POLOVYNKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE AND RUSSIA
Doc ref: 52061/14;52494/14;63713/14;25354/15 • ECHR ID: 001-165564
Document date: July 5, 2016
- Inbound citations: 1
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 1
- •
- Outbound citations: 2
FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no . 52061/14 Denys Oleksandrovych POLOVYNKO against Ukraine and Russia and 3 other applications (see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 5 July 2016 as a Chamber composed of:
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, President, Kristina Pardalos, Ganna Yudkivska, Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos, Aleš Pejchal, Dmitry Dedov, Robert Spano, judges, and Abel Campos, Section Registrar ,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table ,
Having regard to the decision to grant priority to the above applications under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court;
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix.
The circumstances of the case s
2. The facts of the case s , as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
3. The applicants are Ukrainian nationals. Their relatives lived in Donetsk Region or served military service as members of Ukrainian armed forces in the area of armed conflict in Eastern Ukraine.
4. On various dates the applicants ’ relatives were allegedly abducted in the course of events in eastern Ukraine. Later the applicants learned that their relatives were held in captivity by members of separatist forces.
5. All the persons concerned have been released on different dates between July 2014 and November 2015.
COMPLAINTS
6. The applicants complained under Articles 3, 4, 5, and 13 of the Convention that their relatives had been abducted and were unlawfully detained in captivity by members of separatist forces in Eastern Ukraine, and that they were ill-treated while in detention and compelled to forced labour. They also complained about absence of effective domestic remedies.
THE LAW
7. The Court considers that, in accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the applications should be joined, given their similar factual and legal background.
8. By a letter of 18 November 2015 the lawyer informed the Court that the applicants did not intend to pursue their application s before the Court.
9. Before taking a decision to strike out a particular case, the Court must verify whether respect for human rights as defined in Article 37 of the Convention requires it to continue the examination of the case. In so far as relevant, Article 37 provides:
“1. The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that
(a) the applicant does not intend to pursue his application; ...
However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.”
10. Before striking out a case, the Court must also consider whether there are any circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the case (Article 37 § 1 in fine ). This includes cases where an applicant wishes to withdraw his or her application (see, mutatis mutandis , Tyrer v. the United Kingdom , no. 5856/72 , 25 April 1978, §§ 24-27). Such circumstances exist when the continued examination of an application would contribute to elucidating, safeguarding and developing the standards of protection under the Convention (see, for example, Karner v. Austria , no. 40016/98 , § 27, ECHR 2003 ‑ IX). This will include when there is a new issue of concern or when there is a paucity of case-law on a particular subject (see, Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia , no. 25965/04 , §§ 199 and 200, ECHR 2010 (extracts)).
Loading citations...11. In the present case s the Court notes that the applicants were released. It further observes that the applicants expressly stated that they no longer wished to pursue the present application. It further notes that a number of cases concerning similar facts and raising similar issues under the Convention have been brought before the Court and is currently pending before it. The Court will therefore have an opportunity to determine legal issues involved in these cases.
12. In the light of the foregoing, 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 application s .
Accordingly, the case s 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 28 July 2016 .
Abel Campos Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska Registrar President
APPENDIX
No
Application No
Lodged on
Applicant
Date of birth
Place of residence
Represented by
52061/14
22/07/2014
Denys Oleksandrovych POLOVYNKO
03/05/1989
Cherkasy
Oleg Igorovych VEREMIYENKO
52494/14
23/07/2014
Yuliya Viktorivna OSEYKO
16/06/1987
Cherkasy
Oleg Igorovych VEREMIYENKO
63713/14
24/09/2014
Vladyslav Valeriyovych BUKALO
17/07/1974
Alchevsk
Vladyslav Valeriyovych BUKALO
17/07/1974
Alchevsk
Oleg Igorovych VEREMIYENKO
25354/15
28/05/2015
Nataliya Valeriyivna KOBRENYUK
21/04/1986
Donetsk
Yevgen Ivanovych KOBRENYUK
30/09/1977
Donetsk
Oleg Igorovych VEREMIYENKO