CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 30 juin 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 } .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 } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; 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 } .sD2ED6D70 { height:41.85pt } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sD7287D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s4A20776 { height:53.1pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s39A0776 { height:53.9pt }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Applications nos. 8103/18 and 18359/18 S.D. against Russia and Y.M. against Russia (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 30 June 2022 as a Committee composed of:   Darian Pavli, President,   Andreas Zünd,   Mikhail Lobov, 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 regard to the decision to grant the applicants   anonymity, in accordance with Rule 47 § 4 of the Rules of the Court, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of the applicants and relevant details of their individual cases are set out in the appendix. The applicants’ complaints under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the risk of ill-treatment in the event of their removal to Tajikistan, as well as the complaints raised by the applicant S.D. under Article 5 § 1 (f) and § 4 and Article 13 of the Convention in respect of his detention pending removal and alleged lack of effective domestic remedies for the complaints under Article   3 were communicated to the Russian Government. The Court decided to indicate to the respondent Government, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, that the applicants should not be removed from Russia for the duration of the proceedings before it. On 13 and 15 June 2022 the applicants informed the Court of their wish to withdraw their applications. They submitted that, in the view of the recent cases of removals of the individuals despite the interim measures being granted by the Court, lodging a complaint and a request for interim measures with the UN Human Rights Committee was their only chance to prevent their removal to the country of origin. 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, the Court further concludes that the applicants may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue the applications (Article   37   §   1 (a) of the Convention). Considering that the applicants have not been forcibly removed yet and that they made their requests with a genuine intent to better safeguard their interests, the Court, in accordance with Article 37 §   1 in fine , finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto which require the continued examination of the applications. Accordingly, the cases should be struck out of the list. The interim measures previously indicated by the Court consequently come to an end. 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 5 July 2022.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Darian Pavli   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by Date of interim measure indicated by the Court Date of letter to the Registry 1. 8103/18 S.D. v. Russia 12/02/2018 S. D. 1997 Novosibirsk Tajikistani Kirill ZHARINOV   Daria Vladimirovna TRENINA   Eleonora DAVIDYAN 13/02/2018 15/06/2022 2. 18359/18 Y.M. v. Russia 19/04/2018 Y. M. 1994 Moscow Tajikistani Kirill ZHARINOV   Daria Vladimirovna TRENINA   Eleonora DAVIDYAN 11/05/2018 13/06/2022