CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 28 novembre 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 } .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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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 } .s4EA85936 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:left } .sD85934EB { width:162.08pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sB62BA9AD { width:168.28pt; text-indent:0pt; 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 } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sAC521AF { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sE4654500 { height:37.6pt } .sD8E76205 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sA7CAEB5D { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; list-style-position:inside } .s4DA46575 { height:38.85pt } .s52A284DD { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #969696; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .s6742949 { border-top:0.75pt solid #969696; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .s33D7E8B1 { height:40.7pt } .s2FA96575 { height:39.25pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }     FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 41939/14 ZAKARPATTURYST, PAT against Ukraine and 4 other applications (see list appended)   The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 28   November 2017 as a Committee composed of:   Nona Tsotsoria, President,   Síofra O’Leary,   Lәtif Hüseynov, judges, and Anne-Marie Dougin, Acting 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 applicant companies is set out in the appendix. They were represented before the Court by Mr R.V. Orekhov and Y.A. Voltarnist, lawyers practising in Zhytomyr. The applicant companies’ complaints under Article 6 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 were communicated to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”), who were represented by their Agent, Mr   I. Lishchyna, of the Ministry of Justice. The Government 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 answer was received. By letters dated 7 April 2017, sent by registered post to the applicant companies and by normal post to their representatives’ contact address (a   post office box), the applicants were notified that the period allowed for submission of their observations had expired on 17 February 2017 and that no extension of time had been requested. Their attention was drawn to Article   37   § 1 (a) of the Convention. The letters to the applicant companies were delivered on the dates indicated in the appended table. However, no response has been received from either the applicant companies or their representatives. 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, 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 21 December 2017. Anne-Marie Dougin   Nona Tsotsoria Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX List of applications   No Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name and the city of its registration Date of receipt of the registered letter   41939/14 26/05/2014 ZAKARPATTURYST, PAT Uzhgorod 18/04/2017   42038/14 27/05/2014 ZAPORIZHTURYST, PAT Zaporizhzhya 20/04/2017   49481/14 27/05/2014   ZAPORIZHTURYST, PAT Zaporizhzhya 20/04/2017   43041/14 26/05/2014 UKRPROFTUR, PAT (UPT) Kyiv 25/04/2017   43049/14 26/05/2014 VOLYNTURYST, PAT Lutsk 18/04/2017