CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 février 2019

.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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sC4E9E8B1 { height:42.7pt } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sAD4A756B { height:56.45pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sD34E6D70 { height:41.95pt }   Communicated on 25 February 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 6345/16 Grigore PETRENCO against the Republic of Moldova and 6 other applications (see list appended) SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the applicants’ arrest and detention on charges of mass disorder as a result of a demonstration held by them in front of the Prosecutor General’s Office in September 2015. All applicants were detained for approximately four and a half months in prison No. 13 and for the same period of time under house arrest. All applicants were forced to wear electronic bracelets during their house arrest which they had to charge every five hours. The first applicant complains that the conditions of his detention in Prison No. 13 amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention and to a breach of his right to private life under Article 8. All applicants complain under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that their deprivation of liberty was not based on a reasonable suspicion that they had committed an offence and that it was arbitrary and unlawful. They also complain under Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 that their deprivation of liberty was not based on relevant and sufficient reasons and that the domestic courts did not sufficiently motivate their decisions to order and prolong it. All but the first applicant complain under Article 8 of the Convention that their forcing to wear electronic bracelets constituted an unlawful and disproportionate interference with their right to respect for their private lives. All but the first applicant complain under Article 11 of the Convention that their right to peaceful assembly was breached. The first applicant complains under Article 13 of the Convention that he did not have an effective remedy against the breach of his rights guaranteed by Article 3 of the Convention. All but the first and fourth applicants complain under Article 13 that they did not have an effective remedy against the breach of Article 11 of the Convention. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the material conditions of the first applicant’s detention amount to inhuman or degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention ( Cristioglo v. the Republic of Moldova , no. 24163/11 , § 24, 26 April 2016)?   2.     Were the applicants deprived of their liberty in breach of Article   5 §   1 of the Convention ( Musuc v. Moldova , no. 42440/06, § 33, 6 November 2007; Brega and Others v. Moldova , no. 61485/08, § 42, 24 January 2012)?   3.     Was the applicants’ deprivation of liberty based on relevant and sufficient reasons ( Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, §§   115-123, ECHR 2016).   4.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for private and family life, within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention as a result of their forcing to wear electronic bracelets during their house arrest? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article   8 §   2 ( Raninen v. Finland , judgment of 16   December 1997, Reports 1997-VIII, § 63)?   5.     Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to freedom of peaceful assembly, contrary to Article   11 of the Convention ( Brega v.   Moldova , no.   52100/08, § 47, 20 April 2010)?   6.     Did the first applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his Convention complaint under Article 3 of the Convention, as required by Article   13 of the Convention Segheti v. the Moldova , no.   39584/07, §   38, 15   October 2013)?     APPENDIX   No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Represented by 1 6345/16 28/01/2016 Grigore PETRENCO 17/01/1980 Chişinău Vadim VIERU Ana URSACHI 2 52055/16 27/08/2016 Alexandr ROȘCO 04/03/1986 Chişinău Vadim VIERU Ana URSACHI 3 52063/16 27/08/2016 Mihail AMERBERG 01/09/1986 Chişinău Vadim VIERU Ana URSACHI 4 52133/16 27/08/2016 Oleg BUZNEA 01/09/1990 Chişinău Nicoleta HRIPLIVÎI Ana URSACHI 5 52171/16 27/08/2016 Pavel GRIGORCIUC 30/06/1989 Cahul Vadim VIERU Ana URSACHI 6 52179/16 27/08/2016 Andrei DRUZI 17/02/1974 Mereni Vadim VIERU Ana URSACHI 7 52189/16 27/08/2016 Vladimir JURAT 12/08/1988 Chişinău Nicoleta HRIPLIVÎI Ana URSACHI