CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 14 janvier 2014

.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 } .s3480A186 { width:173.6pt; 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 } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s8F670191 { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 5931/06 Nikolay Nikolayevich PROTAS against Russia and 4 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 14   January 2014 as a Committee composed of:   Elisabeth Steiner, President,   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,   Ksenija Turković, judges and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the dates set out in the appendix, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE 1.     A list of the applicants and their representatives is set out in the appendix. 2.     The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. 3.     The applicants complained, among other things, that the appeal hearings in their civil cases had been held in their absence in breach of the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention. Their complaints under that head 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 replies were received to the Registry’s letters. 4.     By letters dated 20 February 2013, sent by registered post, the applicants and the representative of the applicant in application no. 5931/06 were notified that the period allowed for submission of their observations had expired on 13 December 2012 and that no extension of time had been requested. Their 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. No response has been received from the applicants or the applicant’s representative in the application no. 5931/06. THE LAW 5.     Having regard to the similarity of the main issues under the Convention in the above cases, the Court decides to join the applications and consider them in a single decision. 6.     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 those applications. 7.     In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the applications out of the list of cases. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to join the above applications; Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.   André Wampach   Elisabeth Steiner   Deputy Registrar   President   Appendix   No Application No Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Represented by   5931/06 13/12/2005 Nikolay Nikolayevich PROTAS 29/01/1945 Chelyabinsk   Vadim Dmitriyevich BOCHKAREV   30749/10 17/05/2010 Sergey Mikhaylovich MITYUSHIN 08/11/1965 Moscow       49995/10 02/08/2010 Nikolay Anatolyevich VITALYUYEV 25/11/1961 Smolensk       16226/11 15/02/2011 Aleksandr Sergeyevich INOZEMTSEV 19/12/1971 Kazan, Republic of Tatarstan       57463/11 25/07/2011 Aleksey Yevgenyevich MOKHOV 27/03/1968 Balakovo, Saratov region