CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 mai 2021

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 7 June 2021   SECOND SECTION Application no. 558/16 Serghei VARDIAŞVILI against the Republic of Moldova and Russia lodged on 11 December 2015 communicated on 20 May 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s arrest and subsequent removal from the territory of the self-proclaimed “Moldovan Republic of Transdniestria” (“MRT”) with a six-month re-entry ban. The applicant complains that his detention for 2 days was contrary to Article 5 of the Convention and took place in conditions amounting to inhuman and degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention. He also complains that his six-month re-entry ban and subsequent access to his home based on short-term stay permits interfered with his right to respect for private and family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention and with his freedom of movement, contrary to Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention. He complains about having no effective remedies, within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention, against the violations alleged under Articles 5 and 8 of the Convention as well as Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention. Finally, he complains that the “MRT” authorities imposed restrictions on his freedom of movement in a discriminatory manner on account of his Georgian origin, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 2 of Protocol   No. 4 to the Convention.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant 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.     Has there been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions in which the applicant has been detained ( Mangîr and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia , no. 50157/06, 17   July 2018)?   3.     Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 §   1 of the Convention ( Vardanean v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no.   22200/10, 30 May 2017)?   4.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private and family life and for his home, contrary to Article   8 of the Convention ( Chiragov and Others v. Armenia [GC], no. 13216/05, §§   188 ‑ 208, ECHR 2015)?   5.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to liberty of movement, contrary to Article   2 of Protocol No.   4 ( Georgia v. Russia (II) [GC] (merits), no. 38263/08, §§ 296-301, 21 January 2021)?   6.     Has there been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Articles 5 and 8 of the Convention, and with Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention?   7.     Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of his rights under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention, on the ground of his ethnic origin, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention?