CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 10 octobre 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 } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; 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 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 11208/06 Ayub Abasovich KUSHTOV against Russia and 4 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 10   Ocotber 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 The applicants are Russian nationals whose names and dates of birth are set out in the appendix. The applicants complained about the delayed enforcement of the judgments in their favour imposing various obligations in kind on domestic authorities and the lack of the effective remedies in respect of the non ‑ enforcement complaints. Applicants’ complaints were communicated on 24 November 2014 to the Russian Government (“the Government”), who were represented initially by Mr   G.   Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin. In June and July 2016 the Government submitted their observations on admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicants, who were invited to submit their observations in reply by the dates indicated in the appendix. By the Registry’s letters sent on 30 November 2016, 1 December 2016 and 24   February 2017 by registered post, the applicants were notified that the period allowed for submission of their observations in reply had expired on various dates (see the appendix) and that no extension of time had been requested. Their attention was drawn to Article   37   §   1   (a) of the Convention. According to the information from the post office, the applicants in cases nos.   32228/08 and 11208/06 received that letters on 26   December 2016 and 22   March 2017 respectively. The letters addressed to the applicants in cases nos.   5537/09 and 6508/12 returned as unclaimed, and in case no.   12187/08 the delivery was attempted on 16   December 2016, after which the letter was sent to the correct address and was available for pick up until 16   January 2017 when it was posted back to the sender. No replies with the requested observations have been received by the Registry. On 20   April 2017 the Registry received a letter from Mr Kushtov, containing a translation of the Registry’s letter of 24 February 2017 and a copy of his passport. 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. As regards the response from the applicant in case no.   11208/06, the Court observes that the submitted documents do not constitute the applicant’s observations. The Court has examined similar situations and considered that it was no longer justified to continue examination of the cases even when the applicant insisted on examination of his case, but failed to enclose the observations (see for example Sotnikov v. Russia (dec.), no.   9911/08, 19 January 2016). In the case at hand the applicant sent only a translation of the Court’s letter addressed to him, and a copy of his passport without reiterating his complaints or making any further comments. The Court considers that, in these circumstances, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of application no. 11208/06, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The Court considers that, the applicants in the remaining cases 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 present 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 9 November 2017.   Fatoş Aracı   Branko Lubarda Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX   No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Deadline for observations expired on   11208/06 12/02/2006 Ayub Abasovich KUSHTOV 29/01/1959 Surkhakhi, Republic of Ingushetia   12/10/2016   12187/08 19/01/2008 Fedosya Fominichna POSASHKOVA 06/06/1930 Nizhniy Novgorod   31/08/2016   32228/08 29/05/2008 Irina Aleksandrovna KOKORINA 26/04/1971 Irkutsk   Nikita Alekseyevich KOKORIN 09/12/1966 Irkutsk   13/09/2016   5537/09 25/11/2008 Ganiya Abdullovna TROSTINA 09/05/1960 Saransk, Republic of Mordovia   13/09/2016   6508/12 26/12/2011 Eduard Nikolayevich OGLOBLIN 23/06/1937 Vorontsovka, Voronezh region   06/10/2016