THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 16092/90
by Theano STAVROU
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section) sitting on 8 June 1999 as a Chamber composed of
SirNicolas Bratza, President,
MrJ-P. Costa,
MrsF. Tulkens,
MrW. Fuhrmann,
MrK. Jungwiert,
MrK. Traja, Judges,
MrF. Gölcüklü, Judge ad hoc,
withMrsS. Dollé, Section Registrar;
Having regard to Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 16 January 1990 by Theano STAVROU against Turkey and registered on 26 January 1990 under file no. 16092/90;
Having regard to the reports provided for in Rule 49 of the Rules of Court;
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government on 30 November 1994 and 22 August 1997 and the applicant’s lawyer’s letter of 12 May 1999;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is a Cypriot national, born in 1958 and living in Nicosia. She is represented before the Court by Mr Lefkos Clerides, a lawyer practising in Nicosia.
The facts of the case, as 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 in allegedly inhuman conditions in the northern part of Cyprus. While in detention she was allegedly ill-treated and refused medical assistance. She was allegedly not allowed to exercise her religious duties. 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 25 July 1989.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains of violations of Articles 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 13 of the Convention.
PROCEDURE
The application was introduced before the European Commission of Human Rights on 16 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 Court’s judgment on the merits of the case of Loizidou v. Turkey. On 20 May 1995 the Commission acceded 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).
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’s complaints were not related to the question of just satisfaction in Loizidou v. Turkey, which was the only outstanding issue in that case, decided to invite the Government to inform it whether they had any objections to the application being declared admissible or else provide their observations on its admissibility.
On 16 May 1997 the Government objected to the application being declared admissible. On 22 August 1997 they submitted observations on admissibility.
On 19 September 1997 the applicant was invited to submit observations in reply.
On 2 December 1997 the applicant’s lawyer applied for an extension of the time-limit for the submission of his observations in reply. On 23 January 1998 and 28 August 1998 he requested further extensions. His requests were granted.
On 1 November 1998, by operation of Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, the case fell to be examined by the Court in accordance with the provisions of that Protocol.
On 5 November 1998 the applicant’s lawyer requested another extension for the submission of his observations in reply. The President of Third Section granted his request.
On 12 May 1999 the applicant’s lawyer informed the Court that he could not trace the applicant and applied to withdraw the application “without prejudice”.
THE LAW
The Court notes that the applicant’s lawyer has lost contact with his client. It must be, therefore, assumed that the applicant does not intend to pursue her application. Moreover, the Court 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 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OUT OF ITS LIST OF CASES.
S DolléN. Bratza
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy