CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 17 juin 2021

.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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .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 } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF920FE69 { font-family:Arial; color:#f8f8f8 } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7486CA7E { width:0.34pt; display:inline-block } .s5044D313 { width:145.19pt; display:inline-block } .s67CC2216 { width:138.53pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s9252AC04 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s7C0E0FD2 { width:271.85pt; display:inline-block } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; 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 } .s7FDD75C9 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:-0.2pt; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s5FFF0A78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:2pt }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 46937/09 Roman Yevgenyevich TETEREV against Russia and 4 other applications (see list appended)     The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 17 June 2021 as a Committee composed of:   Darian Pavli, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Peeter Roosma, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, 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 applications is set out in the appendix. The applicants’ complaints under Article 8 § 1 of the Convention concerning the allocation or transfer to a remote penal facility irrespective of family life considerations were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). In some of the applications, complaints based on the same facts were also communicated under other provisions of the Convention. The Court received the friendly-settlement declarations, signed by the Government which undertook to pay the applicants the amounts detailed in the appended table. However, no replies from the applicants were received to the Registry’s letters. By letters dated as indicated in the appended table, sent by registered post, the applicants were notified that the period allowed for submission of their response to the declarations had expired 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. As regards applications nos. 46937/09 and 32419/11, as of 17 and 23   December 2020 respectively, the letters were stored at a local post office for the applicants to collect. On 18 and 23   January 2021, respectively, the post office returned the letters to the Court as uncollected. As to the remaining applications, the applicants received those letters on the dates indicated in the appended table. However, no response followed from them. 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 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 the rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the 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 8 July 2021.   {signature_p_2}   Viktoriya Maradudina   Darian Pavli Acting Deputy Registrar   President       APPENDIX   List of applications raising complaints under Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (allocation or transfer to a remote penal facility irrespective of family life considerations) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth Representative’s name and location Other complaints under well-established case-law   Date of the Court’s letter sent by registered post Date of receipt of the Court’s letter by the applicant(s)     46937/09 27/07/2009 Roman Yevgenyevich TETEREV 1975       Art.   6 – absence from a hearing;   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - in respect of allocation to a remote facility. 04/12/2020 Attempted delivery on 17/12/20, returned to sender as uncollected on 18/01/2021.     32419/11 26/03/2011 Denis Yevgenyevich KOROBOV 1979       Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - in respect of allocation to a remote facility. 04/12/2020 Arrived at the local post office on 23/12/20, returned to sender as uncollected on 23/01/2021.     8014/19 15/01/2019 Azamat Albertovich AGLIULLIN 1977       Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - in respect of allocation to a remote colony 04/12/2020 30/12/2020     16661/19 14/03/2019 (4 applicants) Household   Magomesaid Sheykhovich GAZALIYEV 1964 Galimat Sheykhovna BUTAYEVA 1958 Azha Abdulayevna GAZALIYEVA 1932 Miyasat Sheykhovna MUSLIMOVA 1960 Okushko Tatyana Borisovna Moscow Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - in respect of allocation to a remote colony. 23/11/2020 07/12/2020       8440/20 17/01/2020 Aleksandr Valeryevich NOVOKHATSKIY 1978       Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - in respect of allocation to a remote colony. 04/12/2020 21/12/2020