CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 28 février 1995

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                          AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                         Application No. 21784/93                       by Hassib KAHIL                       against Greece        The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 28 February 1995, the following members being present:              Mrs.   J. LIDDY,   Acting President            MM.    C.L. ROZAKIS                  A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                  A. WEITZEL                  M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                  B. CONFORTI                  N. BRATZA                  I. BÉKÉS                  E. KONSTANTINOV                  G. RESS              Mrs.   M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber        Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;        Having regard to the application introduced on 10 February 1993 by Hassib KAHIL against Greece and registered on 30 April 1993 under file No. 21784/93;        Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;        Having deliberated;        Decides as follows:   THE FACTS        The applicant is a Lebanese citizen born in 1961 in Lebanon.        The facts of the case, as they have been submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows:        On 5 May 1989 the applicant was arrested in Athens in connection with drug offences. He claims that he was beaten by the police officers who arrested him.        The applicant was detained on remand until 11 May 1990, when he was found guilty of selling drugs and sentenced to life imprisonment by the three-member Court of Appeal (trimeles efeteio) of Athens, the court having found that he was not a drug addict.        On 9 July 1990 the applicant requested that he be allowed to continue to serve his sentence in the Koridallos prison to be able to visit his wife who was also detained there. On 27 September 1990 he was transferred to the prison of Patras.        On 28 January 1991 the applicant was diagnosed as suffering from haemorrhoids and gastritis and an operation was recommended.        On 5 March and 1 April 1991 the applicant applied to be transferred to the prison of Koridallos to enable him to prepare his appeal, due to be heard on 22 May 1991, and to be near his wife who was detained in the same prison. He was eventually transferred to the Koridallos prison five days before the appeal hearing.        On 22 May 1991 the hearing was adjourned. On 11 November 1991 the applicant asked for permission to visit his wife. Before receiving a reply, he was transferred back to Patras.        On 9 March 1992 the applicant was interrogated by the Director of the prison of Patras in connection with a window which had been found broken. He claims that he was beaten by prison officers in the course of the interrogation. The applicant was placed in isolation for ten days and was charged with attempting to escape.        Between 5 and 13 July 1992 the applicant was hospitalised in the General Hospital of Patras.        On 18 November 1992 the applicant's sentence was reduced to 8 years imprisonment by the five-member Court of Appeal (pentameles efeteio) of Athens. Considering the applicant to be a drug addict, the court ordered that he be transferred to a disintoxication centre.        The applicant appealed in cassation. The hearing of his appeal was fixed for 27 April 1993.        On 3 May 1993 the three-member first instance criminal court (trimeles plimeleiodikeio) of Patras rejected the applicant's application to be transferred to a disintoxication centre.        On 29 June 1993 the applicant was due to appear before a first instance criminal court in Patras to be tried for attempting to escape.   COMPLAINTS   1.    The applicant complains of the fairness of the criminal proceedings against him, of his conviction, and of the fact that he is detained in an ordinary prison, notwithstanding the decision of the second instance court ordering his detention in a disintoxication centre. He invokes in this connection Article 5,   6 and 7 of the Convention.   2.    He further complains that he does not receive the required medical treatment, that he has been ill-treated on two occasions by police and prison officers, that he is not allowed to visit his wife and that he was placed in solitary confinement despite his health condition. He invokes in this connection Articles 2, 3, 4 and 8 of the Convention.   REASONS FOR THE DECISION        The Commission notes that by letter of 20 October 1993, addressed to the prison of Patras where he was being detained, the applicant was requested to provide additional information to the Commission concerning the issue of exhaustion of domestic remedies and to furnish copies of certain court decisions. The applicant has failed to reply, despite reminders sent to him on 11 July 1994, 14 October 1994 and 16 December 1994.        The Commission concludes under Article 30 para. 1 (a) of the Convention that the applicant no longer intends to pursue his petition. It further considers that respect for Human Rights as defined in the Convention does not require it to continue the examination of the application.        For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously        DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OUT OF THE LIST OF CASES.        Secretary                            Acting President to the First Chamber                    of the First Chamber     (M.F. BUQUICCHIO)                          (J. LIDDY)