CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 16 octobre 2018

.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 } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .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 } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s3225EC85 { width:33.12pt; display:inline-block } .s13C999E6 { width:151.43pt; display:inline-block } .sAFF36EC2 { width:18.78pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; 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 } .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. 10812/06 Igor Georgiyevich TKACHENKO against Russia and Ukraine and 3 other applications (see list appended)   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 16   October 2018 as a Committee composed of:   Alena Poláčková, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Jolien Schukking, 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 under Articles 3, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 14 of the Convention were communicated to the Russian Government (“the 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 applicant’s complaints under Article 5 of the Convention in application no. 10812/06 were also communicated to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”). The Ukrainian Government also made use of their right to intervene under Article   36 of the Convention in application no. 10812/06 (as regards part of the applicant’s complaint against Russia) but submitted no observations within the prescribed time-limit. As to application no. 77427/14, following communication of the application to the Russian Government a question arose as to the applicant’s interest in pursuing it. The applicant and his representative, Ms Volkova, then failed to respond to the Registry’s letters of 14 November 2017 and 17   January 2018 (the latter being received by the representative on 1   February 2018) in this connection, also drawing their attention to Article   37   §   1   (a) of the Convention. As to applications nos.   10812/06, 70090/10 and 3620/14, the Russian Government’s observations in those applications 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. 10812/06, the applicant failed to respond to the Registry’s letter of 17 February 2017, drawing his attention to Article   37   §   1   (a) of the Convention. As to application no. 70090/10, by letters dated 21 February 2017, sent by registered post to Mr   Maranov (representing both applicants before the Court) as well as by ordinary mail to the applicants, they were notified that the period allowed for submission of their observations had expired on 24   March 2016 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicants’ attention was drawn to Article   37   §   1   (a) of the Convention. According to the Russian Post’s Online Tracking System, the Court’s letter to Mr   Maranov was delivered on 7 April 2017. In December 2017 another letter was sent, by registered mail, to the applicants as well as by ordinary mail and email to Mr   Maranov. However, no response has been received. As to application no. 3620/14, the Court letter of 12 May 2017, sent by registered mail and drawing the applicant’s attention to Article   37   §   1   (a) of the Convention, was returned to the Court undelivered not being claimed by the applicant. THE LAW The Court finds it appropriate to examine the applications jointly in a single decision. The Court considers, 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 15 November 2018.   Fatoş Aracı   Alena Poláčková   Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX   No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Represented by   10812/06 26/01/2006 Igor Georgiyevich TKACHENKO 09/12/1962 Kiev, Ukraine       70090/10 07/11/2010 EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN BAPTISTS CHURCH 13/12/1998 Millerovo Roman Yuryevich Panasenko 18/11/1974 Millerovo, Russia     Roman Vasilyevich MARANOV   3620/14 23/11/2013 Svetlana Mikhaylovna VIKULOVA 13/12/1965 Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskiy, Russia       77427/14 05/12/2014 Stanislav Vladimirovich MIKHAYLOV 27/04/1969 Moscow, Russia   Yuliya Vasilyevna VOLKOVA