Lexploria

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)

Menu

KYPRIANOU v. CYPRUS

KYPRIANOU v. CYPRUS

LEXI