CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 5 janvier 2017

.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 } .sF3B96856 { width:11.87pt; display:inline-block } .sE6F1442 { width:204.43pt; 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 7805/07 Sergey Vladimirovich MAKSIMOV against Russia and 3 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 5   January 2017 as a Committee composed of:   Branko Lubarda, President,   Pere Pastor Vilanova,   Georgios A. Serghides, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. The Russian Government (“the Government”) was represented by Mr   G.   Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. The applicants complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the lack of requisite medical assistance and under Article 13 about the lack of an effective remedy to complain about poor medical assistance. The applicant in case no. 63378/13 also complained under Articles 8 and 14 about the lack of respect for private life and discrimination. The applicants’ complaints 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 observations in reply. No reply followed. By letter dated 22 July 2016, sent by registered post, the applicants were notified that the period allowed for submission of their observations had expired on 9 November 2015 for applicants in cases nos.   7805/07, 47236/11, 63378/13, on 8 February 2016 for applicant in case no.   11823/12 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. The letters were delivered to the applicants on various dates in August and September 2016. However, no response has been received. THE LAW Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. The Court considers that 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 26 January 2017.   Fatoş Aracı   Branko Lubarda Deputy Registrar   President Appendix   No. Application No. Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Represented by   7805/07 09/11/2006 Sergey Vladimirovich MAKSIMOV 11/11/1969 Chita       47236/11 19/07/2011 Eduard Arkadyevich NOVOSELOV 14/11/1964 Orel       11823/12 24/02/2012 Anatoliy Markovich ZAK 25/06/1973 Perm   Olga Vyacheslavovna SULIMOVA   63378/13 19/09/2013 Yelena Anatolyevna BOGDANOVA 18/06/1976 Promyshlennaya Ploshchadka Elektrokompleksa