Sokolova, avocate à Ivanovo. 3.     La requête a été communiquée au gouvernement russe («   le Gouvernement   »). EN FAIT 4.

Sokolova, a lawyer practising in Ivanovo. The applicant in the second case, Mr Sergey Fedorovich Karkishchenko, is a Russian national, who was born in 1978 and lives in Saint-Petersburg.

ET AUTRES 11/10/2016 11/10/2016 611/15+ SARBAKHTIN ET AUTRES 04/05/2017 04/05/2017 7723/07+ SEMENOV ET BACHURINA 11/10/2016 11/10/2016 30532/07+ SHIROKIKH ET AUTRES 06/07/2017 06/07/2017 25102/07 SOKOLOVA

    Nevertheless, the Court reiterates that a continuing situation may not postpone the application of the six-month rule indefinitely (see Sokolov and Others (dec.), no.

Case Judgment of Final on 45057/06+ SOBOLEV AND OTHERS 09/11/2017 09/11/2017 18467/16+ PEREKRESTOV AND OTHERS 09/11/2017 09/11/2017 49132/10 BELYAYEV AND OTHERS 09/11/2017 09/11/2017 31044/08+ MULYUKOV

the Court reiterates that a complaint under Article 34 of the Convention is of a procedural nature and therefore does not give rise to any issue of admissibility under the Convention (see Vladimir Sokolov

Sokolov v. Russia , no. 3734/02, §   32, 22   September 2005).

judgment a continuing situation ends, in principle, on the date of the enforcement of the relevant judgment or when an “objective impossibility” to enforce such a judgment is duly acknowledged (see Sokolov

Location Date Administrative / criminal offence Penalty Final domestic decision Court Name Date Other complaints under well-established case-law 21359/20 28/04/2020 Yuriy Ivanovich POLYAKOV 1952   Sokolov

He should thus have acted diligently and introduced the application “without undue delay” within six months from that date (see Sokolov and Others v.

22/09/2005 22/12/2005 33896/04 SOKOREV 18/06/2009 18/09/2009 4487/04 SVETLANA ORLOVA 30/07/2009 30/10/2009 20886/04 TATYANA MAKAROVA 22/12/2009 22/03/2010 13601/05 TERESHKIN 19/02/2013 19/02/2013 19440

  Sokolova, a lawyer practising in Ivanovo.

the nature of the witness evidence Reasons for absence Steps taken to compensate for the witnesses’ absence     42046/19 15/07/2019 Dmitriy Nikolayevich SHKURDIN 1978 Natalya Viktorovna Sokolova

FOURGOUX, avocat, SCP FOURGOUX et Associés, 111, boulevard Péreire 75017 PARIS Toque P 69 et de Me L.FOREST, avocat du Cabinet SOKOLOW, DUNAUD, MERCADIER & CARRERAS, 55, avenue Kléber 75116 PARIS Toque

  Représentants des parties   Gouvernement   :   Sokol Puto , agent ,   Ledi Bjanku , conseil ,   Holta Meçaj , assistant juridique   ;   Requérant   :  

Russie (n o 924/03) Sokorev c. Russie (n o 33896/04) Bublyk c. Ukraine (n o 37500/04) Koziy c. Ukraine (n o 10426/02) Pilipey c. Ukraine (n o 9025/03) Termobeton c.

domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport. 25/01/2021 01/02/2021 1,300     45861/19 16/08/2019   AND   30694/20 23/06/2020 Sergey Yuryevich SOBOLEV

In view of the above, the Court infers that the applicant does not intend to pursue his application (see Solodov v. Russia (dec.), no. 30278/02, 8   July   2004).

Russia , no. 33820/04, § 44, 13 December 2007; and Sokolov v. Russia , no.   3734/02, § 38, 22 September 2005). 58 .