
the loss of control of her property was imputable to Turkey and its subordinate local administration.
The Court ruled that Loizidou remains the legal owner of her property in Kyrenia, and that Turkey is in
violation of the European Convention not allowing her to access her property (Loizidou v. Turkey,
(Merits), Case no. 40/1993/435/514, Judgment of 18 December 1996).

Upon these facts, we request some explanations as to why one of your Association’s members was
allowed to promote the aforementioned holiday packages as well as create a video advertisement
through the internet ( Furthermore
we would like to know which, if any, official body has approved the holiday packages as well as the
advertisement’s content and provide us a detailed analysis of all the institutions that can be contacted.
In the previous years, there was a similar incident in London Underground, with a Turkish Airline
named “PEGASUS” promoting flights to the occupied areas of Cyprus, and after some legitimate
steps that were taken the advertisement was withdrawn.

Thank you in advance for your co-operation and understanding.

Yours sincerely,
Andreas Pantelides
Cypriot Students Front UK