CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 27 septembre 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .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 } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sBF964C40 { width:8.54pt; display:inline-block } .sB09F7C54 { width:216.79pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }     FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 45568/12 Lachezar Tsvetanov PETROV against Bulgaria and 4 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 27   September 2016 as a Committee composed of:   Erik Møse, President,   Yonko Grozev,   Mārtiņš Mits, judges, and Milan Blaško, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on 29 June 2012, 18 July 2012, 23 July 2012 and 13 November 2012, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs M. Dimitrova, of the Ministry of Justice. The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that they were unable to effectively challenge the decision of the Council of Ministers to expropriate parts of their land, due to the fact that the decision has been announced in State Gazette without personal notification. They alleged that, as a result, their access to a court was denied, as the Supreme Administrative Court decided that their appeals were lodged out of time, and that they suffered an unjustified deprivation of property. The above complaints were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicants on 21 December 2015, who were invited to submit their own observations. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter. By letters dated 12 April 2016 and 15 July 2016, sent by registered post, the applicants’ representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of their observations had expired on 1 February 2016 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicants’ representative’s 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. On 21 April 2016 the applicants’ representative received the letter dated 12 April 2016. However, no response has been received to this letter. The letter dated 15 July 2016 was returned to the Court with an indication that it was not collected at the post Office. No correspondence from the applicants has been received subsequently. THE LAW The Court considers that, in these 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.   Done in English and notified in writing on 20 October 2016.   Milan Blaško   Erik Møse Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX No Application No Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Represented by   45568/12 29/06/2012 Lachezar Tsvetanov PETROV 04/02/1975 Sofia   Valentin RUSEV   47100/12 18/07/2012 Stoyan Petrov PETRUNOV 04/05/1940 Sofia   Valentin RUSEV   47831/12 23/07/2012 Todor Tsvetanov PETROV 08/03/1980 Pernik   Valentin RUSEV   74925/12 13/11/2012 Ivan Petrov PETRUNOV 19/06/1943 Sofia   Valentin RUSEV   75321/12 13/11/2012 Valentin Vladimirov RANEV 08/08/1970 Sofia   Valentin RUSEV