CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 21 octobre 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 } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .sC1AEB4B0 { width:19.69pt; display:inline-block } .s9F489427 { width:153.86pt; display:inline-block } .s64406319 { width:11.68pt; display:inline-block } .s2753FA3F { width:163.53pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s4F255B52 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:1.55pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt }     FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 32776/06 Vitaliy Viktorovich SEMENYUTIN against Ukraine and 8 other applications (see list appended)   The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 21   October 2021 as a Committee composed of:   Arnfinn Bårdsen, President,   Ganna Yudkivska,   Mattias Guyomar, judges, and Martina Keller, 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 1.     A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. 2.     The applicants’ complaints under various Articles of the Convention were communicated to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”), who were represented by their then acting Agent, Ms   O. Davydchuk, of the Ministry of Justice. The applicants in applications nos. 34213/09 and 41447/09 were represented by Ms S.A. Taranets and Mr S.M. Zanudin respectively. In the other applications, the applicants did not appoint representatives. The applicants and the above representatives live either in the Donetsk or Lugansk regions or in Crimea, territories which are outside the control of the Government of Ukraine. 3.     The letters sent by the Registry to the applicants – or, where applicable, their representatives – after communication of the cases to the Government either were left unanswered or were returned undelivered. The Registry’s recent attempts to contact them by other means such as email addresses or phone numbers that were available in the files proved to be unsuccessful. THE LAW 4.     In accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the Court decides to join the applications, given their similar procedural background. 5.     The Court notes that, as the Ukrainian postal services are not operating on the territories of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions and Crimea (see Chepelenko and Others v. Ukraine (dec.) [Committee], nos. 15117/17 , 18635/17 , 18655/17 , 251/18 and 3633/18 , §§ 21 and 23, 28 January 2020; Lefter and Others v. Russia and Ukraine (dec.) [Committee], no. 30863/14, § 17, 16 June 2020; and Fasolko and Matych v. Ukraine (dec.) [Committee], nos. 30256/15 and 59524/15 , § 47, 21 January 2021) and the applicants did not indicate alternative means of communication, such as alternative postal addresses, emails or telephone numbers, or those had not been operating, the Court has lost contact with the applicants. The Court   is thus   faced with a situation which makes it impossible to   continue to examine these applications. 6.     It must be stressed in this connection that Rule 47 § 7 requires the applicants to keep the Court informed of any change of their addresses and of all circumstances relevant to their application. 7.     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 human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the applications (see, mutatis mutandis , Nekhoroshkin v. Ukraine (dec.) [Committee], no.   53548/09, 24 October 2019 ; Yuldashev and Others v. Russia and Ukraine (dec.) [Committee], no.   35139/14 and 326 other applications, 5   May 2020; Lefter and Others v. Russia and Ukraine , cited above; and Olkhovskaya v.   Ukraine (dec.) [Committee], no. 35549/10, 22 April 2021). 8.     In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the applications out of the list of cases. 9.     This being so, the Court recalls that it may decide to restore an application to its list of cases if it considers that the circumstances justify such a course (article 37 § 2 of the Convention). 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 25 November 2021.   {signature_p_2}   Martina Keller   Arnfinn Bårdsen   Deputy Registrar   President Appendix List of Applications No. Application no. Lodged on Case name Applicant Year of Birth / Place of Residence Nationality Represented by Subject matter of dispute 1.     32776/06 11 July 2006 Semenyutin v. Ukraine Vitaliy Viktorovich SEMENYUTIN 1964 Gorlovka, the Donetsk Region Ukrainian   Alleged lack of appropriate medical assistance in detention, the length of the applicant’s detention and the length of criminal proceedings against him. 2. 18254/07 12 April 2007 Zhuk v.   Ukraine Lyudmyla Mykolayivna ZHUK Pervomayske, Crimea Ukrainian Sergiy Grygorovych ZHUK Pervomayske, Crimea Ukrainian   Whether damages awarded for the failure of the State Bailiffs’ Service to enforce a judgment against a private debtor were arbitrarily low. 3.     28056/07 7 June 2007 Denisov v.   Ukraine Gennadiy Nikolayevich DENISOV 1966 Donetsk, Donetsk Region Ukrainian   Alleged monitoring of the applicant’s correspondence by the prison administration. 4.     34213/09 11 June 2009 Litvinenko v. Ukraine Alla Vasilyevna LITVINENKO 1941 Saky, Crimea Ukrainian Svetlana Anatolyevna TARANETS Effectiveness of criminal proceedings in connection with the murder of her son by an unknown person. 5.     41447/09 6 July 2009 Goncharov v. Ukraine Oleksandr Volodymyrovych GONCHAROV 1977 Perevalsk, Lugansk Region Ukrainian Sergiy Mykhaylovych ZANUDIN Alleged breach of the applicant’s right for respect of his private life by the limitation of the time for challenging the paternity entry in the birth registry.   6.     61822/09 9 November 2009 Timchenko v. Ukraine Sergey Petrovich TIMCHENKO 1976 Donetsk, Donetsk Region Ukrainian   Alleged breach of the principles of equality of arms in connection with the prosecutor’s intervention in the civil proceedings regarding the applicant’s title to property, of which he was eventually deprived.   7.     34681/11 20 May 2011 Aliarova v. Ukraine Vaspiye Ismailovna ALIAROVA 1951 Simferopol, Crimea Kazakhstani   Alleged breach of the principle of legal certainty following the extension of the time-limits for the prosecutor’s appeals and the quashing of final judgment rendered in the applicant’s favour. 8.     49304/11 16 July 2011 Golovnya v. Ukraine Volodymyr Stepanovych GOLOVNYA 1940 Lugansk, Lugansk Region Ukrainian   Alleged failure of the State to pay the supplement to the applicant’s pension pursuant to the Children of War Act. 9.     56757/11 29 August 2011 Mordalevich v. Ukraine Yekaterina Vasilyevna MORDALEVICH 1960 Rysakove, Crimea Ukrainian   Alleged ineffective investigation into the medical negligence resulting in the death of the applicant’s husband.