Myronenko and Others v. Ukraine

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 14731/12 Galyna Pavlivna MYRONENKO against Ukraine and 2 other applications

(see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 21 March 2024 as a Committee composed of:

Mārtiņš Mits , President , Kateřina Šimáčková, Mykola Gnatovskyy , 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 list of the applicants and other relevant details are set out in the appendix.

The applicants’ complaints under the Convention were communicated to the Ukrainian 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 (see the appended table for the relevant dates). No reply was received by the Court.

By letters sent through the Court’s Electronic Communication Service (eComms), the applicants were notified that the period allowed for submission of their observations had expired and that no extension of time had been requested.

The applicants’ 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 downloaded these letters on the eComms platform on different dates, as indicated in the appended table. However, no response has followed.

THE LAW

Having regard to the similar procedural conduct of the applicants, the Court finds it appropriate to examine the applications jointly in a single decision.

In the light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the applicants may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue the applications (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 the Protocols thereto which require the continued examination of the applications.

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.

Done in English and notified in writing on 11 April 2024.

Viktoriya Maradudina Mārtiņš Mits Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

No.

Application no. Date of introduction

Applicant’s name

Year of birth/registration

Representative’s name

Communicated complaints

Reasons for the strike-out decision

14731/12

07/03/2012

Galyna Pavlivna MYRONENKO 1961

No representative

Art. 6 of the Convention – the applicant complained about decision of the Higher Administrative Court of 4 October 2011 refusing to examine her compensation claim against the Bailiffs Service as falling outside the administrative courts’ jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the Registry’s letters of 27 July and 17 October 2023, sent to her through eComms and eventually downloaded, inviting the applicant to submit observations on the admissibility and merits of the application and drawing her attention to the fact that failure to do so may lead to a conclusion that she does not intend to pursue the application.

929/13

21/12/2012

Komertsiyna Kompaniya, TOV 1999

Yan Olegovych Bilogolovyy

Art. 6 of the Convention and Art. 1 of Prot. 1 – the applicant company complained about allegedly unfair court proceedings terminated by the final decision of the Higher Commercial Court of 26 June 2012, resulting in the allegedly unlawful and disproportionate deprivation of the applicant company’s possessions.

The applicant company’s representative failed to respond to the Registry’s letters of 3 May and 17 October 2023, sent to him through eComms and eventually downloaded, inviting him to submit observations on the admissibility and merits of the application and drawing his attention to the fact that failure to do so may lead to a conclusion that the applicant company does not intend to pursue the application.

42118/14

26/05/2014

Ukrproftur, PAT 1991

Roman Vasylyovych Oryekhov

Art. 6 of the Convention and Art 1 of Prot. 1 – the applicant company complained about the alleged breach of the principle of legal certainty in the judicial proceedings terminated by the final decision of the Higher Commercial Court of

16 December 2013, the allegedly inadequate reasoning in the related domestic courts’ decisions, and the allegedly unlawful and disproportionate deprivation of its property.

The applicant company’s representative failed to respond to the Registry’s letters of 9 October and 18 December 2023, sent to him through eComms and eventually downloaded, inviting him to submit observations on the admissibility and merits of the application and drawing his attention to the fact that failure to do so may lead to a conclusion that the applicant company does not intend to pursue the application.