CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 20 février 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s70A7D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:7pt } .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 } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sAADB120E { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s7DAEFD32 { width:5.62pt; display:inline-block } .sB0F85879 { width:181.32pt; display:inline-block } .sA1981C75 { width:4.63pt; display:inline-block } .s6196896C { width:200.33pt; 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 }     FIRST SECTION DECISION Applications nos. 64031/14 and 69094/14 Oleg Igorovych VEREMIYENKO against Ukraine and Russia and Galyna Stepanivna KUTSMAY against Ukraine and Russia The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 20   February 2018 as a Committee composed of:   Kristina Pardalos, President,   Ksenija Turković,   Pauliine Koskelo, judges, and Renata Degener, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on 24 September 2014 and 24 October 2014 respectively, Having regard to the decision to grant priority to the above application under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, Having regard to the interim measure indicated to the respondent Governments under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court in case no. 69094/14, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS 1.     The cases have been communicated to the respondent Governments for information on 25 September 2014 and on 25 October 2014 respectively. 2.     The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 3.     The applicant in case no. 64031/14 is a Ukrainian national. In 2014 his friend, Mr Oleksandr Grygorovych Kudinov, a human rights activist, was evacuating women and children from the area of armed conflict in Eastern Ukraine. 4.     On 22 September 2014 Mr Kudinov was allegedly abducted. Subsequently the applicant learned that his friend was held in captivity by members of separatist forces. 5.     On 7 December 2014 Mr Kudinov was released. 6.     The applicant in case no. 69094/14 is a Ukrainian national, who complains about abduction and captivity by members of separatist forces in Eastern Ukraine of her son Mr Vyacheslav Vasylyovych Kutsmay, a Ukrainian army’s serviceman. 7.     The fate of the captives remains unknown. 8.     On 12 May 2017 and 2 June 2017 letters were received from the applicants that they did not intend to pursue their applications. Those letters were signed by lawyers for whom no duly signed authority forms were to be found in the Court’s case files. 9.     On 5 October 2017 letters were sent to the applicants requesting them to submit duly signed authority forms, authorising the lawyers concerned to act on the applicants’ behalf. In case no. 64031/14 the applicant himself confirmed his intention not to pursue the case. There has been no response to the Registry’s letter in case no. 69094/14. COMPLAINTS 10.     The applicants complained under Articles 3, 5 and 13 of the Convention that their son and friend had been abducted and had been unlawfully detained in captivity by members of separatist forces in Eastern Ukraine, and that they were ill-treated while in detention. They also complained about lack of effective domestic remedies. THE LAW 11.     The Court considers that, in accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the applications should be joined, given their similar factual and legal background. 12.     In case no. 64031/14 the applicant informed the Court that he did not wish to pursue the case. In case no. 69094/14 there was no reply to the Registry’s request to inform the Court whether he wished to pursue his application. 13.     Before taking a decision to strike a particular case out of its list, the Court must verify whether respect for human rights as defined in Article   37 of the Convention requires it to continue the examination of the case. In so far as relevant, Article 37 provides: “1.     The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that (a)     the applicant does not intend to pursue his application; ... However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.” 14.     The Court must also consider whether there are any circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the case (Article   37 §   1 in fine ). This includes cases where an applicant wishes to withdraw his or her application (see, mutatis mutandis , Tyrer v. the United Kingdom , no.   5856/72, 25 April 1978, §§ 24-27). Such circumstances exist when the continued examination of an application would contribute to elucidating, safeguarding and developing the standards of protection under the Convention (see, for example, Karner v. Austria , no. 40016/98, § 27, ECHR 2003 ‑ IX). This will include when there is a new issue of concern or when there is a paucity of case-law on a particular subject (see, Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia , no. 25965/04, §§ 199 and 200, ECHR 2010 (extracts)). 15.     In the present case the Court notes that a number of cases concerning similar facts and raising similar issues under the Convention have been brought before the Court and those cases are currently pending before it. The Court will therefore have an opportunity to determine legal issues involved in these cases. 16.     In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court in respect of the application no.   69094/14. 17.     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. In the light of the foregoing, the Court, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application. 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 15 March 2018.   Renata Degener   Kristina Pardalos   Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX   No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Disappeared person Date of birth Represented by   64031/14 24/09/2014 Oleg Igorovych VEREMIYENKO 02/09/1980 Kyiv   Oleksandr Grygorovych KUDINOV 13/03/1967   Bogdan Mykhaylovych SHOKHA   69094/14 24/10/2014 Galyna Stepanivna KUTSMAY 11/04/1963 Kyiv   Vyacheslav Vasylyovych KUTSMAY 07/11/1986   Oleg Igorovych VEREMIYENKO