FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Applications nos. 1132/11 and 24351/13
Tetyana Oleksandrivna ANANYEVA against Ukraine
and Viktor Mykolayovych KONYEV against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 15 December 2020 as a Chamber composed of:
Síofra O’Leary, President,
Mārtiņš Mits,
Ganna Yudkivska,
Latif Hüseynov,
Jovan Ilievski,
Ivana Jelić,
Mattias Guyomar, judges,
and Victor Soloveytchik, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on 17 December 2010 and 1 April 2013 respectively,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant in the first case, Ms Tetyana Oleksandrivna Ananyeva, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1981 and at the time of submission of the present application lived in Donetsk, territory currently outside the control of the Government of Ukraine.
The applicant in the second case, Mr Viktor Mykolayovych Konyev, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1963 and at the time of submission of the present application lived in Simferopol, Crimea, territory currently outside the control of the Government of Ukraine.
The circumstances of the cases
The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
Both cases concern disputes with the authorities over the applicant’s claims for recalculation of social or pension payments (child allowance in the first case and pension in the second case). The domestic courts eventually found that the applicants’ claims had no basis in law and rejected them.
COMPLAINTS
Relying on Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and on Article 1 of Protocol No.1, the applicant in case no. 1132/11 complained, in essence, that she had been unlawfully deprived of her possessions.
The applicant in case no. 24351/13 complained about an unfair trial in his case, including a breach of the principle of equality of arms, as well as about the length of the proceedings. He relied on Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention.
THE LAW
The Court notes that, according to the Government, in spring 2014, that is after introduction of the applications to the Court, the Ukrainian authorities lost control over Crimea and part of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions.
Since then, given the absence of Ukrainian postal services operating on these territories, where the applicants declared their place of residence, it has been impossible for the Court to establish contact with them by sending mail.
Other attempts to contact the applicants, notably by the telephone numbers indicated in the application forms, were unsuccessful.
In the absence of any other contact information (alternative postal addresses, e-mail addresses, etc.), the Court has no possibility to reach the applicants.
Moreover, the Court observes that it has not received any correspondence from the applicants since the introduction of the applications. While it is true that applicants are routinely advised against sending unsolicited submissions, notably in the letters from the Court acknowledging receipt of their applications, the Court notes that their attention is also systematically drawn to Rule 47 § 7 of the Rules of Court which requires them to keep the Court informed of any change of their addresses and of all circumstances relevant to their application. In the Court’s view, it must have been obvious to the applicants that the consequences which the events of spring 2014 entailed should have prompted them to contact it with a view to establishing an effective channel of communication and thus ensure that the applications could be duly processed.
The Court has already examined similar issues in previous cases concerning Ukraine (see Alyoshyn and Anufriyuk v. Ukraine (dec.), nos. 1503/12 and 2037/12, 31 January 2019; and Yuldashev and Others v. Russia and Ukraine (dec.), no. 35139/14 and 326 other applications, 5 May 2020). In those cases it found, in similar circumstances, that the applicants may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue their applications, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. The Court sees no reason to depart from this approach in the present cases.
Finally, in view of the nature of the complaints made and given that the issues raised are the subject of well-established case law, 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 (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
In consideration of the above, it is appropriate to strike the applications out of the list.
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 28 January 2021. p_1} {signature_p_2}
Victor SoloveytchikSíofra O’Leary
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy