CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 juin 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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sD42DC8F7 { width:96.98%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s70754737 { width:7.44%; border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-left:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#5f5f5f } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s3FAB130A { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#f8f8f8 } .s94852497 { width:21.46%; border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-left:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#5f5f5f } .sC2326F97 { width:10.54%; border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-left:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#5f5f5f } .s3EAA5994 { width:18.56%; border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-left:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#5f5f5f } .sD346C4D9 { width:18.18%; border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-left:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#5f5f5f } .sDCDB108B { width:23.8%; border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-left:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#5f5f5f } .sEF6EDB7F { width:7.44%; border:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s90395BB4 { width:21.46%; border:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF7BA2000 { width:10.54%; border:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9E8526F9 { width:18.56%; border:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s65F9B60F { width:18.18%; border:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE2576941 { width:23.8%; border:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   Communicated on 4 June 2019   SECOND SECTION Applications nos. 5131/10 and 25230/14 Nichita IPATE against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 26 October 2009 and 24 March 2014 respectively SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE Both applications concern the issue of whether the applicant can still claim to be a victim of a breach of Article 8 of the Convention in view of the decisions made by the domestic courts (finding, in the first case, that his correspondence in prison had been censored, and in the second case that he had been unlawfully deprived of the right to have telephone conversations with his mother) and the awards made (equivalent to EUR   119 in both cases). QUESTION tO THE PARTIES In each application, has there been a breach of Article 8 of the Convention (as a result of censoring and allegedly destroying the applicant’s correspondence sent from prison, in application no. 5131/10 and of depriving him of the right to have telephone conversations with his mother in application no. 25230/14) (see, for instance, Ciorap v. Moldova , no.   12066/02, §§ 97-104, 19 June 2007)? In particular, in the light of the judgments adopted by the domestic courts and the awards made, can the applicant still claim to be a victim of such a breach?       Applications nos 5131/10 and 25230/14   No. Firstname LASTNAME Birth year Nationality Place of residence Representative 1 Nichita IPATE 1971 Moldovan Bălăbăneşti