CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 11 avril 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 }                          Application No. 21060/92                       by Kypros KYPRIANOU                       against Cyprus         The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in private on 11 April 1995, the following members being present:              Mrs.   G.H. THUNE, Acting President            MM.    G. JÖRUNDSSON                  S. TRECHSEL                  J.-C. SOYER                  H.G. SCHERMERS                  F. MARTINEZ                  J.-C. GEUS                  M.A. NOWICKI                  J. MUCHA                  D. SVÁBY              Mr.    K. ROGGE, 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 27 April 1992 by Kypros KYPRIANOU against Cyprus and registered on 11 December 1992 under file No. 21060/92;         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 Cypriot citizen born in 1959 in Cyprus. He is a real estate agent residing in Nicosia.         The facts of the case, as they have been submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows:         Between 1984 and 1985 the applicant's company made certain payments to judge D against the purchase of a plot of land. During the same period the applicant also made certain payments to members of the police force or members of their families.   The applicant has produced evidence concerning these transactions.         In 1986 the applicant left Cyprus for Germany. During his absence he claims that the police raided his office taking away certain documents and money.         Upon his return to Cyprus on 28 April 1990, the applicant was arrested and detained on remand until 30 May 1990 when he was tried by the Nicosia Assizes Court, presided by judge D. Having pleaded guilty to 24 separate counts of forgery, issuing false powers of attorney and obtaining money by false pretences, he was sentenced to six years' imprisonment. The applicant appealed against his sentence to the Supreme Court.         On 21 January 1991 the applicant wrote to the Attorney General accusing members of the police of blackmail, extortion and fabrication of the charges against him. On 29 January 1991 the Attorney General invited the applicant to submit certain evidence and documents which the latter claimed to have in his possession and which allegedly supported his allegations.         By letters of 6 and 11 February 1991 the applicant made more detailed and specific complaints concerning in particular two members of the police force, Messrs. D and K. On 20 February 1991 the Attorney General transmitted the above-mentioned letters to the Chief of Police requesting him to enquire into the applicant's allegations.         On 18 March 1991 the applicant addressed another letter to the Attorney General making further allegations against the same two police officers. By letter of 22 March 1991 the Attorney General transmitted the letter to the Chief of Police with a request to investigate the allegations.         On 18 April 1991 the applicant withdrew his appeal against the decision of the Nicosia Assizes Court of 30 May 1990.         On 12 June 1991 a police investigating officer submitted a report on the applicant's complaint against police officer K, which concluded that there were no evidence that K had committed any criminal offences and that the applicant should be charged with making knowingly false allegations against the police.         On 31 July 1991 the prison authorities forwarded to the Attorney General a fifth letter written by the applicant on 18 April 1991, which implicated a third police officer, Mr. S. On 9 August 1991 the Attorney General requested the Chief of Police to investigate these allegations as well.         On 10 August 1991 a police investigating officer submitted a report on the applicant's complaint against police officer D, which concluded that there were no evidence that D had committed any criminal offences.         A similar report was submitted on 17 September 1991 on the applicant's complaint against police officer S, which concluded that there were no evidence that S had committed any criminal offences.         The police reports of 12 June 1991, 10 August 1991 and 17 September 1991 were all submitted to the Attorney General. On 20 July 1992 the Deputy Attorney General decided that no criminal proceedings should be instituted against either the police officer K or the applicant. No decision as to the institution or not of criminal proceedings against police officers D and S appears to have been reached.         No civil proceedings have been instituted by the applicant against any of the above-mentioned police officers.   COMPLAINTS   1.     The applicant complains, under Articles 5 para. 1 (a) and 6 para. 1, of the fact that his trial was presided over by judge D, an ex- business partner of his who wanted to harm him. He also claims that he was given sufficient time and facilities to prepare his defence in accordance with Article 6 para. 3.   2.     The applicant complains of the lack of impartiality of the investigations ordered by the Attorney General, which were conducted by police officers who had close links with the officers the applicant accused of impropriety. He also complains of the failure of the Attorney General to institute criminal proceedings against the latter. Finally, he claims that the destruction of key evidence by the police prevented him from bringing a civil action against them. He does not invoke any provisions of the Convention.   PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION         On 2 September 1994 the Secretary of the Second Chamber, acting on the instructions of the Rapporteur, requested the Government of the Republic of Cyprus to inform him before 21 October 1994 whether the applicant had complained to the Attorney General of police blackmail and extortion and whether the Attorney General had ordered an investigation into the allegations. He also requested the applicant to inform him before 30 September 1994 of any steps he might have taken to recover the sums of money allegedly extorted from him by members of the police force.         On 26 October 1994 the Secretary of the Second Chamber, acting on the instructions of the Rapporteur, granted the Government an extension of the time-limit until 21 November 1994, as requested. On 28 November 1994 a further extension until 21 December 1994 was granted to the Government, as requested.         The Government's reply was submitted on 21 December 1994.         On 6 January 1995 the Secretary of the Chamber transmitted to the applicant by registered mail with "avis de reception" the information provided by the Government, reminded him that he had never replied to the Rapporteur's request for information of 2 September 1994, invited him to do so before 2 February 1995 and warned him that, if no reply was received the Commission might conclude that he was no longer interested in pursuing his application. This communication was received by the applicant, according to a certificate by the post, on 18 January 1995. No reply from the applicant has arrived.   REASONS FOR THE DECISION         The Commission notes that on 2 September 1994 the Secretary of the Second Chamber, acting on the instructions of the Rapporteur, requested the applicant to inform him before 30 September 1994 of any steps he might have taken to recover the sums of money allegedly extorted from him by members of the police force. The applicant having failed to reply, a reminder was sent to him by registered mail on 6 January 1995.         Given the applicant's failure to reply to the Rapporteur's request for information, 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 Second Chamber                      of the Second Chamber        (K. ROGGE)                                 (G.H. THUNE)