CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 30 avril 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 } .s7BE5FA78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .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 } .s7AF9E746 { width:20.69pt; display:inline-block } .s36FDA0C1 { width:186.12pt; display:inline-block } .sE6546C2D { width:159.78pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }     FIRST SECTION DECISION This version was rectified on 7 July 2020 under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court.   Application no. 15213/09 Valeriy Dyanozovich KULUMBEGOV against Georgia   The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 30   April   2020 as a Committee composed of:   Aleš Pejchal, President,   Jovan Ilievski,   Raffaele Sabato, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 13   September 2008, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, Mr Valeriy Dyanozovich Kulumbegov, was born in 1945. The applicant was represented by Mr V. Torkanovskiy, a lawyer practising in Moscow. The applicant’s complaints under Articles 2, 3, 8, 13 and 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention concerning the hostilities that took place in August 2008 on the territory of Tskhinvali region (South Ossetia [1] ) [2] were communicated to the Georgian Government (“the Government”). On 25 November 2019 the applicant’s representative informed the Registry that the applicant had died. He further stated that he was not in a   position to collect any additional information, so as the application could be pursued. THE LAW 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 application. Accordingly, the case should be struck out of the list. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases. Done in English and notified in writing on 22 May 2020.   Liv Tigerstedt   Aleš Pejchal Acting Deputy Registrar   President [1] The term ‘South-Ossetia’ refers to the region of Georgia which is beyond de facto control of the Georgian Government. [2] Rectified on 7 July 2020: footnote added (see above).