CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 3 juin 2014

.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 } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sCDF1E38D { width:180.93pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }   FIFTH SECTION DECISION Applications nos. 34154/07 and 13369/08 Lyubov Petrivna RYBACHENKO against Ukraine and Tetyana Stepanivna BUZINSKA against Ukraine The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 3 June 2014 as a Committee composed of:   Angelika Nußberger, President,   Ganna Yudkivska,   André Potocki, judges, and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on 10 July 2007 and 5   March 2008 respectively, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant in the first case, Ms Lyubov Petrivna Rybachenko, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1922 and lives in Mykolayiv. She was represented before the Court by Mr O. Kyryukhin, a lawyer practising in Mykolayiv. The applicant in the second case, Ms Tetyana Stepanivna Buzinska, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1956 and lives in the village of Martynivka, Vinnytsya region. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr N. Kulchytskyy, from the Ministry of Justice. The applicants’ complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicants, who were invited to submit their own observations. No reply was received to the Registry’s letters. By letters dated 17 February 2014, sent by registered post, the first applicant’s representative and the second applicant were notified that the period allowed for submission of their observations had expired on 26   November 2013 and that no extension of time had been requested. Their attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. The first applicant’s representative and the second applicant received these letters on 24 February and 4 March 2014 respectively. However, no response has been received. THE LAW The Court considers that the applications should be joined and, in the circumstances of the cases, the applicants may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue their applications, within the meaning of 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 its Protocols which require the continued examination of the cases. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases 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. Stephen Phillips   Angelika Nußberger Deputy Registrar   President