CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 15 février 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .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 } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s448F0C15 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s2A91C753 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .s6F7FC1B9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; 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 } .sBD1BE8CC { width:33.89pt; display:inline-block } .s827CB718 { width:157.45pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block }     FIFTH SECTION CASE OF BRYG-A, TOV v. UKRAINE (Applications nos. 75237/10 and 75295/10)         JUDGMENT (Just Satisfaction - Striking out) STRASBOURG 15 February 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Bryg-A, TOV v. Ukraine, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Mārtiņš Mits , President ,   María Elósegui,   Kateřina Šimáčková , judges , and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 25 January 2024, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1 .     On 9 December 2021 the Court delivered a judgment concerning both applications which were joined (“the principal judgment”) holding that the applicant company had been deprived of a land plot in violation of Article   1 of Protocol   No.   1 to the Convention (see Bryg-A,   TOV   v.   Ukraine [Committee], nos.   75237/10 and 75295/10, §   24, 9 December 2021). 2.     Since the question of the application of Article   41 of the Convention was not ready for decision, the Court reserved it and invited the Government and the applicant company to submit, within three months, their written observations on that issue and, in particular, to notify the Court of any agreement they might reach (ibid., §   33 and point   5 of the operative provisions). 3.     By a letter dated 11 July 2023, sent to the applicant company’s email address through the Court’s Electronic Communications Service (eComms), it was notified that the period allowed for submission of observations on just satisfaction had expired and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant company’s attention was drawn to the fact that failure to make submissions on the reserved question of the application of Article 41 could lead to a conclusion that the applicant company did not intend to pursue the applications. In the absence of any reply, on various dates in September 2023 the Registry repeatedly and unsuccessfully tried to contact the applicant company and its representative through the telephone numbers and email addresses which they had indicated previously. THE LAW 4.     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. 5.     Accordingly, the remainder of the applications should be struck out of the list. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to strike the remainder of the applications out of its list of cases. Done in English, and notified in writing on 15 February 2024, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.   Martina Keller   Mārtiņš Mits   Deputy Registrar   President