CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 mars 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 }   Communicated on 28 March 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 43176/13 Liubovi CRAVCIȘIN and Snejanna CRAVCIȘIN against the Republic of Moldova and Russia lodged on 28 May 2013 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the outcome of court proceedings in the self ‑ proclaimed Moldovan Republic of Transdniestria as a result of which the applicants were evicted from a socially owned apartment. The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings were not fair because the courts which examined the case were not “tribunals established by law” within the meaning of that provision. The applicants also complain under Articles 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that they lost their apartment, which was also their home, as a result of the impugned proceedings. 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 case?   2.     Did the applicants have a fair hearing by a tribunal established by law in the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention ( Vardanean v. the Republic of Moldova and   Russia , no. 22200/10, § 39, 30 May 2017)?   3.     Do the facts of the case disclose a violation of Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention ( Turturica & Casian v. Moldova and Russia v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia (nos.   28648/06 and 18832/07, 30 August 2016)?