CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 16 mai 2024

.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 } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s418B82EF { width:132.42pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .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 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   FIFTH SECTION DECISION Applications nos. 6309/16 and 42248/20 Volodymyr Vasylyovych KARYMOV against Ukraine and Oleksandr Anatoliyovych SHKINDER against Ukraine (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 16 May 2024 as a Committee composed of:   Carlo Ranzoni , President ,   Mārtiņš Mits,   María Elósegui , 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 application no. 6309/16 concerns the invalidation of the applicant’s title to a land plot following a request by the prosecutor; the land was returned into State property. In that respect the applicant complained under Articles 6 and 14 of the Convention, as well as under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The application no. 42248/20 concerns the applicant’s unsuccessful claim for reinstatement in his position of a judge of a local court following the Court’s judgment in his case finding various violations of the Convention. In that respect the applicant complained under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention. The applicants have not contacted the Court since September 2020, which is the date, respectively, when the last letter was received from the applicant in application no. 6309/16 and when the applicant lodged application no.   42248/20 with the Court. The Court’s attempts to reach the applicants by phone and via email as indicated in the application forms were unsuccessful. Considering that the towns where the applicants reside are currently outside control of the Ukrainian Government, the Court has no other possibility to reach the applicants. THE LAW Having regard to similar developments in the procedure related to the two 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 (see Bryska and Others v Ukraine [Committee] (dec.), nos.   11706/13 and 5 others, 2 November 2023 and Zhadan and Others v   Ukraine [Committee] (dec.), no. 29283/13 and 26   others, 14   December 2023). Accordingly, the cases should be struck out of the list. The Court reiterates that under Article 37 § 2 of the Convention it may decide to restore an application to its list of cases if it considers that the circumstances justify such a course. 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 6 June 2024.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Carlo Ranzoni   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX   List of applications   No Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of residence 1. 6309/16 Karymov v. Ukraine 16/01/2016 Volodymyr Vasylyovych KARYMOV 1953 Berdyansk 2. 42248/20 Shkinder v. Ukraine 03/09/2020 Oleksandr Anatoliyovych SHKINDER 1962 Genichesk