CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 26 novembre 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5E698226 { width:12.01pt; display:inline-block } .sDB6B63EE { width:176.94pt; display:inline-block } .s64406319 { width:11.68pt; display:inline-block } .s7B0354FA { width:193.28pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .sF5C9E8B1 { height:46.3pt } .sAE61E8C9 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s11517CCE { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s959CEE7E { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s62CBE78A { height:15.9pt } .s5F906B66 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding:5.28pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7B15330 { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding:5.28pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sD2839F13 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding:5.28pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s3CCBE78A { height:19.5pt } .s4DA46575 { height:38.85pt } .sF7B12F38 { height:33pt } .s7060A3B { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding:5.28pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s71D4663F { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding:5.28pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB22A51C6 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding:5.28pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 20384/06 Tatyana Vasilyevna GEVLICH against Russia and 2 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 26   November 2013 as a Committee composed of:   Khanlar Hajiyev, President,   Julia Laffranque,   Erik Møse, judges, and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on various dates listed below, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicants are three Russian nationals living in Engels, the Saratov Region. A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G.   Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. The applicants complained about non-enforcement of the domestic judgments listed in the appendix below, issued on various dates against their former employer, the municipal unitary company “Engelslift” of Engels. Their complaints under Article   6 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol   No.   1 about non-enforcement were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicants, who were invited to submit their own observations. No reply was received to the Registry’s letters. By letters dated 19   June 2013, sent by registered post, each applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of their observations had expired on 29   April 2013 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicants’ attention was drawn to Article   37   §   1   (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. Ms Gelvich and Ms Starchikova received the letters on 25   July 2013, and Ms Ivanishcheva on 29   July 2013. However, no response has been received. THE LAW 1.     Given that the applications at hand concern similar complaints and raise identical issues under the Convention, the Court decides to consider them in a single decision. 2.     The Court considers that, in the circumstances, the applicants may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue their applications, 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 cases. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases 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.   André Wampach   Khanlar Hajiyev   Deputy Registrar   President   Appendix No. Application no. and date of introduction Applicant name date of birth place of residence Final domestic decision, date Award enforceable on 1. 20384/06 28/03/2006 Tatyana Vasilyevna GEVLICH 05/06/1939 4 March 2002 (court writ) 4 March 2002 2 June 2003 16 June 2003 2. 20814/06 28/03/2006 Anna Yuryevna STARCHIKOVA 05/07/1970 2 June 2003 16 June 2003 3. 23197/10 23/03/10 Lidiya Zakharovna IVANISHCHEVA 06/01/1943 11 February 2002 (court writ) 11 February 2002