Application No. 16076/90
by Demetra LAMBROU IOAKIM
against Turkey
The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on
9 March 1998, the following members being present:
MM S. TRECHSEL, President
J.-C. GEUS
M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
E. BUSUTTIL
G. JÖRUNDSSON
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
A. WEITZEL
J.-C. SOYER
H. DANELIUS
Mrs G.H. THUNE
Mr F. MARTINEZ
Mrs J. LIDDY
MM L. LOUCAIDES
M.A. NOWICKI
I. CABRAL BARRETO
B. CONFORTI
N. BRATZA
I. BÉKÉS
J. MUCHA
D. SVÁBY
G. RESS
A. PERENIC
C. BÎRSAN
E. BIELIUNAS
E.A. ALKEMA
M. VILA AMIGÓ
Mrs M. HION
MM R. NICOLINI
A. ARABADJIEV
Mr M. de SALVIA, Secretary to the Commission
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 12 January 1990
by Demetra LAMBROU IOAKIM against Turkey and registered on
26 January 1990 under file No. 16076/90;
Having regard to :
- the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of
the Commission;
- the observations submitted by the respondent Government on
30 November 1994 and the letters from the applicant's lawyer
dated 3 January 1998 and 13 February 1998;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is a Cypriot citizen, born in 1958. She resides in
Nicosia. In the proceedings before the Commission she is represented
by Mr. Lefkos Clerides.
The facts of the case, as they have been submitted by the
applicant, may be summarised as follows:
On 19 July 1989 the applicant took part in an anti-Turkish
demonstration in Cyprus. She was arrested and allegedly beaten by
Turkish soldiers. She was detained allegedly in inhuman conditions in
the northern part of Cyprus. While in detention she was allegedly ill-
treated and refused medical assistance. On 22 July 1989 she appeared
before a "court" in the northern part of Cyprus to be tried on charges
of having "illegally" entered that part. She was found guilty and
sentenced to three days imprisonment and a fine. She was released on
27 July 1989.
The applicant claims to own property in the Yialoussa village in
the northern part of Cyprus, which she has not identified.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Articles 3 of the Convention that
she was subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment. She also
complains under Article 5 of the Convention of her detention and under
Article 7 of her conviction. Moreover, she complains under Articles 9,
10 and 11 of the Convention that her rights to freedom of thought,
conscience, expression and assembly were violated. Furthermore, she
complains that she did not have an effective remedy under Article 13
of the Convention. Finally, she complains that she cannot enjoy her
property in the northern part of Cyprus, contrary to Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
The application was introduced on 12 January 1990 and registered
on 26 January 1990.
On 16 October 1991 the Commission decided to adjourn the
examination of the application.
On 29 November 1993 the Commission decided to communicate the
application to the respondent Government without asking for
observations. It also decided to request the Committee of Ministers to
allow it to communicate its Article 31 report in the case of
Chrysostomos and Papachrysostomou v. Turkey, 8.7.93, D.R. 86, p. 4, to
the applicant on a strictly confidential basis.
On 3 February 1994 the Ministers' Deputies acceded to the
Commission's request.
On 5 March 1994 the Commission decided to request the Government
to submit observations on the admissibility and merits of the
application.
The Government's written observations were submitted on
30 November 1994. The Government submitted that the Commission should
either declare the application inadmissible or adjourn its examination
pending delivery of the Court's judgment in the case of Loizidou
v. Turkey.
On 7 March 1995 the applicant requested the Commission to grant
her an extension until 30 April 1995 for the submission of her
observations in reply. The President of the Commission acceded to her
request. On 19 April 1995 the applicant requested a further extension
until after the delivery of the judgment of the Court on the merits of
the case of Loizidou v. Turkey. On 20 May 1995 the Commission decided
to accede to her request.
On 23 January 1997 the Commission decided to request the
Government to submit supplementary observations in the light of the
Court's Loizidou v. Turkey judgment of 18 December 1996 (Eur Court HR,
Reports 1996-VI, p. 2216).
On 2 April 1997 the Government requested the Commission to
adjourn the proceedings until the Court had completed its consideration
of the case of Loizidou v. Turkey.
On 18 April 1997 the Commission, having noted that the applicant
had not identified the property she allegedly owned in the northern
part of Cyprus, decided to request the applicant to provide further
information concerning the property in question and, pending receipt
of this information, to suspend the request for submission of
supplementary observations by the Government.
On 3 January 1998 the applicant's representative informed the
Commission that he had been unable to contact the applicant to obtain
information on the property concerned. On 13 February 1998 her
representative informed the Commission that, given his inability to re-
establish contact with her, he could not continue acting on her behalf.
REASONS FOR THE DECISION
The Commission notes that the applicant is no longer in contact
with her representative who feels unable to pursue the case.
In these circumstances the Commission finds that the applicant
by her conduct indicates that she no longer intends to pursue her
application. Moreover, the Commission considers that respect for Human
Rights as defined in the Convention does not require it to continue the
examination of the application.
It follows that the application may be struck off the list of
cases pursuant to Article 30 para. 1 (a) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,
DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OUT OF ITS LIST OF CASES.
M. de SALVIA S. TRECHSEL
Secretary President
to the Commission of the Commission
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy