CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 7 mai 2025

.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 } .s5B9FD6E4 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.55pt; text-align:center } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s47FDA9DE { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.55pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.55pt; text-align:center } .sA429B01D { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.55pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-indent:-0.55pt; 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 } .s46DB5BA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; 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 } .sE55E11EC { width:137.42pt; 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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   FIFTH SECTION DECISION Applications nos. 26191/23 and 42174/23 Volodymyr Sergiyovych TOMASHEVSKYY against Ukraine and Oleksandr Georgiyovych VINNICHENKO against Ukraine (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 7 May 2025 as a Committee composed of:   Diana Sârcu , President ,   Kateřina Šimáčková,   Mykola Gnatovskyy , 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: 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’ complaints under the Convention were communicated to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”), who submitted observations on the admissibility and merits. The applicants were required to submit their observations in reply. In application no. 26191/23, the applicant submitted his comments; however, in application no. 42174/23, the Court did not receive any reply. Subsequently, the applicants’ representatives informed the Registry that the applicants wanted to withdraw the applications before the Court since they were no longer interested in pursuing them (see appended table for details). THE LAW Having regard to the similar procedural conduct of the applicants, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. In the light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the applicants may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue the application (Article   37   §   1   (a) of the Convention). Furthermore, in accordance with Article   37   §   1 in fine , the Court 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 application. 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 28 May 2025.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Diana Sârcu   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX List of applications No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant Year of Birth Representative’s name   Main complaints raised Date of sending Government’s observations to the applicant Date of the applicant’s withdrawal request 1. 26191/23 03/06/2023 Volodymyr Sergiyovych TOMASHEVSKYY 1969 Sergiy Mykolayovych RYBIY Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention;   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 19/11/2024 (applicant’s comments received by the Court on 20/11/2024) 03/12/2024 2. 42174/23 30/11/2023 Oleksandr Georgiyovych VINNICHENKO 1992 Sergiy Oleksandrovych KULBACH Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention;   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention;   Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings;   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings;   Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention. 30/07/2024 (applicant has not responded) 09/11/2024