CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 20 janvier 2022

.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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .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 }   FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 68918/14 Oleg Valeriyovych LEVITAS against Ukraine and 4 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 20   January 2022 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 applications is set out in the appendix. The applicants’ complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning a disproportionate interference with their property rights were communicated to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”), who submitted observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicants, who were invited to submit their own observations. No reply was received to the Registry’s letters. By letters dated 5 May 2021, sent by registered post, the applicants’ representatives were notified that the period allowed for submission of the applicants’ observations had expired on 24 November 2020 and that no extension of time had been requested. Their 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. One of the representatives (application no. 75606/14) received the letter on 9   June 2021. However, no response followed. The letters to the other applicants’ representatives returned to the Court on 20 August 2021 following unsuccessful attempts to deliver them. THE LAW The Court decides to join the applications given their similar procedural background. 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, 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 10 February 2022.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Lətif Hüseynov   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.   No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Represented by 1. 68918/14 Levitas v.   Ukraine 16/10/2014 Oleg Valeriyovych LEVITAS 1980 Brooklyn Ruslan Valeriyovych KVITIN 2. 71559/14 Khyenkin v.   Ukraine 27/10/2014 Gennadiy Yukhymovych KHYENKIN 1967 Haifa Ruslan Valeriyovych KVITIN 3. 75606/14 Antonyuk v.   Ukraine 12/01/2015 Oleksandr Ivanovych ANTONYUK 1959 Kyiv Ruslan Khazyeinovich MAMEDOV 4. 78615/14 Omar v.   Ukraine 06/12/2014 Shamoun OMAR 1982 Odesa Yuliya Mykolayivna TYMCHYNSKA 5. 2442/15 Sheykhetov v.   Ukraine 23/12/2014 Stanislav Markovych SHEYKHETOV 1970 Kyiv Lyudmyla Ivanivna OSYKINA