CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 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 }   Communicated on 17 June 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 74433/11 Rostom ASLANIAN against the Republic of Moldova and Russia lodged on 28 November 2011 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s conviction for refusing military service in the self-proclaimed “Moldavian Republic of Transdniestria”, despite his readiness to carry out alternative service. It raises an issue under Articles 9 and 14 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; and Catan and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [GC], nos. 43370/04, 8252/05 and 18454/06, ECHR   2012 (extracts)) 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 Articles 9 and/or 14 of the Convention as a result of convicting the applicant despite his opposition to military service on religious grounds and his willingness to carry out alternative civilian service (see Bayatyan v. Armenia [GC], no. 23459/03, §§   92-128, ECHR 2011)?