CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 janvier 2022

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 7 February 2022   SECOND SECTION Application no. 9200/15 Vladimir Alexandrovici STEPANOV against the Republic of Moldova and Russia lodged on 7 February 2015 communicated on 17 January 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the refusal of the authorities of the self ‑ proclaimed “Moldovan Republic of Transdniestria” to authorise the holding of a peaceful assembly to be organised by the applicant in Tiraspol in October 2013 on several occasions followed by an unsuccessful challenging of that refusal in the local courts. The applicant claims that his rights guaranteed by Article 11 of the Convention were breached. He also complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings were not fair because, inter alia , the courts did not give sufficient reasons in their judgments, the principle of equality of arms was not observed and because he had not been able to participate at some hearings. 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 the applicant’s 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)? 3.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention?