CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 30 août 2011

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDD165512 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sB81E279F { width:179.94pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } FIFTH SECTION DECISION Applications nos. 39808/02 and 11632/03 KOLOMOYTSEV-RYBALKA AND OTHERS against Ukraine KOLOMOYTSEV-RYBALKA against Ukraine The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 30   August 2011 as a Committee composed of:   Boštjan M. Zupančič, President,   Ganna Yudkivska,   Angelika Nußberger, judges, and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on 9 October 2002 and 4   March 2003, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The first applicant, Mr Volodymyr Eduardovych Kolomoytsev-Rybalka, was born in 1964 and died in 2009. The second applicant, Ms   Svitlana Pavlivna Tkachenko, was born in 1949 and the third applicant, Ms Olga Anatoliyivna Bubnova, was born in 1958. The second and third applicants reside in Lugansk. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms I. Shevchuk, from the Ministry of Justice. On 9   October   2002 the three applicants lodged an application (no.   39808/02) complaining that during the parliamentary elections of 30   March 2002 the first applicant had been excluded from the list of candidates and the two other applicants could not vote for him. On 4   March 2003 the first applicant submitted a new application (no.   11632/03) in which he complained about having been excluded from the list of candidates during the additional parliamentary elections of 14   July 2002 and his unsuccessful attempts to annul the results of elections. On 7 November 2005 the applicants’ complaints under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 13 of the Convention were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits on 7 February 2006. On 27 August 2006 the applicants replied to the above observations. As it appeared from public sources, the first applicant died in July 2009. By registered letters of 15 February 2011, the second and the third applicants were requested to confirm the fact of the first applicant’s death and inform about any existing heir wishing to pursue the case in the first applicant’s stead. However, no response had been received. By letter of 13 May 2011 the Government officially confirmed that the first applicant had died on 25 July 2009. THE LAW The Court notes that the first applicant has died and there is no information about any existing heir who would wish to pursue the application. Furthermore, the case concerns issues falling under Article 3 of Protocol No.   1, which are so closely linked to the person of the original applicant that they cannot be regarded as transferable. The Court considers that the second and the third applicants may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue their application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine , the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the case. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to join the applications; Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases. Stephen Phillips   Boštjan M. Zupančič Deputy Registrar   President