CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 9 septembre 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .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 } .s241E80BF { width:7.44pt; display:inline-block } .sAE4916B8 { width:96.07pt; display:inline-block } .sC30055DD { width:0.44pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s89D26081 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:11pt } .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 } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 32635/12 Vladimir Alekseyevich MOROZOVagainst Ukraine and 3 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 9   September 2021 as a Committee composed of:   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, President,   Jovan Ilievski,   Mattias Guyomar, 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 applicants is set out in the appendix. The applicants were represented by Mr Kalikhmanov Dmitriy Anatolyevich, a lawyer practising in Krasnyy Luch (currently – Khrustalnyy), Ukraine. The applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on account of the infringement of the principle of legal certainty and their right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions by quashing of the final judgments in their respective cases were communicated to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”), who submitted observations on the admissibility and merits. By letters of 30 June 2017 and of 2 October 2018 the applicants were invited to submit their claims for just satisfaction. The Registry’s letters returned as undelivered for all the applicants because they reside in the uncontrolled territory in the East Ukraine where no postal services are ensured. The Registry’s email sent to the applicants’ representative remained unanswered. The attempts to contact the applicants by phone were unsuccessful. However, in March 2021 the applicants’ representative was reached by phone: he confirmed receiving the email from the Court and claimed that his email address was correct but could not explain why he has never replied. By letters dated 30 March 2021, sent by email, the applicants’ representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction had expired on 28 July 2017 and on 13 November 2018, respectively, and that no extension of time had been requested; he was also requested to provide other important information related to the domestic proceedings and copies of documents in the applicants’ cases. His attention was further 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 followed. 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, they 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 30 September 2021.   {signature_p_2}   Viktoriya Maradudina   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX List of applications No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Represented by 1. 32635/12 Morozov v.   Ukraine 14/05/2012 Vladimir Alekseyevich MOROZOV 1950 Krasnyy Luch (currently – Khrustalnyy) Dmitriy Anatolyevich KALIKHMANOV 2. 52602/12 Skrypnikova v. Ukraine 20/08/2012 Larisa Yefimovna SKRYPNIKOVA 1952 Krasnyy Luch (currently – Khrustalnyy) Dmitriy Anatolyevich KALIKHMANOV 3. 53118/12 Kravtsov v.   Ukraine 06/08/2012 Sergey Leontyevich KRAVTSOV 1956 Krasnyy Luch (currently – Khrustalnyy) Dmitriy Anatolyevich KALIKHMANOV 4. 65611/12 Khorev v.   Ukraine 06/10/2012 Nikolay Alekseyevich KHOREV 1950 Krasnyy Luch (currently – Khrustalnyy) Dmitriy Anatolyevich KALIKHMANOV