CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 9 décembre 2021

.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 } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .s102F6B48 { width:30.45pt; display:inline-block } .sFA55233A { width:152.54pt; display:inline-block } .sC30055DD { width:0.44pt; display:inline-block } .s5044D313 { width:145.19pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s998CBEA { width:79.08%; margin-left:28.1pt; border-collapse:collapse } .s456A1073 { height:23pt } .sBB07DB2D { width:17.1%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s266610F9 { width:29.28%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s718EF5E3 { width:26.86%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s449A03E2 { width:26.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s452EA0AD { width:17.1%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE435603B { width:29.28%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC591AD9A { width:26.86%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s615F0320 { width:26.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 50984/21 G.A. and Others against Hungary (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 9   December 2021 as a Committee composed of:   Erik Wennerström, President,   Lorraine Schembri Orland,   Ioannis Ktistakis, judges, and Attila Teplán, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 7   November 2019, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicants are an Afghan family of five. The list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. The applicants were represented by Ms G. Matevžič, Senior Legal Officer at the Hungarian Helsinki Committee. The applicants’ complaints under Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention taken alone and in conjunction with Article 13 of the Convention concerning their forced removal from Hungary to Serbia were communicated to the Hungarian Government (“the Government”). By a letter dated 16 July 2021 the applicants’ representative was invited to inform the Court whether she maintained contact with the applicants. In reply, she submitted on 15 September 2021 that she had not been able to establish contact with them and requested a deadline extension for doing so. The Registry granted her an extension until 5 October 2021. However, no response was received. THE LAW The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicants may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue their application, within the meaning of Article   37   §   1   (a) of the Convention (see V.M. and Others v. Belgium (striking out) [GC], no.   60125/11, 17 November 2016). 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 case. Accordingly, the case should be struck out of the list. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases. Done in English and notified in writing on 13 January 2022.     Attila Teplán   Erik Wennerström   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX   No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality 1. G.A. 1977 Afghan 2. A.A. 1984 Afghan 3. M.A. 2005 Afghan 4. M.N.A. 2003 Afghan 5. Z.A. 2002 Afghan