CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 9 mars 1998

.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 }                        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