CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 18 septembre 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 } .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 } .s1720DE1F { width:132.75pt; 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 } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s2F3EB0E4 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sBAADFE8C { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s38729B7C { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .sFF0F7D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:4pt } .s5FFF0A78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:2pt }   FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 7269/17 Oksana Oleksandrivna LUCHKO against Ukraine and 7 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 18   September 2025 as a Committee composed of:   Andreas Zünd , President ,   Diana Sârcu,   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: 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, however, the contact with the applicants was lost (see   appended table for details). By letters sent via the Court’s Electronic Communication Service (eComms) and by registered post, the applicants were notified that the period allowed for submission of their observations had expired and that no extension of time had been requested (see appended table for dates and details). 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. No reply followed. THE LAW Having regard to the similar procedural conduct of the applicants, the   Court finds it appropriate to examine their applications 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. 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 9 October 2025.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Andreas Zünd   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX List of applications stuck out of the list of cases under Article   37   §   1   (a) of the Convention. 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 Court strike-out warning letter 1. 7269/17 27/12/2016 Oksana Oleksandrivna LUCHKO 1976 Andriy Oleksandrovych LUCHKO Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal 15/02/2024 (by eComms – not downloaded) 07/05/2025 (by registered post - not delivered for unknown reasons)   07/05/2025 (by registered post - delivered)   2. 68435/17 16/08/2017 Olena Leonidovna MOSTOVYUK 1974 Vladyslav Viktorovych TATUNETS Art. 1 Prot. 1 - interference with peaceful enjoyment of possessions 11/09/2024 (by eComms - downloaded) 06/11/2024 (by registered post - returned unclaimed)   06/11/2024 (by registered post - delivered) 3. 15796/18 05/03/2018 Oleksandr Mykolayovych TKACHENKO 1981   Art. 6 (1) - denial of access to higher courts 03/02/2025 (by eComms - downloaded) 02/05/2025 (by eComms - downloaded) 4. 43298/18 16/08/2018 Galyna Andriyivna DZHURA 1962 Mykhaylo Yosypovych BORDYUK Art. 2 (1) - ineffective investigation into death, caused by private parties or in circumstances that exclude involvement of State agents 26/09/2024 (by eComms - downloaded) 13/12/2024 (by eComms – not downloaded) 5. 490/24 14/12/2023 Edvard RUBINOV 1985 Dmytro Yuriyovych ZAVALNYUK Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial 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 03/02/2025 (by eComms - downloaded) 02/05/2025 (by eComms - downloaded) 6. 6811/24 14/12/2023 Mokhamed BALALTA 1981 Dmytro Yuriyovych ZAVALNYUK Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial 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 03/02/2025 (by eComms - downloaded) 02/05/2025 (by eComms - downloaded) 7. 6814/24 14/12/2023 Salama GAZMAVI 1980 Dmytro Yuriyovych ZAVALNYUK Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial 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 03/02/2025 (by eComms – not downloaded) 02/05/2025 (by eComms - downloaded) 8. 6816/24 14/12/2023 Denys Romanovych RYVKIN 1983 Dmytro Yuriyovych ZAVALNYUK Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial 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 03/02/2025 (by eComms – not downloaded) 02/05/2025 (by eComms - downloaded)