CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 mai 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 16 May 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 4711/07 Ion MANOLE and Alexandru POSTICA against the Republic of Moldova and Russia lodged on 7 December 2006 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged unlawfulness of the applicant’s detention by Russian soldiers on the territory of the self-proclaimed “Moldovan Republic of Transdniestria” (the “MRT”), as well as their alleged degrading treatment during that detention. It raises issues under Articles 3, 5 § 1 and 13 of the Convention. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Do the applicants come within the jurisdiction of Moldova and/or Russia within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention as interpreted by the Court in the cases of Ilaşcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no.   48787/99, ECHR 2004-VII; Ivanţoc and Others v. Moldova and Russia , no. 23687/05, 15 November 2011; Catan and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [GC], nos. 43370/04, 8252/05 and 18454/06, ECHR   2012 (extracts) and Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [GC], no.   11138/10, §§ 80-112, 23 February 2016) on account of the circumstances of the present case?   In particular, in the light of the above-mentioned cases, could the responsibility of the respondent Governments under the Convention be engaged on account of their positive obligations to secure the applicants’ rights under the Convention?   Have there been any developments following the above-mentioned cases which might affect the responsibility of either Contracting Party?   2.     Do the facts of the case reveal a violation of Article 3 of the Convention? In particular, were the applicants subjected to degrading treatment as a result of their detention at gunpoint followed by shots in their immediate vicinity from an automatic assault rifle?   3.     Has there been a breach of Article 5 § 1? In particular, were the applicants lawfully detained, on what ground and was there a formal decision taken to detain them ( Mozer , cited above, §§   122-150)?   4.     Do the facts of the case reveal a violation of Article 13 of the Convention? In particular, did the applicants have effective remedies in respect of their complaints under Article 3 ( Mozer , cited above, §§   202 ‑ 212)?