BYSTROV A OSTATNÍ proti Rusku

FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 28888/05
Igor Viktorovich BYSTROV against Russia
and 9 other applications
(see list appended)

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 12 June 2012 as a Committee composed of:

Peer Lorenzen, President,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Julia Laffranque, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above applications lodged on different dates tabulated in the appendix below,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants are ten Russian nationals whose names and dates of birth are tabulated in the appendix below. The applicant, Mr Ivan Ivanovich Demchuk, was represented before the Court by Mr V.P. Makaruk, a lawyer practicing in St Petersburg. The other applicants acted pro se before the Court. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.

In these cases the applicants complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about non-enforcement of domestic judgements ordering to provide them with housing. The applicants Mr Ashchepkov and Mr Nasonov also refered in this regard to Articles 4 § 2 and 14 of the Convention respectively.

On 10 Mars 2010 the Court communicated the applicants’ complaints to the respondent Government under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court. The Government submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the cases on 15 September 2010.

By letters of 28 September 2010, the applicants were invited to submit, by 30 November 2010, their comments on the Government’s observations, together with any claims for just satisfaction. No replies were received to the Court’s letters.

In view of the absence of the applicants’ replies, by letters of 3 February 2011, sent by registered mail, the applicants were informed that the time‑limit for submission of their observations and/or claims for just satisfaction had expired on 30 November 2010, and that no extension of time had been requested. No responses followed.

THE LAW

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 cases.

In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases 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.

André Wampach Peer Lorenzen
Deputy Registrar President