CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 15 juin 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sD6E2332A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s684F2214 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s25BD2B45 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sEC2CB098 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s8378218E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sA1CDB767 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s281358E1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sFD4D42B6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s988F61DE { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s21F08A35 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sCA92750 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:42pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sD777C0A5 { margin-top:42pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3C0142D3 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s40E9DAE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s3E2DB4A0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7D2D15E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s8A9F351B { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s804EF768 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s471F7CE { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC443675D { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s46B3B71C { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s90647315 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s93EDF1FF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s8F4EE4B8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9F223FEE { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sB1BD30C0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sC31874BD { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE5338F84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .s7714A00D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s40269D5B { width:34.93pt; display:inline-block } .sDAF16287 { width:162.63pt; display:inline-block } .sF2E32F9B { width:36.61pt; display:inline-block } .s5F32E900 { width:208.31pt; display:inline-block } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s2D4DB0A7 { height:12.75pt } .sD4EDA58E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:3.12pt; padding-left:3.12pt; vertical-align:bottom } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s19AAD6F1 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:3.12pt; padding-left:3.12pt; vertical-align:bottom } .sE2F123B2 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:3.12pt; padding-left:3.12pt; vertical-align:bottom } .s5A90D122 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:3.12pt; padding-left:3.12pt; vertical-align:bottom } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sA8146E40 { text-align:justify; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside } .sB8ACF230 { width:22pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s4A2D3FB8 { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:3.12pt; padding-left:3.12pt; vertical-align:bottom } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sF915B135 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:3.12pt; padding-left:3.12pt; vertical-align:bottom } .s5ED6B251 { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:3.12pt; padding-left:3.12pt; vertical-align:top } .s2AC0E69C { width:16pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sE1EC8037 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:3.12pt; padding-left:3.12pt; vertical-align:bottom } .s497A1C96 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:3.12pt; padding-left:3.12pt; vertical-align:bottom } .sC61DB6F0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:3.12pt; padding-left:3.12pt; vertical-align:top } .sC0AAC910 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:3.12pt; padding-left:3.12pt; vertical-align:bottom } .sDE68517A { width:10pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Applications nos. 43370/04, 8252/05 and 18454/06 Alexei CATAN against Moldova and Russia and other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 15   June 2010 as a Chamber composed of:   Nicolas Bratza, President,   Lech Garlicki,   Anatoly Kovler,   Ljiljana Mijović,   David Thór Björgvinsson,   Ján Šikuta,   Mihai Poalelungi, judges, and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on 25 October 2004, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Governments and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants, Having regard to the parties’ oral submissions at the hearing on 9 June 2009, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     The applicants are Moldovan nationals (see Annex). They are represented before the Court by Mr I. Manole, Mr A. Postică and Mr   V.   Ţurcan, lawyers practising in Chişinău, and Mr A. Unger, professor of law at London South Bank University. The Moldovan Government are represented by their Agent, Mr V. Grosu and the Russian Government are represented by their Agent, Mr G. Matyushkin. 2.     At the oral hearing on 9 June 2009 the applicants were represented by Mr Manole and Mr Postica, assisted by Ms D.I. Straisteanu. The Moldovan Government were represented by Mr Grosu, assisted by Ms I. Rusu and the Russian Government were represented by Mr Matyushkin, assisted by Ms   O. Sirotkina, Ms O. Yurchenko, Ms I. Koganova, Mr N. Fomin, Ms   T.   Kleymenova and Mr Makhnev. A.     The historical background 3.     The country which subsequently became the Republic of Moldova was created as the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic on 2   August 1940 from a part of Bessarabia and a strip of land on the eastern bank of the Dniester (see further Tănase v. Moldova [GC], no. 7/08, §§ 11-17, ECHR 2010-...). This eastern region, now known as Transdniestria, had since 1924, together with a number of territories which are now part of Ukraine, been part of the Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic. The population of Transdniestria was originally composed principally of Ukrainians and Romanians/Moldovans, but from the 1920s onwards it was subject to significant immigration by industrial workers from elsewhere in the Soviet Union, particularly Russians and Ukrainians. It was assessed in 1989 to be composed ethnically and linguistically of 40% Moldovan, 28% Ukrainian, 24% Russian and 8% others. 4.     According to the 1978 Constitution of the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic, there were two official languages: Russian and “Moldavian” (Romanian/Moldovan written with the Cyrillic script). 5.     In August and September 1989 the Latin alphabet was reintroduced in Moldova for written Romanian/Moldovan, which became the first official language. 6.     On 23 June 1990 Moldova proclaimed its sovereignty; on 23 May 1991 it changed its name to the Republic of Moldova; and on 27 August 1991 the Moldovan parliament adopted the Declaration of Independence of the Republic of Moldova, whose territory included Transdniestria. B.     Summary of the facts found in Ilaşcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia 1.     The Transdniestrian conflict 7.     The facts concerning the armed conflict of 1991-1992 and the period up to late 2003 are set out in Ilaşcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, §§ 28-183, ECHR 2004 ‑ VII and only a summary of the key events is provided here for ease of reference. 8.     From 1989 onwards, a movement of resistance to Moldovan independence had been forming in Transdniestria. On 2 September 1990 Transdniestrian separatists announced the creation of the “Moldavian Republic of Transdniestria” (the “MRT”). On 25   August 1991 the “Supreme Council of the MRT” adopted the “declaration of independence” of the “MRT”. On 1 December 1991 a “presidential election”, declared illegal by the Moldovan authorities, was organised in the Transdniestrian provinces and Mr Igor Smirnov claimed to have been elected “President of the MRT”. To date, the “MRT” has not been recognised by the international community. 9.     At the time of Moldova’s declaration of independence, it did not have its own army. The USSR’s 14th Army, whose headquarters had been in Chişinău since 1956, remained on Moldovan territory, although from 1990 onwards equipment and personnel began to be withdrawn. In 1991 the 14 th   Army in Moldova was composed of several thousand soldiers, infantry units, artillery (notably an anti-aircraft missile system), armoured vehicles and aircraft (including planes and strike helicopters). It had a number of ammunition stores, including one of the largest in Europe at Colbasna in Transdniestria. 10.     By Decree no. 234 of 14 November 1991 the President of Moldova declared that ammunition, weapons, military transport, military bases and other property belonging to the military units of the Soviet armed forces stationed in Moldovan territory were the property of the Republic of Moldova. 11.     By a decree dated 5 December 1991, Mr Smirnov decided to place the military units of the 14th Army deployed in Transdniestria under the command of “the National Defence and Security Department of the Moldavian Republic of Transdniestria”. Mr Smirnov appointed the Commander of the 14th Army, Lieutenant-General Iakovlev, as head of the “TRM” “National Defence and Security Department”. In December 1991 Lieutenant-General Iakovlev was arrested by the Moldovan authorities, who accused him of helping the Transdniestrian separatists to arm themselves by using the weapon stocks of the 14th Army. However, he was subsequently released following the intercession of the Government of the Russian Federation. 12.     At the end of 1991 and the beginning of 1992 violent clashes broke out between the Transdniestrian separatist forces and the Moldovan security forces, claiming the lives of several hundred people. 13.     On 6 December 1991, in an appeal to the international community and the United Nations Security Council, the Moldovan Government protested against the occupation, on 3 December 1991, of the Moldovan towns of Grigoriopol, Dubăsari, Slobozia, Tiraspol and Ribniţa, situated on the left bank of the Dniester, by the 14th Army under the command of Lieutenant-General Iakovlev. They accused the authorities of the USSR, particularly the Ministry of Defence, of having prompted these acts. The soldiers of the 14th   Army were accused of distributing military equipment to the Transdniestrian separatists and organising the separatists into military detachments which were terrorising the civilian population. 14.     In 1991-92 a number of 14th Army military units joined the Transdniestrian separatists. In the Ilascu judgment (paragraphs 57 and 380), the Court found it established beyond reasonable doubt that Transdniestrian separatists were able, with the assistance of 14th Army personnel, to arm themselves with weapons taken from the stores of the 14th Army stationed in Transdniestria. In addition, large numbers of Russian nationals from outside the region, particularly Cossacks, went to Transdniestria to fight with the separatists against the Moldovan forces. Given the support provided to the separatists by the troops of the 14th Army and the massive transfer to them of arms and ammunition from the 14th Army’s stores, the Moldovan army was in a position of inferiority that prevented it from regaining control of Transdniestria. On 2 April 1992 General Netkachev, the new Commander of the 14th Army (which on 1 April 1992 had become the “Russian Operational Group in the Transdniestrian region of Moldova” or “ROG”), ordered the Moldovan forces which had encircled the town of Tighina (Bender), held by the separatists, to withdraw immediately, failing which the Russian army would take counter-measures. 2.     The ceasefire agreement, the Joint Control Commission and the peace-keeping force 15.     On 21 July 1992 the President of the Republic of Moldova, Mr   Snegur, and the President of the Russian Federation, Mr Yeltsin, signed an agreement on the principles for the friendly settlement of the armed conflict in the Transdniestrian region of the Republic of Moldova (“the ceasefire agreement”). 16.     The agreement introduced the principle of a security zone to be created by the withdrawal of the armies of the “parties to the conflict” (Article 1 § 2). Under Article 2 of the agreement, a Joint Control Commission (“the JCC”) was set up, composed of representatives of Moldova, the Russian Federation and Transdniestria, with its headquarters in Tighina. The agreement also provided for a peacekeeping force charged with ensuring observance of the ceasefire and security arrangements, composed of five Russian battalions, three Moldovan battalions and two Transdniestrian battalions under the orders of a joint military command structure which was itself subordinate to the JCC. Under Article 3 of the agreement, the town of Tighina was declared a region subject to a security regime and its administration was put in the hands of “local organs of self-government, if necessary acting together with the control commission”. The JCC was given the task of maintaining order in Tighina, together with the police. Article 4 required the 14th Army of the Russian Federation, stationed in the territory of the Republic of Moldova, to remain strictly neutral. Article 5 prohibited sanctions or blockades and laid down the objective of removing all obstacles to the free movement of goods, services and persons. The measures provided for in the agreement were defined as “a very important part of the settlement of the conflict by political means” (Article 7). 17.     On a number of occasions from 1995 onwards the Moldovan authorities complained that ROG/14th Army personnel and the Russian contingent of the JCC’s peace-keeping force had infringed the principle of neutrality set out in the ceasefire agreement and that, inter alia , Transdniestrians had been able to acquire further military equipment and assistance from the ROG/14th Army. These allegations were firmly denied by the Russian authorities. In addition, the Moldovan delegation to the JCC alleged that the Transdniestrians had created new military posts and customs checkpoints within the security zone, in breach of the ceasefire agreement. In the Ilascu judgment (paragraph 100) the Court found it established, by the evidence contained in the JCC’s official documents, that in various areas of Transdniestria under the control of the Russian peacekeeping forces, such as Tighina, the Transdniestrian separatist forces were breaching the ceasefire agreement. 18.     The Convention was signed by Moldova on 13 July 1995 and was ratified on 12 September 1997. It was signed by Russia on 28 February 1996 and was ratified on 5 May 1998. 19.     In March 2003 the Russian peacekeeping forces in Transdniestria comprised 294 soldiers, 17 armoured vehicles, 29 other vehicles and 264   firearms. In the Ilascu judgment (paragraph 103), the Court did not find that any soldier of the ROG/14th Army had been employed in the Russian peacekeeping force. 3.     International political developments regarding Transdniestria 20.     On 29 July 1994 Moldova adopted a new Constitution. It provided, inter alia , that Moldova is neutral, that it prohibits the stationing in its territory of troops belonging to other States and that a form of autonomy may be granted to regions which include some areas on the left bank of the Dniester. According to Article 13 of the Constitution, the national language is Moldovan, to be written using the Latin alphabet. 21.     On 8 May 1997 in Moscow, Mr Lucinschi, the President of Moldova, and Mr Smirnov, the “President of the MRT”, signed a memorandum laying down the basis for the normalisation of relations between the Republic of Moldova and Transdniestria (“the 1997 Memorandum”). Under the terms of the 1997 Memorandum, decisions concerning Transdniestria had to be agreed by both sides, powers had to be shared and delegated and guarantees had to be secured reciprocally. Transdniestria had to be allowed to participate in the conduct of the foreign policy of the Republic of Moldova on questions concerning its own interests to be defined by mutual agreement. Transdniestria would have the right unilaterally to establish and maintain international contacts in economic, scientific, technical, cultural and other fields, to be determined by mutual agreement. The parties undertook to settle conflicts through negotiation, with the assistance where necessary of the Russian Federation and Ukraine, as guarantors of compliance with the agreements reached, and of the OSCE and the CIS. The 1997 Memorandum was countersigned by the representatives of the guarantor States, namely Mr   Yeltsin for the Russian Federation and Mr Kuchma for Ukraine, and by Mr H. Petersen, the OSCE President. 4.     The presence in Transdniestria of ROG/14th Army equipment and personnel following the ceasefire agreement 22.     After the end of the armed conflict, senior officers of the ROG/14 th   Army participated in public life in Transdniestria. In particular, soldiers of the ROG/14th Army took part in the elections in Transdniestria, military parades of the Transdniestrian forces and other public events. On 11   September 1993 General Lebed, who was then Commander of the ROG/14th Army, was elected a member of the “Supreme Soviet of the MRT”. 23.     Article 4 of the ceasefire agreement required Moldova and the Russian Federation to negotiate the withdrawal of the ROG/14th Army from Moldovan territory. On 21 October 1994 an agreement was reached between the Moldovan and Russian Governments whereby Russia would withdraw its military formations within three years of the entry into force of the agreement. The parties further agreed, within the same time-frame, to bring about the political settlement of the Transdniestrian conflict through the establishment of a special status for the “Transdniestrian region of the Republic of Moldova”. Under Article 5 of the agreement, the sale of any type of military technology, weapons or ammunition belonging to the military forces of the Russian Federation stationed in the territory of the Republic of Moldova could take place only by way of a special agreement between the Governments of the two countries. 24.     On 9 November 1994 the Moldovan Government adopted the decision to implement the agreement of 21 October 1994. The Russian Government submitted a similar decision for ratification to the Duma. On 17 November 1998, as the agreement had still not been ratified by the Duma, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation asked the Duma to remove the matter from its order of business, on the ground that “any decision by the Ministry to reconsider this issue will depend on the evolution of relations with the Republic of Moldova and the Transdniestrian region and on a political settlement in the area”. In January 1999 the agreement was removed from the Duma’s order of business and the agreement has not come into force. 25.     On 20 March 1998 an agreement concerning the military assets of the ROG/14th Army was signed in Odessa by Mr Chernomyrdin, on behalf of the Russian Federation, and Mr Smirnov, “President of the MRT”. According to the timetable annexed to the agreement, the withdrawal and decommissioning of certain stocks, to be disposed of by explosion or other mechanical process, was to be completed by 31 December 2001. The withdrawal (transfer and decommissioning) of surplus ammunition and other ROG/14th Army equipment and personnel not forming part of the peacekeeping forces was planned to take place by 31 December 2002 at the latest. 26.     A number of trainloads of ROG/14th Army equipment left Transdniestria between 1999 and 2002. 27.     On 19 November 2001 the Russian Government submitted to the Court a document showing that in October 2001 the Russian Federation and the “MRT” had signed a further agreement on the withdrawal of the Russian forces. Under that agreement, in compensation for the withdrawal of part of the Russian military equipment stationed in Transdniestria, the “MRT” was granted a reduction of one hundred million United States dollars in its debt for gas imported from the Russian Federation, and the transfer to it by the ROG/14th Army of part of its equipment capable of being put to civilian use. 28.     According to a document submitted to the Court in November 2002 by the Moldovan Government, the volume of weaponry, ammunition and military equipment belonging to the ROG/14th Army which had been withdrawn by November 2002 from the territory of the Republic of Moldova by virtue of the agreement of 21 October 1994 represented only 15% of the total volume declared in 1994 as being stationed in Moldovan territory. 29.     According to an OSCE press release, 29 railway wagons carrying bridge-building equipment and field kitchens were removed on 24   December 2002. The same press release quoted a declaration by the Commander of the ROG, General Boris Sergeyev, to the effect that the latest withdrawals had been made possible by an agreement with the Transdniestrians under which the “MRT” was to receive half of the non-military equipment and supplies withdrawn. General Sergeyev cited the example of the withdrawal, on 16 December 2002, of 77 lorries, which had been followed by the transfer of 77 ROG lorries to the Transdniestrians. 30.     In June 2001, according to information supplied to the Court by the Russian Government, the ROG/14th Army still had some 2,200 troops in Transdniestria. In his witness evidence, General Sergeyev asserted that in 2002 just under 1,500 troops remained. According to the evidence heard by the Court in the Ilascu case, in 2003 at least 200,000 tonnes of ROG/14 th   Army arms and ammunition remained in Transdniestria, mainly at Colbasna, together with 106 battle tanks, 42 armoured cars, 109 armoured personnel carriers, 54 armoured reconnaissance vehicles, 123 cannons and mortars, 206 anti-tank weapons, 226 anti-aircraft guns, nine helicopters and 1,648 vehicles of various kinds (see the Ilascu judgment, cited above, paragraph   131). 5.     Economic and political support from the Russian Federation to the “MRT” 31.     In the Ilaşcu judgment (paragraphs 137-138, 144-145 and 154; and see also paragraph   381) the Court referred to uncontested press and television reports, predating the ratification of the Convention by Russia in May 1998, of statements of support for the separatist regime by eminent Russian political figures, including the President and Vice-President of the Russian Federation at the time, Mr Yeltsin and Mr Rutskoy. It also referred to Resolution no. 1334 IGD of 17 November 1995, where the Duma of the Russian Federation declared Transdniestria a “zone of special strategic interest for Russia”. Before and after ratification of the Convention by the Russian Federation, representatives of the Duma and other prominent figures had travelled to Transdniestria and taken part in official events there and representatives of the “MRT” regime had travelled to Moscow on official visits, notably to the Duma. 32.     Both before and after ratification of the Convention by the Russian Federation, prominent members of the “MRT” regime were granted Russian citizenship, including, on 19 May 1994, Lieutenant-General Iakovlev, the former commander of the 14th Army and former head of the “Defence and Security Department of the MRT”; in 1997, Mr Mărăcuţă, the “President of the Supreme Soviet of the MRT”; in 1999, Mr Caraman, another “MRT” leader; and Mr Smirnov in 1997 or 1999. 33.     In the Ilaşcu judgment (paragraphs 150-160 and 390) the Court also found it uncontested that the arms industry, which was one of the pillars of the Transdniestrian economy, was directly supported by Russian firms including the Rosvoorouzhenie (Росвооружение) and Elektrommash companies. The Russian firm Iterra had bought the largest undertaking in Transdniestria, the Râbniţa engineering works, despite the opposition of the Moldovan authorities. In addition, Russia, through the 14th Army/ROG, constituted a major employer and purchaser of supplies in Transdniestria. The Russian Federation has separate contracts with the “MRT” for the supply of gas and electricity and supplied gas to Transdniestria on more advantageous terms than applied for the rest of Moldova. C.     Events subsequent to the Ilascu and Others judgment 1     Arms withdrawal 34.     In 2003, the OSCE observed and verified the withdrawal from Transdniestria of 11 trains of Russian military equipment and 31 trains loaded with more than 15,000 tons of ammunition. However, the following year, in 2004, the OSCE reported that only one train containing approximately 1,000 tons of ammunition had been removed. 35.     At the end of 2004, approximately 21,000 metric tons of ammunition remained, together with more than 40,000 small arms and light weapons and approximately ten trainloads of miscellaneous military equipment. 36.     The Commander of the ROG reported in May 2005 that surplus stocks of 40,000 small arms and light weapons had been destroyed, but the OSCE was not allowed to verify these claims. On 13 November 2006, a group of 30 OSCE Heads of Delegations, along with OSCE Mission members gained access for the first time since March 2004 to the Russian Federation ammunition depot in Colbaşna in northern Transdniestria. 37.     Since 2004 there have been no verified withdrawals of any Russian arms or equipment from Transdniestria. 2.     Political developments 38.     In November 2003, the Russian Federation put forward a settlement proposal, the “Memorandum on the Basic Principles of the State Structure of the United State” (referred to as the “Kozak Memorandum”). The Kozak Memorandum proposed a new federal structure for Moldova, under which the authorities of the “MRT” would have had a substantial degree of autonomy and guaranteed representation in the new “federal legislature”. The Kozak Memorandum included transitional provisions under which, until 2015, a three-quarters majority in a newly created legislative second chamber, composed of four representatives from Gagauzia, nine from Transdniestria and 13 from the new federal legislature’s first chamber, would have been required to confirm federal organic laws. This would have given the “MRT” representatives in the second chamber an effective veto over any legislation affecting all of Moldova until 2015. On 25 November 2003, having previously indicated his willingness to accept these proposals, the President of Moldova, President Voronin, decided not to sign the Kozak Memorandum. 39.     Further five-sided negotiations involving representatives from Moldova, the “MRT”, the Russian Federation, Ukraine and the OSCE took place in the first half of 2004, although no agreements were reached. However, in July 2004, in response to closures of Romanian-language schools in Transdniestria (see paragraphs 43-63 below), Moldova suspended its participation in the five-sided talks. 40.     In May 2005, the Ukrainian Government introduced a proposal, “Towards a Settlement through Democratization” (summarized in the report of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe: see paragraph 63 below). In July 2005, citing the Ukrainian plan, the Moldovan parliament adopted a law, “On the Basic Principles of a Special Legal Status of Transdniestria”. Formal negotiations resumed in October 2005, with the European Union (“EU”) and the United States of America participating as observers (referred to as “the 5+2 talks”). 41.     In December 2005, an EU Border Assistance Mission was established to help combat illegal trade between Ukraine and Moldova and in March 2006 Ukraine and Moldova began implementing a 2003 customs agreement under which Transdniestrian companies engaged in cross-border trade had to register in Chişinău in order to be issued documents indicating the goods’ country of origin, in accordance with World Trade Organisation protocols. Ukraine undertook to refuse to permit goods without such export documents to pass across its border. In what was seen as a response to these new customs measures, Transdniestrian representatives refused to continue with the 5+2 talks. However, President Voronin and Mr Smirnov met in Bender on 11 April 2008 and agreed to initiate confidence-building measures. Informal 5+2 discussions were held in Odessa in April 2008 and in Moldova in July 2008. A further Russian-brokered meeting took place between President Voronin and Mr Smirnov on 18 March 2009. 3.     The schools crisis and the facts concerning the applicants’ cases 42.     According to Article 12 of the MRT “Constitution”, the official languages within the MRT are “Moldavian”, Russian and Ukrainian. Article   6 of the “MRT Law on languages”, which was adopted on 8   September 1992, states that, for all purposes, “Moldavian” must be written with the Cyrillic alphabet. The “law” provides further that use of the Latin alphabet may amount to an offence and Article 200-3 of the “MRT Code of Administrative Offences”, adopted on 19 July 2002, states that: “Failure by persons holding public office and other persons in the executive and State administration, in public associations, as well as in other organisations, regardless of their legal status and form of ownership, and in other entities, situated on the territory of the MRT, to observe MRT’s legislation on the functioning of languages on the territory of MRT ... entails liability in the form of a fine which may amount to 50 (fifty) minimal salaries [approximately EUR 30].” 43.     On 18 August 1994 the “MRT” authorities forbade the use of the Latin script in schools. By a decision of 21 May 1999, the “MRT” ordered that all schools belonging to “foreign States” and functioning on “its” territory had to register with the “MRT” authorities, failing which they would not be recognised and would be deprived of their rights. 44.     On 14 July 2004 the “MRT” authorities began taking steps to close down all schools using the Latin script. At the date of adoption of the present decision, there remain only six schools in Transdniestria using the Moldovan (Romanian) language and the Latin script. a.     Catan and Others (application no. 43370/04) 45.     The applicants are among the 600 children studying at Evrica High School in Rîbniţa, their parents and one of the teachers. 46.     From 1997 Evrica School used premises situated on Gagarin Street built with Moldovan public funds. The school was registered with the Moldovan Ministry of Education and was using the Latin script and a curriculum approved by that Ministry. 47.     Following the “MRT decision” of 21 May 1999 (see paragraph 43 above), Evrika School refused to register, since registration would require it to use the Cyrillic script and the curriculum devised by the “MRT” regime.   On 26 February 2004 the building used by the school was transferred by the “MRT” authorities to the “Rîbniţa Department of Education”. In July 2004, following a number of closures of Latin-script schools within the “MRT”, the pupils, parents and teachers of Evrika School took it upon themselves to guard the school day and night. On 29 July 2004 Transdniestrian police stormed the school and evicted the women and children who were inside it. Over the following days local police and officials from the “Rîbniţa Department of Education” visited the parents of children registered with the school, asking them to withdraw their children from the school and to put them in a school registered with the “MRT” regime. The parents were allegedly told that if they did not do so, they would be fired from their jobs and would even be deprived of their parental rights. As a result of this pressure, many parents withdrew their children and transferred them to another school. 48.     On 29 September 2004, and following the intervention of the OSCE Mission to Moldova, the school was able to register with the “Tiraspol Chamber of Registration” as a foreign institution of private education, but could not resume its activity for lack of premises. On 2 October 2004 the “MRT” regime allowed the school to reopen in another building, which had previously housed a kindergarten. The building is rented from the “MRT” and the Moldovan Government has paid for it to be refurbished. The school’s repeated requests to be allowed to return to the building situated on Gagarin Street, which is bigger and more appropriate, were rejected on the ground that another school was now using that building. The applicants allege that the rented premises are inappropriate for a secondary school, in that the lighting, corridors and classrooms are not fully adapted and there are no laboratories or sports facilities. The school is administered by the Moldovan Ministry of Education, which pays the teachers’ salaries and provides educational material. It uses the Latin alphabet and a Moldovan curriculum. 49.     The applicants filed a number of petitions and complaints with the authorities of the Russian Federation. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation replied by making public general statements about the escalation of the conflict around the Romanian-language schools in Transdniestria. Stating that the underlying problem was the ongoing conflict between Moldova and the “MRT”, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs drew the attention of Moldova and the “MRT” to the fact that the use of force to solve the conflict could endanger security in the region and urged them to use various types of negotiations in order to solve the conflict. The applicants also complained about their situation to the Moldovan authorities. 50.     The school became the target of a systematic campaign of vandalism and broken windows. The applicants allege that this campaign started in 2004; the Moldovan Government claim that it started in the autumn of 2007. On 10 April 2008 the Moldovan Ministry of Reintegration asked the Special Representative of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe to intervene to try and bring an end to the attacks. The applicants also allege that the children are intimidated by the local Russian-speaking population and are afraid to speak Moldovan outside the school. 51.     On 16 July 2008 the Moldovan Ministry of Reintegration sought the assistance of the OSCE Mission to Moldova in transporting educational and construction material and money for teachers’ salaries across the “border” with the “MRT”. 52.     There were 683 pupils at the school during the academic year 2002-2003. During the year 2008-2009 that number had fallen to 345. b.     Caldare and Others (application no. 8252/05) 53.     The applicants are children studying at Alexandru cel Bun High School in Tighina, Bender, and their parents. The school had been using premises situated on Kosmodemianskaia Street built with Moldovan public funds and rented to them by the Moldovan authorities. The school was registered with the Moldovan Ministry of Education and was therefore using the Latin script and a curriculum approved by the Ministry of Education. 54.     On 4 June 2004, the “MRT Ministry for Education” warned the school that it would be closed down if it did not register with them, and that disciplinary measures would be taken against the head teacher.   On 18 July 2004 the school was disconnected from electricity and water supplies and on 19 July 2004 the school administration was notified that it could no longer use the premises on Kosmodemianskaia Street. However, teachers, pupils and parents occupied the building, refusing to leave. Transdniestrian police tried unsuccessfully to reoccupy the premises, and eventually surrendered the building. They withdrew on 28 July 2004. On 20 September 2004, and following various negotiations with international observers, including representatives of the Council of Europe, the school was reconnected to water and electricity. 55.     The “MRT” regime allowed the school to reopen in September   2004, but in different premises, rented from the “MRT” authorities. The school is currently using three buildings, located in separate districts of the town. The main building has no cafeteria, science or sports facilities and cannot be reached by public transport. The Moldovan Government has provided the school with a bus and computers. They are also paying for the refurbishment of the sanitary facilities in one of the buildings. 56.     The applicants have filed a number of petitions and complaints with the Russian and Moldovan authorities. 57.     There were 1751 pupils at the school in 2002-2003 and 901 in 2008-2009. c.     Cercavschi and Others (application no. 18454/06) 58.     The applicants are children studying at the Ştefan cel Mare secondary school in Grigoriopol, their parents and the director of the school. 59.     In 1996, at the request of the parents and their children, the school, which was using a Cyrillic alphabet curriculum, filed a number of petitions with the “MRT” regime requesting to be allowed to use the Latin script. As a result, between 1996 and 2002, the “MRT” orchestrated a campaign of hostile press reports, intimidation and threats by security forces.   These measures reached a climax on 22 August 2002 when Transdniestrian police stormed the school and evicted the teachers, the pupils and their parents who were inside it. On 28 August 2002 the President of the Pupils Committee was arrested and subsequently sentenced to fifteen days’ administrative imprisonment. Following these incidents, 300 pupils left the school. 60.     Faced with the occupation of the building by the “MRT” regime, the Moldovan Ministry of Education decided that the school should be transferred temporarily to a building in Doroţcaia, a village about 20   kilometres from Grigoripol and which is under Moldovan control. Each day, pupils and teachers are taken to Doroţcaia in buses provided by the Moldovan Government. They are subjected to bag searches and identity checks by “MRT” officials and also, allegedly, acts of harassment such as spitting and verbal abuse. 61.     Representatives of the school filed a number of petitions and complained about this situation to the OSCE, the United Nations Organisation, as well as to the Russian and Moldovan authorities. The Russian authorities replied by urging both Moldova and “MRT” to use various types of negotiations in order to solve the conflict. The Moldovan authorities informed the applicants that they could do nothing further to help. 62.     There were 709 pupils at the school in 2000-2001 and 169 in 2008-2009. D.     Reports of international bodies concerning the situation with regard to Transdniestria during the period since the adoption of the Ilascu and Others judgment 1.     The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe 63.     On 16 September 2005 the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) issued a report on “The functioning of the democratic Institutions in Moldova”. The section devoted to Transdniestria reads as follows: “31. Major new developments have occurred during the last months which the Assembly has to follow very closely and accompany in the best possible way. 32. Following intense diplomatic contacts between Moldova and Ukraine, at the GUAM Summit in Chisinau on 22 April the Ukrainian President Yushchenko announced a 7-point initiative to settle the Transnistrian issue. ... The main thrust of this new plan is to achieve a long-lasting solution through the democratisation of Transnistria. This would entail: – the creation of conditions for the development of democracy, civil society, and a multi-party system in Transnistria; – holding of free and democratic elections to the Transniestrian Supreme Soviet, monitored by the European Union, the OSCE, the Council of Europe, Russia, United States, and other democratic countries including Ukraine; – the transformation of the current format of peacekeeping operation into an international mission of military and civil observers under the aegis of the OSCE and the expansion of the number of Ukrainian military observers in the region; – admission by Transniestrian authorities of an international monitoring mission, to include Ukrainian experts, to military-industrial enterprises in the Transniestrian region; – a short-term OSCE monitoring mission in Ukraine to verify the movement of goods and persons through the Ukrainian-Moldovan border. 33. The full text of the Ukrainian plan was presented on 16-17 May at a meeting of the representatives of the mediators and Moldova and Transnistria in Vinnitsa, Ukraine after the Ukrainian Secretary of Security Council Pyotr Poroshenko and Moldavian presidential aide Mark Tkachuk spent almost a month doing ‘shuttle diplomacy’. 34. The reactions were varied but cautiously positive. 35. On 10 June the Moldovan Parliament adopted a ‘Declaration on the Ukrainian initiative of settlement of the Transnistrian conflict’ as well as two appeals, on demilitarisation and on promoting the criteria of democratisation of the Transnistrian region of the Republic of Moldova (see appendix II). 36. The declaration welcomed the initiative of President Yushchenko, hoping that it would become ‘a major factor in the achievement by Moldova of its territorial and civil unity’. The parliament however regretted that the Ukrainian initiative did not reflect some important principles of settlement, in the first place the withdrawal of Russian troops; demilitarisation; the principles and conditions of the region’s democratisation and the establishing of a transparent and legal control over the Transnistrian segment of the Moldovan-Ukrainian border. It called for additional efforts by the international community and Ukraine in this respect. 37. The parliament also criticised a number of provisions which might ‘infringe upon the sovereignty of the Republic of Moldova’, such as the co-participation of Transnistria in the conduct of foreign policy of the Republic of Moldova and the proposal to create the so-called conciliation committee. The Parliament insisted on resolving the conflict within the framework of the Moldovan Constitution through dialogue with a new, democratically elected, Transnistrian leadership. There are thus a number of divergences between the Ukrainian initiative and the approach to implementing it chosen by Moldova. 38. The mediators in the Transnistrian conflict (the OSCE, Russia and Ukraine) stated that the plan provided a concrete impetus toward achieving a settlement. At all of their latest meetings they called for resuming direct, continuing dialogue on resolution of the conflict. 39. More delicate is the position of Russia. It is clear that through its military and economic presence and thanks to the strong cultural and linguistic links with Transnistria, Russia would like to retain its strong influence over the territory. The press recently reported the existence of an ‘Action plan of retaining Russian influence in the Moldova Republic’, details of which are kept secret. Russia is still strongly attached to the so-called ‘Kozak Memorandum’ of 2003, which proposed to Moldova a federal solution. Moldova had nearly accepted the plan; it refused to sign it