CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 14 février 2019

.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 } .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 } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s354F7CEB { width:27.79pt; display:inline-block } .sDFB35AA3 { width:181.54pt; display:inline-block } .sC30055DD { width:0.44pt; display:inline-block } .sD95A1679 { width:173.54pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s8934192D { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s90A18CFD { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:8pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .sEA96756B { height:50.65pt } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s26F67D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:3pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 28971/10 Igor Vladimirovich CHERTOV against Russia and 4 other applications   (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 14   February 2019 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 had expired on 6 April 2017 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicants’ 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 applicants in all of the applications, except for application no.   15782/14, received the letters from the Court and did not reply or did not claim them at the post office (see the appended table). In application no.   15782/14 the Court’s letter, dispatched to the address of the applicant’s detention facility, did not reach the applicant because he had been released from detention and had not communicated his new address. None of the applicants have 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 7 March 2019.   Liv Tigerstedt   Alena Poláčková   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX   No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Complaints communicated 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 to the Court on 1. 28971/10 09/04/2010 Igor Vladimirovich CHERTOV 22/09/1971 Belnyaki Articles 3, 8 and 13 of the Convention 19/03/2018 applicant Received on 06/04/2018, no reply followed 16/02/2012 2. 20028/13 26/02/2013 Yevgeniy Valeryevich ANOSHIN 27/07/1983 Torzhok Articles 3, 8 and 13 of the Convention 19/03/2018 10/10/2018 applicant The first letter – undelivered according to delivery tracking report (unclaimed)   The second letter – received on 23/10/2018, no reply followed 29/10/2015 3. 9082/14 25/12/2013 Vladimir Nikolayevich SHEVCHENKO 23/06/1978 Kushmangort Articles 3, 8 and 13 of the Convention 19/03/2018 applicant Received on 07/04/2018, no reply followed 02/11/2016 4. 10488/14 31/03/2014 Sergey Grigoryevich SINELNIKOV 20/07/1951 Volokolamsk   Represented by: Sergey Yevgenyevich NUYANZIN Articles 3, 8 and 13 of the Convention 19/03/2018 representative Received on 06/04/2018, no reply followed 25/07/2017 5. 15782/14 30/08/2014 Sergey Aleksandrovich GAVSHIN 04/01/1972 Rostov-na-Donu Articles 3, 8 and 13 of the Convention 19/03/2018 10/10/2018 applicant The first letter – undelivered according to delivery tracking report   The second letter – received back by the Court undelivered with notice that the applicant had been released from the detention facility 30/08/2014