CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 6 février 2018

.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 } .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 } .s330D47D5 { width:214.44pt; 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 } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .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 }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 5721/04 Artur Yevgenyevich YEZDAKOV and Dmitriy Viktorovich GRIGORYEV against Russia and 8 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 6   February 2018 as a Committee composed of:   Helen Keller, President,   Pere Pastor Vilanova,   Alena Poláčková, 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 applicants’ complaints concerning various complaints under Articles   3, 5 and 6 of the Convention and Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention were communicated to the Russian Government, who were represented by Mr   G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin. The Government’s observations were forwarded to the applicants (or, where applicable, their representatives or contact persons), who were invited to submit their own observations. No replies were received to the Registry’s letters. The applicants’ attention was then 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. In particular, as to application no. 5721/04, it is noted that the parties submitted observations in 2009. Following re-communication of the case in 2016, by letters dated 23   February 2017 sent by registered post, each of the two applicants was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 30 November 2016 and that no extension of time had been requested. The Court’s letter to the first applicant was returned as unclaimed. According to the Russian Post’s Online Tracking System (“RPOTS”), the letter to the second applicant was delivered on 16   March 2017. However, no response has been received by the Court. As to application no. 34646/06, by letter dated 17 February 2017 sent by registered post to his address in Zarechnyy, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 24   March 2016 and that no extension of time had been requested. According to the RPOTS, this letter was received on 14 March 2017. However, no response has been received by the Court. As to application no. 16222/07, by a letter dated 12 May 2017 sent by registered post to the applicant’s representative, they were notified that the period allowed for submission of observations had expired on 31   March 2017 and that no extension of time had been requested. This letter was received on 29 May 2017. No response has been received by the Court. As to application no. 40417/07, by letters dated 17 February 2017 sent by registered post to his two known addresses in Moscow, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 4 January 2016 and that no extension of time had been requested. Those letters were received on 3 March 2017 by Ms Konkova. Also, in February 2017 a letter in similar terms was addressed to Mr Koblev, a lawyer practising in Moscow. However, no responses have been received by the Court. As to application no. 27571/08, by a letter dated 12 May 2017 sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 31 March 2017 and that no extension of time had been requested. The letter has been returned to the Court as unclaimed. As to application no. 18507/09, by letters dated 12 May and 26   July 2017, sent by registered post to the applicant’s representative and the applicant respectively, they were notified that the period allowed for submission of observations had expired on 31 March 2017 and that no extension of time had been requested. Both letters have returned to the Court as unclaimed. As to application no. 58026/09, by a letter dated 12 May 2017 sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 31 March 2017 and that no extension of time had been requested. This letter was received on 10   June 2017. However, no response has been received by the Court. As to application no. 36462/12, by a letter dated 14 February 2017 sent by registered post to the applicant’s last known home address, he was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 29 March 2016 and that no extension of time had been requested. According to the RPOTS, the Court’s letter was delivered on 24   March 2017. However, no response has been received. Another letter was sent by registered mail on 19 September 2017. It has been returned to the Court as unclaimed. As to application no. 73418/13, by a letter dated 12 May 2017 sent by registered post to the applicant, he was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 31 March 2017 and that no extension of time had been requested. The letter was delivered on 26   June 2017. However, no response has been received by the Court. THE LAW The Court considers that the applications should be joined and considered 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 1 March 2018.   Fatoş Aracı   Helen Keller Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant Date of birth   5721/04 28/12/2003 Artur Yevgenyevich YEZDAKOV 21/06/1977   Dmitriy Viktorovich GRIGORYEV 03/04/1964     34646/06 21/05/2006 Aybek Khabdulmutalapovich ZHAKIYANOV 12/09/1969     16222/07 03/02/2007 Grigoriy Sergeyevich GREKHOV 12/08/1961     40417/07 06/09/2007 Aleksandr Ivanovich KONKOV 13/12/1977     27571/08 08/05/2008 Aleksandr Ivanovich KLOCHKOV 30/05/1952     18507/09 05/03/2009 Andrey Sergeyevich KOZLOV 27/10/1976     58026/09 12/10/2009 Anton Sergeyevich FEDOROV 26/04/1984     36462/12 17/05/2012 Aleksandr Yakovlevich ANDREYEV 16/12/1974     73418/13 16/11/2013 Igor Olegovich POPOVSKIY 01/05/1976