CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 10 mars 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5FFF0A78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .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 } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .sE553EE81 { width:125.41pt; 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 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sF431263B { height:25.3pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 32251/12 SKIZB MEDIA KENTRON LTD against Armenia and 2 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 10   March 2022 as a Committee composed of:   Jolien Schukking, President,   Armen Harutyunyan,   Ana Maria Guerra Martins, 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 applicant company, Skizb Media Kentron, is a limited liability company with its registered office in Yerevan. It was represented by Mr   N.   Baghdasaryan, a lawyer practising in Yerevan. The applicant company’s complaints under Article 10 of the Convention concerning the alleged breaches of its right to freedom of expression were communicated to the Armenian Government (“the Government”), who submitted observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicant company, who was invited to submit its own observations. No reply was received to the Registry’s letters. By letters dated 11 January 2021, sent by registered post, the applicant company was notified that the period allowed for submission of its observations   had expired on 29 May 2017, in respect of application nos.   32251/12 and 71470/12, and 6 July 2017, in respect of application no.   12890/13, and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant company’s 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 applicant company’s lawyer received these letters on 17 February 2021. However, no response has followed. The applicant company or its lawyer have not contacted the Court since 2013. 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, 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 31 March 2022.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Jolien Schukking   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 10 of the Convention No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Place of Residence Represented by 1. 32251/12 Skizb Media Kentron Ltd v. Armenia 18/05/2012 SKIZB MEDIA KENTRON LTD Yerevan   Nikolay BAGHDASARYAN   2. 71470/12 Skizb Media Kentron Ltd v. Armenia 27/10/2012 3. 12890/13 Skizb Media Kentron Ltd v. Armenia 31/01/2013