FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 32776/06 Vitaliy Viktorovich SEMENYUTIN against Ukraine and 8 other applications (see list appended)

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 21 October 2021 as a Committee composed of:

Arnfinn BÃ¥rdsen, President, Ganna Yudkivska, Mattias Guyomar, judges,

and Martina Keller, 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

1. A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix.

2. The applicants’ complaints under various Articles of the Convention were communicated to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”), who were represented by their then acting Agent, Ms O. Davydchuk, of the Ministry of Justice. The applicants in applications nos. 34213/09 and 41447/09 were represented by Ms S.A. Taranets and Mr S.M. Zanudin respectively. In the other applications, the applicants did not appoint representatives. The applicants and the above representatives live either in the Donetsk or Lugansk regions or in Crimea, territories which are outside the control of the Government of Ukraine.

3. The letters sent by the Registry to the applicants – or, where applicable, their representatives – after communication of the cases to the Government either were left unanswered or were returned undelivered. The Registry’s recent attempts to contact them by other means such as email addresses or phone numbers that were available in the files proved to be unsuccessful.

THE LAW

4. In accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the Court decides to join the applications, given their similar procedural background.

6. It must be stressed in this connection that Rule 47 § 7 requires the applicants to keep the Court informed of any change of their addresses and of all circumstances relevant to their application.

7. The Court considers that, in these circumstances, 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 applications (see, mutatis mutandis , Nekhoroshkin v. Ukraine (dec.) [Committee], no. 53548/09, 24 October 2019 ; Yuldashev and Others v. Russia and Ukraine (dec.) [Committee], no. 35139/14 and 326 other applications, 5 May 2020; Lefter and Others v. Russia and Ukraine , cited above; and Olkhovskaya v. Ukraine (dec.) [Committee], no. 35549/10, 22 April 2021).

9. This being so, the Court recalls that it may decide to restore an application to its list of cases if it considers that the circumstances justify such a course (article 37 § 2 of the Convention).

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 25 November 2021.

{signature_p_2}

Martina Keller Arnfinn BÃ¥rdsen Deputy Registrar President

Appendix

List of Applications

No.

Application no.

Lodged on

Case name

Applicant Year of Birth / Place of Residence Nationality

Represented by

Subject matter of dispute

1.

32776/06

11 July 2006

Semenyutin v. Ukraine

Vitaliy Viktorovich SEMENYUTIN 1964 Gorlovka, the Donetsk Region Ukrainian

Alleged lack of appropriate medical assistance in detention, the length of the applicant’s detention and the length of criminal proceedings against him.

2.

18254/07

12 April 2007

Zhuk v. Ukraine

Lyudmyla Mykolayivna ZHUK Pervomayske, Crimea Ukrainian Sergiy Grygorovych ZHUK Pervomayske, Crimea Ukrainian

Whether damages awarded for the failure of the State Bailiffs’ Service to enforce a judgment against a private debtor were arbitrarily low.

3.

28056/07

7 June 2007

Denisov v. Ukraine

Gennadiy Nikolayevich DENISOV 1966 Donetsk, Donetsk Region Ukrainian

Alleged monitoring of the applicant’s correspondence by the prison administration.

4.

34213/09

11 June 2009

Litvinenko v. Ukraine

Alla Vasilyevna LITVINENKO 1941 Saky, Crimea Ukrainian

Svetlana Anatolyevna TARANETS

Effectiveness of criminal proceedings in connection with the murder of her son by an unknown person.

5.

41447/09

6 July 2009

Goncharov v. Ukraine

Oleksandr Volodymyrovych GONCHAROV 1977 Perevalsk, Lugansk Region Ukrainian

Sergiy Mykhaylovych ZANUDIN

Alleged breach of the applicant’s right for respect of his private life by the limitation of the time for challenging the paternity entry in the birth registry.

6.

61822/09

9 November 2009

Timchenko v. Ukraine

Sergey Petrovich TIMCHENKO 1976 Donetsk, Donetsk Region Ukrainian

Alleged breach of the principles of equality of arms in connection with the prosecutor’s intervention in the civil proceedings regarding the applicant’s title to property, of which he was eventually deprived.

7.

34681/11

20 May 2011

Aliarova v. Ukraine

Vaspiye Ismailovna ALIAROVA 1951 Simferopol, Crimea Kazakhstani

Alleged breach of the principle of legal certainty following the extension of the time-limits for the prosecutor’s appeals and the quashing of final judgment rendered in the applicant’s favour.

8.

49304/11

16 July 2011

Golovnya v. Ukraine

Volodymyr Stepanovych GOLOVNYA 1940 Lugansk, Lugansk Region Ukrainian

Alleged failure of the State to pay the supplement to the applicant’s pension pursuant to the Children of War Act.

9.

56757/11

29 August 2011

Mordalevich v. Ukraine

Yekaterina Vasilyevna MORDALEVICH 1960 Rysakove, Crimea Ukrainian

Alleged ineffective investigation into the medical negligence resulting in the death of the applicant’s husband.