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

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .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 } .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 } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .s22DFA96B { width:28.86pt; display:inline-block } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sC5599237 { width:142.72pt; display:inline-block } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .sF5B27E79 { width:130.75pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .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 }   FIFTH SECTION DECISION Applications nos. 18183/19 and 20103/19 Rayisa Mykhaylivna PETINA against Ukraine and Nadiya Pavlivna NELINA-YEREMYEYEVA against Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 9   December 2021 as a Committee composed of:   Lətif Hüseynov, President,   Lado Chanturia,   Arnfinn Bårdsen, 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. They were represented by Mr V. Makarov, a lawyer practising in Kyiv. The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on account of the non-enforcement of the court judgments adopted in their favour, and under Article 14 of the Convention on account of the discriminatory nature of the legislative provisions limiting the rights of internally displaced persons to choose a bank through which to receive social benefits as compared to other persons receiving them. These complaints were communicated to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”), who submitted observations on the admissibility and merits. The Government’s observations were forwarded to the applicants’ representative, who was invited to submit observations in reply, together with any claims for just satisfaction. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter. By letter dated 27 August 2021, sent by registered post, the applicants’ representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of the observations had expired on 2 July 2021 and that no extension of time had been requested. His 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. The applicants’ representative received that letter on 13 September 2021. 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 13 January 2022.     {signature_p_1}   {signature_p_2}   Viktoriya Maradudina   Lətif Hüseynov   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX List of applications. No. Application no. Date of introduction Case name Applicant Year of Birth Nationality 1. 18183/19 20/03/2019 Petina v. Ukraine Rayisa Mykhaylivna PETINA 1942 Ukrainian 2. 20103/19 04/04/2019 Nelina-Yeremyeyeva v.   Ukraine Nadiya Pavlivna NELINA ‑ YEREMYEYEVA 1943 Ukrainian