CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 16 juin 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s12CB6876 { margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sDAD2B73A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sC6C7C49B { margin-left:7.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s76334B44 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:36.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .s21B1FE17 { width:12.67pt; display:inline-block } .sC38D9B28 { width:156.85pt; display:inline-block } .s64406319 { width:11.68pt; display:inline-block } .s2753FA3F { width:163.53pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }     FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 30863/14 Sergiy Oleksandrovych LEFTER against Ukraine and Russia and 9 other applications (see list appended)   The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 16 June 2020 as a Committee composed of:   Aleš Pejchal, President,   Pauliine Koskelo,   Tim Eicke, judges, and Renata Degener, 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 Background to the cases 1.     A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. The applicants in seven of the applications were represented by Mr O.I. Veremiyenko and in two applications by Ms Y.O. Zakrevska, lawyers practising in Kyiv. The applicant in the remaining application (no.   3364/15) was initially represented by a lawyer practising in Kyiv but she subsequently dismissed that legal representative (see paragraph 17 below). 2.     The applications relate to the events that took place in Eastern Ukraine. The applicants argued that from the beginning of April 2014 onwards armed groups had started to seize official buildings and territory in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine and announced the creation of self-proclaimed entities known as the “Donetsk People’s Republic” and “Luhansk People’s Republic” (the “DPR” and “LPR”). 3.     In response, on 14 April 2014 the Ukrainian Government, which consider the armed groups to be terrorist organisations, had authorised the use of force against them in the form of an “anti-terrorist operation”. 4.     The applications concerned the alleged abduction and unlawful deprivation of liberty of the applicants or their relatives   ̶ who are civilians, volunteers or servicemen of the Ukrainian Army   ̶ by representatives of the “DPR” and “LPR” in the course of the conflict in Eastern Ukraine and the alleged ill-treatment to which they were subjected while in detention. In respect of their allegations the applicants relied, inter alia , on Articles 3, 5, 8 and 10 of the Convention. 5.     The applicants further relied on Articles 13 and 14 of the Convention, stating that they or their relatives had been subjected to discrimination on account of their language, places of residence and political opinions and arguing that the respondent Governments had failed to undertake necessary measures in order to secure their Convention rights. 6.     The applications were communicated to the Government of the Russian Federation, represented by their Agent, Mr   M.   Galperin, and to the Government of Ukraine, represented by their Agent, Mr   I. Lishchyna (“the Governments”). Procedure followed by the Court Lefter v. Russia and Ukraine, no. 30863/14; Krat v. Russia and Ukraine, no. 31357/14 and Kluger v. Russia and Ukraine, no.   51253/14 7.     On 9 January 2018 the applicants’ complaints under Articles 3, 5, 8, 10, 13 and 14 of the Convention were communicated to the Governments whose observations were received on 31 August 2018 and 11 October 2018 respectively. The Governments’ observations were forwarded to the applicants’ representatives through the Court’s Electronic Communications Service (eComms) on 5 November 2018 and the applicants were invited to provide their written observations in reply and their just satisfaction claims. 8.     However, no replies were received from the applicants within the time- limit indicated by the Court. Therefore, on 15 May 2019 the Registry sent, through eComms, letters to the applicants, informing them that the period allowed for submission of their observations had expired on 1 April 2019 but that no observations had been received. The applicants’ attention was also 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. 9.     In application no. 31357/14 the letter described above was downloaded by the applicant’s representative Mr Veremiyenko. However, no answer to it has been received by the Court. 10.     As regards applications nos. 30863/14 and 51253/14, after having received the Court’s above-mentioned letter of 15 May 2019, the applicants’ representative Ms Zakrevska contacted the Court on 20 May 2019 and sought an extension of the time-limit until 5 September 2019. On 6   June 2019 the Court granted that request and informed the applicants’ representative accordingly. On 3 September 2019 the representative sought a second extension, this time until 13 September 2019. On 5   September 2019 the Court informed the representative that her request was granted. Finally, on 13 September 2019 the representative sought another extension, this time until 18 September 2019. That request was also granted but the representative was informed by the Court that the time allowed would not be extended any further. To date, no observations have been received by the Court and no further contact has been made with the Court by the applicants’ representative regarding these two applications. Chabanyuk v. Russia and Ukraine, no. 59432/14 and Povarchuk v.   Russia and Ukraine, no. 66215/14 11.     On 21 February 2018 the applicants’ complaints under Articles 3, 5 and 13 of the Convention were communicated to the Governments, whose observations were received on 31 August 2018 and 11 October 2018 respectively. The Governments’ observations were forwarded to the applicants’ representative through eComms on 5 November 2018 and the applicants were invited to provide their written observations in reply and their just satisfaction claims. 12.     However, no observations were received within the time-limit fixed for that purpose. Therefore, on 16 September 2019 the Registry sent by registered post a letter to the applicants’ representative informing him that the period allowed for submission of the applicants’ observations had expired on 1 April 2019 but that no observations had been received. The applicants’ attention was also drawn to Article   37   §   1   (a) of the Convention referred to above. 13.     The postal service returned the above-mentioned letter to the Court undelivered with a note “wrong address”. The Court observes that the applicants’ legal representative has never informed the Court of any change of address. Fonina v. Russia and Ukraine, no. 66264/14; Polishchuk v. Russia and Ukraine, no. 69887/14; Pshenychnov v. Russia and Ukraine, no.   74577/14 and Buzenko v Russia and Ukraine, no. 7962/15 14.     On 15 March 2018 the applicants’ complaints under Articles 3, 5 and 13 of the Convention were communicated to the Governments. On 11   September 2018 the Court received observations from the Government of the Russian Federation which were forwarded to the applicants’ representative. As regards observations from the Ukrainian Government, they were not included in the case file as they had been submitted outside the time-limit set by the Court. 15.     Given that no observations were received from the applicants, by a letter dated 21 November 2018 and sent through eComms their representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of the observations in reply had expired on 24 October 2018 and that no extension of time had been requested. His attention was also drawn to Article   37   §   1   (a) of the Convention referred to above. On 8 April 2019 the Registry sent a second, similarly-worded, letter by registered post which was received by the applicants’ representative on 10 June 2019. However he has not replied to either of the Court’s letters. Klimova v. Russia and Ukraine, no. 3364/15 16.     On 13 September 2018 the applicant’s complaints under Articles 3, 5   and 13 of the Convention were communicated to the Governments, whose observations were received on 14 January 2019 and forwarded to the applicant’s legal representative on 7 February 2019 and the applicant was invited to provide her written observations in reply and just satisfaction claims by 17 June 2019. 17.     By a letter dated 22 March 2019 the applicant’s representative informed the Court that the applicant had dismissed her. In the light of the above letter and the absence of any information from the applicant, on 9   October 2019 the Registry sent a letter, by registered post and by e-mail, directly to the applicant. She was informed in that letter that it had been decided to grant her a new time-limit, until 6 November 2019, for her to appoint another representative and for submitting her written observations. By the same letter, the applicant’s attention was drawn to Article   37   §   1   (a) of the Convention referred to above. The above-mentioned letter was returned to the Court undelivered. The Court notes in this connection that on 24   July 2014 the Ukrainian postal service, Ukrposhta, suspended its operations on the territories of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions that were outside the control of the Ukrainian Government because of frequent attacks on its vehicles and employees by armed groups (see Chepelenko and Others v.   Ukraine (dec.), nos. 15117/17, 18635/17, 18655/17, 251/18 and 3633/18, §§ 21 and 23, 28 January 2020). 18.     No replies were received from the applicant by e-mail either. As the application form provided by the applicant does not indicate any other alternative contact details, such as a telephone number or a different address, the Court has been unable to contact the applicant by such means. THE LAW 19.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. 20.     The Court considers that, in the circumstances described above, the applicants 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 the cases. 21.     In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases 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 9 July 2020.   Renata Degener   Aleš Pejchal   Deputy Registrar   President   Appendix   No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by 1. 30863/14 Lefter v. Russia and Ukraine 23/04/2014 Sergiy Oleksandrovych LEFTER 1990 Kozyatyn Ukrainian Yevgeniya Oleksandrivna ZAKREVSKA 2. 31357/14 Krat v. Russia and Ukraine 24/04/2014 Irma Mykolayivna KRAT 1984 Lokhvytsya Ukrainian Oleg Igorovych VEREMIYENKO 3. 51253/14 Kluger v. Russia and Ukraine 01/07/2014 Dmytro Lvovych KLUGER 1978 Donetsk Ukrainian Yevgeniya Oleksandrivna ZAKREVSKA 4. 59432/14 Chabanyuk v. Russia and Ukraine 29/08/2014 Maya Anatoliyivna CHABANYUK 1984 Grytsiv Ukrainian   Oleg Igorovych VEREMIYENKO 5. 66215/14 Povarchuk v. Russia and Ukraine 07/10/2014 Maryna Volodymyrivna POVARCHUK 1989 Vyshgorod Ukrainian   Oleg Igorovych VEREMIYENKO 6. 66264/14 Fonina v. Russia and Ukraine 07/10/2014 Oksana Leonidivna FONINA Sofiyivska Borshchagivka Ukrainian     Oleg Igorovych VEREMIYENKO 7. 69887/14 Polishchuk v. Russia and Ukraine 29/10/2014 Yuriy Oleksandrovych POLISHCHUK 1985 Kyiv Ukrainian   Oleg Igorovych VEREMIYENKO 8. 74577/14 Pshenychnov v. Russia and Ukraine 28/11/2014 Oleksandr Anatoliyovych PSHENYCHNOV 1964 Kyiv Ukrainian   Oleg Igorovych VEREMIYENKO 9. 3364/15 Klimova v. Russia and Ukraine 16/01/2015 Bozhena Oleksandrivna KLIMOVA 1984 Donetsk Ukrainian   10. 7962/15 Buzenko v. Russia and Ukraine 12/02/2015 Olga Petrivna BUZENKO 1986 V. Kucheriv Ukrainian   Oleg Igorovych VEREMIYENKO