CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 juin 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 25 June 2018   SECOND SECTION Applications nos. 28432/06 and 5665/07 Ion GRAMA against the Republic of Moldova and Russia and Mihai DÎRUL against the Republic of Moldova and Russia lodged on 28 June 2006 and 16 January 2007 respectively SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applications concern the temporary seizure of two vehicles belonging to the applicants by the self-proclaimed Trandniestrian authorities and the imposition of fines by the same authorities on account of the lack of registration in the break-away Transdniestrian region of Moldova. The cases raise issues similar to those examined by the Court in Turturica and Casian v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia , nos. 28648/06 and 18832/07, 30 August 2016. The applicants complain about a breach of their rights guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and Article 13 of the Convention. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicants come within the jurisdiction of the Republic of Moldova and/or the Russian Federation within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention as interpreted by the Court, inter alia , in the cases of Ilaşcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, ECHR 2004-VII, and Catan and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], nos. 43370/04 and 2   others, §§ 102-23, ECHR 2012 (extracts), on account of the circumstances of the present cases?   2.     Do the facts of the cases disclose a violation of Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1 to the Convention (see Turturica and Casian v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia , nos. 28648/06 and 18832/07, 30 August 2016)?   3.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?