CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 8 septembre 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 } .sAE4916B8 { width:96.07pt; 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 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sD8E76205 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt }   FIFTH SECTION DECISION Applications nos. 7585/12 and 23746/14 Asan Dzhelyalovich KARAUMEROV against Ukraine and Olena Valeriyivna SMYK against Ukraine (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 8   September 2022 as a Committee composed of:   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström , President,   Ivana Jelić ,   Kateřina Šimáčková , 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. The applicants live in the territories which are outside the control of the Government of Ukraine (Aromatne, Crimea, and Makiyivka, Donetsk Region, respectively). The applicants’ complaints under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention 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 9 and 10 December 2021, sent by registered post, the applicants were notified that the period allowed for submission of their observations had expired on 3 November 2021 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicants’ 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. However, no response has been received. 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. The Court has already decided to strike out of its list applications in circumstances similar to the present case (see, for example, Semenyutin and Others   v.   Ukraine (dec.) [Committee], nos.   32776/06 and 8 others, §§   5-8, 21   October 2021, with further references). 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 29 September 2022.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX No. Application no. Date of introduction Case name Applicant Year of Birth Represented by 1. 7585/12 23/01/2012 Karaumerov v.   Ukraine Asan Dzhelyalovich KARAUMEROV 1968 Oleksandr Vsevolodovych GNEZDOV 2. 23746/14 14/03/2014 Smyk v. Ukraine Olena Valeriyivna SMYK 1989