CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 novembre 2024

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s86731D0A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } Published on 9 December 2024   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 862/16 Rauşan AHMETŞIN against the Republic of Moldova and Russia and 2 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 18 November 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The cases concern allegations of human rights violations at the hands of the authorities of the self-proclaimed “Moldovan Republic of   Transnistria” (the “MRT”), as described in the table below. In particular, they refer to alleged unlawful deprivation of liberty and inadequate conditions of detention (case no. 862/16), alleged violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression (case no. 35739/17), alleged restriction of the right to freedom of movement after the applicant was not allowed to enter the “MRT”, alleged restriction of the freedom to access information and to impart information about the elections for the “MRT President” and of the freedom of assembly (case no. 79438/17). The applicants complain of a violation of their rights under Articles 3 and   5 § 1 of the Convention (in case no. 862/16), under Article 10 of the Convention (in cases nos. 79438/17 and 35739/17), under Article 11 and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention (in case no. 79438/17) and under Article 13 of the Convention (in all cases). A short summary of each application is provided in the appendix.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Do the applicants come within the jurisdiction of the Republic of Moldova and/or Russia within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention as interpreted by the Court in the cases of Lypovchenko and Halabudenco v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia (nos. 40926/16 and 73942/17, §§ 85-87, 20   February 2024) and Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], no. 11138/10, §§ 99-111, 23 February 2016), on account of the circumstances of the present cases?   2.     In case no. 862/16, has there been a breach of Article 3 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant detained in adequate conditions and was he provided with required medical treatment (see Lypovchenko and Halabudenco , cited above, §§ 105-114)?   3.     In case no. 862/16, has there been a breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant lawfully deprived of liberty (see Lypovchenko and Halabudenco , cited above, §§ 119-129)?   4.     In cases nos. 35739/17 and 79438/17 (as regards the first applicant), has there been a breach of Article 10 of the Convention (see Selmani and Others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 67259/14, §§ 71-72, 9   February 2017; Mătăsaru v. the Republic of Moldova , nos. 69714/16 and 71685/16, §§ 28 ‑ 35, 15 January 2019; Pryanishnikov v. Russia , no.   25047/05, §§ 49-53, 10 September 2019; Vereinigung Bildender Künstler v. Austria , no.   68354/01, §§ 26-38, 25 January 2007)?   5.     In case no. 79438/17, has there been a breach of Article 11 of the Convention (see Navalnyy v. Russia [GC], nos. 29580/12 and 4 others, §§ 98-103, 15 November 2018; Promo Lex and Others v. the Republic of Moldova , no. 42757/09, §§ 21-26, 24 February 2015; Hyde Park and Others v. Moldova (no. 4) , no. 18491/07, §§ 47-52, 7 April 2009)?   6.     In case no. 79438/17, has there been a breach of the first applicant’s right to freedom of movement, contrary to Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention (see Lypovchenko and Halabudenco , cited above, §§ 143-149; Denizci and Others v. Cyprus , nos. 25316/94 and 6 others, §§ 400-406, ECHR 2001-V; and, for factual similarities, Dobrovitskaya and Others v. The Republic of Moldova and Russia [Committee] nos.   41660/10   and 5 others, §§ 92-97, 3 September 2019)? 7.     In all cases, did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Articles 3, 5 § 1, 10 and 11 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention ( see Lypovchenko and Halabudenco , cited above, §§ 152-157)?   APPENDIX No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Representative Summary of facts Complaints 1. 862/16 lodged on 26/12/2015 Rauşan AHMETŞIN 1973, Tiraspol, Republic of Moldova, Nationality not specified   Represented by: Tatiana AHMETŞIN (wife), Alexandru POSTICA On 13 March 2015 the applicant was taken into custody from the courtroom, after he was convicted by the de facto “first instance court of the MRT” on charges of embezzlement and was detained for seven days in the police detention centre. On 19 March 2015 he was transferred to prison no. 3 (Tiraspol), where he was detained for two months. On 28 April 2015 the de facto “MRT Supreme Court of Justice” finally convicted the applicant and sentenced him to a prison term of three and a half years. On 18 May 2015 the applicant was transferred to prison no.1 (Hlinaia) to serve his prison term. Following an extraordinary appeal by the applicant’s lawyer, on 1   December 2015 the Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic of Moldova quashed the judgments of the de   facto   “MRT courts” in respect of the applicant, finding that the “MRT courts” were unconstitutional and could not therefore lawfully convict the applicant. The applicant’s wife complained to the Russian Embassy and to the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation about the applicant’s conviction, but the Russian authorities denied their jurisdiction. Article 3 of the Convention: Inadequate conditions of detention, in particular: overcrowding,   inadequate ventilation, poor quality of food and water, poor hygiene, lack of access to showers, inadequate toilet facilities, lack of adequate medical care which led to the deterioration of the applicant’s general state of health (high blood pressure, heart pain). Article 5 § 1 of the Convention: The detention by the “MRT” authorities had been unlawful and was ordered by an authority which did not qualify as a court for the purposes of Article   5. Article 13 of the Convention: No remedies in respect of his complaints under Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention. 2. 35739/17 lodged on 30/04/2017 Carolina DUTCA 1995, Bender, Republic of Moldova Moldovan   Represented by: Alexandru POSTICA The applicant was born and lives permanently in the “MRT”. She was a medical student and an amateur photographer at the time of the events. In September 2016 she initiated a social project “No silence” consisting of a photo exhibition telling the story of the people from the photos and the hardships they were facing as LGBTI persons in the “MRT”. On 30 October 2016 she announced on social media that an exhibition would take place on 2 November 2016. The following day she was summoned by the university management and was taken to a person who introduced himself as a “KGB agent”. He questioned the applicant about her personal life and the purpose of the exhibition and suggested that she call off the exhibition, threatening her with possible problems she and her family members could encounter. On 1 November 2016, following the pressure exerted, the applicant cancelled the exhibition. The applicant filed complaints with the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Republic of Moldova and of the Russian Federation but to no avail. Article 10 of the Convention: Restriction of the right to freedom of expression. Article 13 of the Convention: No remedies in respect of the complaints under Article 10 of the Convention. 3. 79438/17 lodged on 10/11/2017 YEGOROV Vladimir 1968, Moscow, Russian Federation Russian   NP IPT “APRIORI” 2008, Tiraspol, Republic of Moldova   Represented by: Stepan POPOVSCHI and Evgheni   DUNAEV The first applicant, a Russian journalist and human rights activist, was invited by the second applicant, an “MRT”-based human rights NGO, as an international observer to monitor and to publicly cover the elections for the “MRT President” of 11 December 2016 and to be a speaker at several public events organised by the second applicant. On 8 December 2016 the first applicant attempted to enter the “MRT” from the territory under the sovereign control of the Republic of Moldova, but his entry was refused by the “intelligence services of the MRT”, challenged by the applicants in the “MRT” courts. On 11 May 2017 the “Supreme Court of Justice of the MRT” returned the applicants’ claims without examination for failure to submit valid powers. Article 10 of the Convention: The first applicant complains of the restriction of his right to access and impart information. Article 11 of the Convention: The applicants complain of the restriction of their right to freedom of assembly. Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention: The first applicant complains of the restriction of his right to freedom of movement. Article 13 of the Convention: The applicants complain that they had no remedies in respect of their complaints.