CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 5 mars 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 } .s490D418E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; 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 } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s354F7CEB { width:27.79pt; display:inline-block } .sEEEC397 { width:146.09pt; display:inline-block } .sB6CA8415 { width:26.45pt; display:inline-block } .s36359848 { width:112.09pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3B1EE78A { height:19.8pt } .sAC521AF { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; 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 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 36741/09 Mikhail Leonidovich GLAZKOV against Russia and 5 other applications (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 5   March 2020 as a Committee composed of:   Alena Poláčková, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Gilberto Felici, 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 and their representatives is set out in the appendix. The applicants’ complaints under various Convention provisions, including Articles 2, 3, 5, 6 and 13 of the Convention about the outcome and fairness of the domestic proceedings as well as an alleged ill-treatment in custody were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”), who submitted observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicants, who were invited to submit their own observations. No reply was received to the Registry’s respective letters. By letters sent on various dates (see the attached table) by registered post the applicants were notified that the period allowed for submission of their observations   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. 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. The Court reiterates that under Rule 47 § 7 of the Rules of Court applicants shall keep the Court informed of any change of address and of all circumstances relevant to the application. The Court considers that the applicants’ failure to inform the Registry about the developments in their cases, the change of their respective addresses, and the absence of any correspondence from them despite the Court’s requests and warnings, indicate that they have lost interest in their complaints and 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 these cases. 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 26 March 2020.   Liv Tigerstedt   Alena Poláčková   Acting Deputy Registrar   President     APPENDIX No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant’s name, date of birth, place of residence and nationality Notes 1. 36741/09 Glazkov v. Russia 19/06/2009 Mikhail Leonidovich GLAZKOV 08/04/1968 Polevoy Russian Failure to reply to the Court’s correspondence since February 2019, including a strike-out warning sent on 14 June 2019. 2. 24273/11 Sobolevskiy and Tyunina v. Russia 31/03/2011 Vladimir Nikolayevich SOBOLEVSKIY 05/12/1980 Dzerzhinsk Russian   Lyudmila Georgiyevna TYUNINA 19/10/1959 Dzerzhinsk Russian Failure to reply to the Court’s correspondence since February 2019, the applicant having moved out from the latest known address without providing the Court with a new one. 3. 24636/11 Tyunin v. Russia 31/03/2011 Nikolay Vladimirovich TYUNIN 21/07/1957 Dzerzhinsk Russian Failure to reply to the Court’s correspondence since February 2019, the applicant having moved out from the latest known address without providing the Court with a new one. 4. 68946/12 Tikhonovskiy v.   Russia 26/09/2012 Sergey Vladimirovich TIKHONOVSKIY 21/02/1961 Voronezh Russian Failure to reply to the Court’s correspondence since February 2019, including a strike-out warning sent on 14 June 2019. 5. 72140/13 Kolomiyko v. Russia 02/10/2013 Nikolay Petrovich KOLOMIYKO 06/02/1979 Samara Russian Failure to reply to the Court’s correspondence since February 2019, including a strike-out warning sent on 14 June 2019. 6. 38974/17 Yakotsuts v. Russia 10/07/2017 Viktor Ivanovich YAKOTSUTS 06/08/1977 Tashtyp Russian Failure to reply to the Court’s correspondence since February   2019, including a strike-out warning sent on 14 June 2019.