CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 16 janvier 2020

.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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sB853CD2D { font-family:Arial; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD7AA71C8 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s354F7CEB { width:27.79pt; display:inline-block } .sBBFD69C3 { width:114.42pt; display:inline-block } .sC30055DD { width:0.44pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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 }     FIFTH SECTION DECISION Applications nos. 5701/11 and 5705/11 Viktor Andriyovych BANDURKA against Ukraine and Lyubov Ivanivna BANDURKA against Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 16   January 2020 as a Committee composed of:   Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, President,   Mārtiņš Mits,   Lәtif Hüseynov, 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 the applicants is set out in the appended table. The applicants were represented by Mr Oleg Viktorovych Kozhukhovskyy, a lawyer practising in Pereyaslav-Khmelnytskyy. The applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, concerning an alleged breach of their right to access to court, as well as their complaints under Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, concerning an alleged interference with their property rights by virtue of the refusal of the domestic courts to examine their appeal seeking allocation of pension supplements, were communicated to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”), who submitted observations on the admissibility and merits on 11 October 2018. They further informed the Court that, shortly after the applications had been lodged in 2011, the appeals had in fact been examined and granted on the domestic level. The applicants alleged, in their observations in reply, that they had never been informed of those favourable decisions on appeal, had only learned about them from the Government’s observations and therefore could not have had the decisions in their favour enforced since 2011. On 3 July 2019 further observations were requested from the Government under Articles   6   §   1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of the alleged non-enforcement of the decisions favourable to the applicants. The Government submitted their further observations. On 31 July 2019 those were forwarded to the applicants, who were invited to submit their own observations by 2 September 2019. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter. By letter dated 16 October 2019, sent by registered post, the applicants’ representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of the applicants’ further observations   had expired on 2 September 2019 and that no extension of time had been requested. His 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’ representative received this letter on 7 November 2019. However, no response has been received. 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. In the light of the foregoing, and in the absence of any special circumstances regarding respect for the rights guaranteed by the Convention and the Protocols thereto, 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 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 6 February 2020.   Liv Tigerstedt   Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX   No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Date of Birth Nationality 1 5701/11 Bandurka v. Ukraine 14/01/2011 Viktor Andriyovych BANDURKA 25/06/1943 Ukrainian 2 5705/11 Bandurka v. Ukraine 14/01/2011 Lyubov Ivanivna BANDURKA 01/05/1943 Ukrainian