CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 22 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. 21786/93                       by Rodica KAHIL                       against Greece         The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 22 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. MARXER                  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 1992 by Rodica KAHIL against Greece and registered on 30 April 1993 under file No. 21786/93;         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 6       March 1994;         Having deliberated;         Decides as follows:   THE FACTS         The applicant, a Romanian national born in 1965, is a medicine student currently residing in Bucharest.         The facts of the case, as they have been submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.                                     I.         On 5 May 1989 the applicant and her husband were arrested in their apartment in Athens on suspicion of drug trafficking. The applicant was taken to a police station and interrogated by the head officer in English, without the presence of an interpreter, although she did not understand sufficiently the English language. She was then held in custody.         On 9 May 1989 she was heard by the investigating judge (Anakritis) with the assistance of an English language interpreter. She denied all charges against her. The investigating judge ordered her detention on remand. On 10 May 1989 the applicant was taken to the Koridallos prison.         On 24 November 1989 the applicant lodged an application with the Indictment Chamber of the Athens Court of Appeal (Symvoulio Efeton) for her release on bail. In particular, she asked for the replacement of her detention on remand with other restrictive measures, such as bail of 50.000 Drachmas, the obligation to appear before the Registrar of the Athens Criminal Court at regular intervals and the prohibition to leave the country. Her request was rejected.         On 1 December 1989 she applied again for release on bail offering the amount of 50.000 Drachmas. She further submitted that she intended to reside, if released, at the house of friends and informed the Court of their address. Her request was rejected by the Indictment Chamber of the Athens Court of Appeal on 8 February 1990 (decision No. 327/90).         A similar application for release lodged on 8 February 1990 was also rejected.         The case against the applicant came for trial on 11 May 1990 before the Athens three-member Court of Appeal (Trimeles Efeteio), because of the nature of the charges. The applicant asked for an adjournment. Her request was based on the need to obtain the assistance of a Romanian language interpreter since she did not understand sufficiently the English language and the absence of the defence witness K.T., who had been properly summoned. She moreover asked the Court not to allow the press in the court-room. Both requests were rejected. On the next day the applicant's photograph appeared in several newspapers accompanied by comments, which she regarded false and humiliating.         By its judgment No. 946/1990 pronounced on the same day the court convicted the applicant for illegal possession and sale of drugs under mitigating circumstances and sentenced her to ten years' imprisonment. Her husband was also convicted. Both of them lodged appeals.         While serving her sentence the applicant chose to do cleaning work in the prison, since one-year work for the prison would result to a nine-month deduction from the penalty.         On 22 May 1991 the Athens five-member Court of Appeal (Pentameles Efeteio) held a hearing on the appeal lodged by the applicant and her husband. The prosecution requested the adjournment of the hearing on the ground that one of its witnesses was absent and the court granted the request (decision No. 444/1990). Acting on an application by the defence the court further decided to obtain expert evidence on the question of whether the applicant's husband was a drug addict or not (decision No. 445/1990). The defence further asked the court to suspend the execution of the penalty imposed at first instance on the applicant until the pronouncement of the judgment at second instance as provided for by Article 497 of the Greek Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP). The court, however, rejected the application (decision No. 446/1990) holding that the applicant was particularly dangerous and that there was a well-founded risk of her committing further offences.         On 16 July 1991 the applicant applied to the Public Prosecutor with a view to obtaining an earlier date for the appeal trial which was due to take place on 11 November 1992. Her request was rejected on the ground that the summonses for the hearing of 11 November had been already served.         On 9 October 1991 the applicant lodged a new application under Article 497 CCP. Following a hearing the Court rejected the application on 15 January 1992.         On 19 November 1992 the Athens Five-Member Court of Appeal acquitted the applicant of all charges. The Court further considered that no question of compensation arose in the applicant's case for the time spent in detention.         On 20 November 1992 the Chief of Police ordered the applicant's expulsion on the ground that she was in Greece illegally (decision 1/730118-9776/20.11.92). She was taken to the Police Headquarters of Piraeus and was deported to Rumania on 24 November 1992.                                     II.         During her detention in the Koridallos prison the applicant lodged numerous applications with the Public Prosecutor to be allowed a meeting with her husband who was also detained for long periods of time in the same prison or in the Prisoners' Hospital in Koridallos. Seven such applications lodged while the applicant was detained on remand were granted and she visited her husband on 10 August 1989, 30 September 1989, 14 December 1989, 13 January 1990, 20 January 1990, 7 April 1990 and 28 April 1990. Four applications lodged by the applicant during the same period of time and more in particular on 18 January 1990, 25 January 1990, 17 April 1990 and   27 April 1990 were not granted.         Ten applications to visit her husband lodged by the applicant after her conviction were refused on the basis of Article 558 CCP which does not allow for such a possibility in the case of persons convicted of serious crimes who have more than five years to serve.         After her acquittal, while being detained in the Piraeus Police Headquarters in order to be expelled, the applicant claims to have lodged an application to meet her husband which was refused. The respondent Government deny that the applicant submitted any such request.   COMPLAINTS   1.     The applicant complains under Article 5 paras. 1, 2, 3 and 5 of the Convention that she was not informed of the reasons of her arrest in a language she understood, that her various applications for release on bail were rejected, that she was detained following conviction although there was no proof or evidence of guilt against her and that she was not granted compensation after her acquittal.   2.     The applicant further complains under Articles 6 and 7 of the Convention of the fairness and length of the proceedings and of the fairness of her conviction.   3.     The applicant also submits that the cleaning work she did in the prison while serving her sentence amounted to servitude or forced labour in breach of Article 4 paras. 1 and 2 of the Convention.   4.     Finally, the applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that she was not allowed to meet her husband during her detention and after her release before being deported from Greece.   PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION         The application was introduced on 10 February 1992 and registered on 30 April 1993.         On 11 January 1994 the Commission decided to communicate the application to the respondent Government and to request them to submit written observations on admissibility and merits.         The Government submitted their observations on 6 May 1994 after one extension in the time-limit fixed for this purpose.         The Government's observations were transmitted to the applicant on 18 May 1994 and she was invited to submit her observations in reply before 6 July 1994.         On 5 July 1994 the Commission, acting on an application submitted by the applicant on 1 March 1994, decided to grant her legal aid.         No observations in reply having been received from the applicant, a reminder was sent to her by registered mail with "avis de reception" on 12 October 1994.   REASONS FOR THE DECISION         The Commission notes that the applicant has failed to submit her observations in reply within the time-limit set by the Commission, has not asked for an extension and has not reacted to a reminder sent to her by registered mail with "avis de reception" on 12 October 1994.         The Commission concludes under Article 30 para. 1 (a) of the Convention that the applicant no longer intends to pursue her 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. BUQUICCHIO)                                (J. LIDDY)