Lexploria

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)

Menu

KAHIL v. GREECE

KAHIL v. GREECE

LEXI