CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 29 novembre 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 } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s959B95E9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s354F7CEB { width:27.79pt; display:inline-block } .sEEEC397 { width:146.09pt; display:inline-block } .sC30055DD { width:0.44pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s2DC98A4F { margin-left:29.67pt; text-align:center; padding-left:6.33pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 77924/11 Aleksey Viktorovich GLODEV against Russia and 2 other applications (see list appended)   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 29   November 2018 as a Committee composed of:   Alena Poláčková, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Jolien Schukking, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, 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 The list of applicants is set out in the appended table. The applicants’ complaints, as listed in the appended table, were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”), who submitted observations on the admissibility and merits. By letters sent by registered post on the dates indicated in the appended table, the applicants were notified that the period allowed for submission of their observations indicated in the appended table   had expired and that no extension of time had been requested. Their attention was drawn to Article   37   §   1   (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. The addressees received these letters and did not reply or did not claim them at the post office (see the appended table). The applicants have not been in contact with the Court since the dates indicated in the appended table. 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 the applications (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 the Protocols thereto which require the continued examination of the applications. Accordingly, the cases should be struck 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 20 December 2018.   Liv Tigerstedt   Alena Poláčková   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX   No. Application no.   Date of introduction   Applicant’s name   Date of birth   Complaints communicated Time-limit for submission of the applicant’s observations Date of strike-out warning letter of the Court   Addressee of the strike ‑ out warning Report on reception   The latest correspondence sent by the applicant on   77924/11   29/11/2011 Aleksey Viktorovich Glodev   27/02/1971     Articles 3, 6 § 1, 6 § 3 (c)   05/02/2018   23/03/2018   applicant   received on 11/04/2018, no reply   15/05/2017   56592/12   08/08/2012 Roman Valeryevich Arestov   17/09/1975     Articles 6 § 1, 6 § 3 (c)   30/10/2017   23/03/2018   applicant’s contact person   returned to the Court as unclaimed on 30/05/2018   08/07/2013   62836/15   04/12/2015 Igor Alekseyevich Bogatyrev   10/06/1969     Articles 6 § 1, 6 § 3 (c)   05/02/2018   23/03/2018   applicant’s contact person   received on 16/04/2018, no reply   05/08/2016