CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 5 février 2026

.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 } .s3D83D7E5 { width:78.46%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s4D3C0E3E { width:4.7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s2A450D73 { width:12.52%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sE7593841 { width:17.46%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s628756B { width:16.02%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s73886E1F { width:15.46%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sAECEF3EC { width:14.72%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s52FFA2D6 { width:19.1%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sFF29C2A7 { width:4.7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2DF54538 { width:12.52%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE50CC373 { width:17.46%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sFBEE937D { width:16.02%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sFC1536F8 { width:15.46%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9F6B0C3C { width:14.72%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC60586DA { width:19.1%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt }   FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 74329/17 Oleksandr Mykolayovych MARYNCHENKO against Ukraine and 5 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 5   February 2026 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 against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) 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 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 26 February 2026.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Andreas Zünd   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX List of applications No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name 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. 74329/17 12/10/2017 Oleksandr Mykolayovych MARYNCHENKO 1986 Oleksandr Oleksandrovych GOROSHYNSKYY   Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms;   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law 04/07/2024 (by eComms - not downloaded) 05/11/2024 (by registered post - delivered on 19/12/2024) 2. 74392/17 12/10/2017 Pavlo Mykhaylovych ABROSKIN 1989 Oleksandr Oleksandrovych GOROSHYNSKYY   Art. 3 - Inhuman or degrading treatment;   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law 04/07/2024 (by eComms - not downloaded) 06/11/2024 (by registered post - delivered on 19/12/2024) 3. 74775/17 10/10/2017 Oleg Viktorovych YANISHEVSKYY 1977 Stefan Stefanovych RESHKO   Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms;   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law 04/07/2024 (by eComms - downloaded) 30/08/2024 (by eComms - not downloaded);   06/11/2024 (by registered post - delivered on 06/01/2025) 4. 33439/20 16/07/2020 Tamara Oleksandrivna NEKRASOVA 1973   Art. 6 (1) - limitations on access to a court 11/04/2025 (by eComms - not downloaded) 18/07/2025 (by registered post - delivered on 13/08/2025 5. 51257/21 04/10/2021 Vitaliy Kostyantynovych KUNITSYN 1993   Art. 6 (1) - limitations on access to a court 11/03/2025 (by regular post) 10/06/2025 (by registered post - returned undelivered on 08/08/2025;   16/10/2025 (by eComms - not downloaded) 6. 20090/24 29/06/2024 Igor Oleksandrovych PASICHNYK 2000   Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of civil proceedings;   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law 24/02/2025 (by eComms - not downloaded) 17/09/2025 (by eComms - not downloaded and by registered post - delivered on 24/10/2025)