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 } .s31C1573F { width:139.43pt; 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 } .s2F3EB0E4 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .s95B756B { height:53.65pt } .sBAADFE8C { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s80190776 { height:57.4pt } .sA8950776 { height:56.7pt }   FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 22603/23 Oscar LOJODICE against Italy and 2 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 5   February 2026 as a Committee composed of:   Artūrs Kučs , President ,   Raffaele Sabato,   Anna Adamska-Gallant , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, Mr Oscar Lojodice, was born in 1955. The applicant’s complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention and, in respect of application no. 22603/23 also under Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 to the Convention, concerning the non-enforcement of the domestic decisions, were communicated to the Italian Government (“the Government”), who submitted observations on the admissibility and merits. On 17 June 2025 the Government’s observations were forwarded via the Court’s Electronic Communication Service (“eComms”) to the applicant who was invited to submit his own observations. The applicant downloaded the observations on 21 June 2025. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter and the Government’s observations. By letters dated 1 August 2025, sent via eComms, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations   had expired on 25 July 2025 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant’s 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 applicant had access to eComms as confirmed by the fact that he downloaded the Government’s observations. However, no response followed. THE LAW Having regard to the fact that the applications were lodged by the same applicant, 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 applications should be struck out of the Court’s list of cases. 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   Artūrs Kučs   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX List of applications No. Application no. Case name Lodged on 1. 22603/23 Lojodice v. Italy 22/05/2023 2. 42152/23 Lojodice v. Italy 23/11/2023 3. 4400/24 Lojodice v. Italy 31/01/2024