CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 21 mars 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s7FB0030E { width:111.07pt; 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 } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sC7F8CD84 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sECC9BA5B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Applications nos. 7792/17 and 36588/17 Ljubiša POPOVIĆ and Others against Serbia and Zlatan LAZIĆ and Others against Serbia (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 21   March 2024 as a Committee composed of:   Anne Louise Bormann , President ,   Branko Lubarda,   Sebastian Răduleţu , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the 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 were initially represented by Ms M. Dobrić, a lawyer practising in Požarevac. She withdrew her power of attorney on 11   April 2023. The applicants’ complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning inconsistent case-law of national courts was communicated to the Serbian Government (“the Government”), who submitted observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicants, who were invited to submit their own observations by 11 May and 11 October 2023, respectively. The applicants were notified that the period allowed for submission of observations   had expired and that no extension of time had been requested by letters sent by registered post on 1 June and 7 December 2023, respectively. Their 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. The applicants received the letters on different dates between 12   June and 26 December 2023, but no response has followed. THE LAW Having regard to the similar subject matters of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them 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 11 April 2024.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Anne Louise Bormann   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (Inconsistent case-law of national courts) No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of birth 1. 7792/17 Popović and Others v. Serbia 18/01/2017 Ljubiša POPOVIĆ 1966 Mijomir PEJOVIĆ 1964 Draško ŽIVANOVIĆ 1974 2. 36588/17 Lazić and Others v.   Serbia 12/05/2017 Zlatan LAZIĆ 1961 Prvoslav STOKIĆ 1959 Radiša STOKIĆ 1961 Mita GAVRILOV 1961