CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 mars 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sFA36A5DA { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .s62C4F559 { width:102.38%; border-collapse:collapse } .sD679166 { width:8.44%; 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 } .s83B5D264 { width:39.16%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s10BCE039 { width:18.28%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s9454A668 { width:18.26%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sA24D7BD8 { width:15.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sEDAD8F90 { width:8.44%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s412E9040 { width:39.16%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sCC39C6AF { width:18.28%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s700D731A { width:18.26%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s389C5BA4 { width:15.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6F7FC1B9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } Communicated on 4 March 2020 Published on 23 March 2020   SECOND SECTION Application no. 59220/18 Maria JUKOVEȚ and Others against the Republic of Moldova and Russia lodged on 4 December 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the criminal conviction of the applicants for holding an anti-government demonstration in the Transdniestrian region of Moldova and the sentencing of some of them to imprisonment of up to fourteen days and of others to fines. The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings had been unfair. They also alleged that the detention of some of them had been contrary to Article 5 of the Convention and that the conditions of their detention had amounted inhuman and degrading treatment in the sense of Article 3 of the Convention. Finally, all applicants complained that their conviction for holding a peaceful demonstration had been contrary to Article 11 of the Convention and that there had been a breach of Article 13 in their case.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 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? Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against them by a tribunal established by law as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention ( Vardanean v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia (no. 22200/10 , 30 May 2017)? Were applicants 1, 2 and 4 deprived of their liberty in breach of Article   5 §   1 of the Convention ( Vardanean v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia (no. 22200/10 , 30 May 2017)? Has there been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions in which applicants 1, 2 and 4 have been detained ( Mangîr and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia , no.   50157/06, 17   July 2018)? Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to freedom of peaceful assembly, contrary to Article   11 of the Convention ( Navalnyy v.   Russia [GC], nos.   29580/12 and 4 others, §§ 85-153, 15 November 2018)? Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Articles 3, 5, 6 and 11 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? APPENDIX No. Applicant's Name Birth date Nationality Place of residence 1 Maria JUKOVEȚ 12/04/1968 Stateless Gîsca 2 Nadezhda BONDARENKO 19/10/1950 Russian Tiraspol 3 Vera KAPUT 03/11/1952 Russian Tiraspol 4 Alexander NEVSKIY 18/04/1979 Russian Tiraspol 5 Alexandr SAMONII 27/10/1981 Moldovan Ternăuca 6 Antonina SAMONII 15/10/1958 Moldovan Tiraspol