CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 janvier 2025

.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 3 February 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 57300/17 Rano ARIPOVA against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 1 August 2017 communicated on 17 January 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged breach of the applicant’s freedom of movement. The applicant, a national of Uzbekistan, was lawfully on Moldovan territory. In June 2016 her passport was seized within the framework of a criminal investigation against two other persons for organising unlawful immigration to – and work in – Moldova. The applicant’s passport was annexed to the materials of the case as material evidence, and no document was issued to her to confirm her identity and her lawful presence in Moldova. The applicant’s lawyer asked the court to either accelerate the criminal proceedings or return the passport, without which she could not travel abroad (notably to see her family) and risked arrest within Moldova since she had no identity document. He added that the passport itself had not served to commit a crime and was not the result of any crime, thus it could not be treated as material evidence. The court found that only participants to the criminal proceedings had the right to request their acceleration; since the applicant did not have any procedural status in that investigation (she was neither a suspect nor an accused), the request was rejected. The court also found that it was not competent to examine the request for returning the passport; this latter question would be decided by the trial court. The applicant complains of a breach of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention since she was deprived of her only document allowing her to move freely both within Moldova and abroad. She also complains of a breach of Article 13 since she did not have any effective remedy in respect of her complaint under Article 2 of Protocol No.   4 to the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention as a result of the seizure of the applicant’s passport? (Compare and contrast Ioviță v. Romania (dec.), no. 25698/10, 7 March 2017.)   2.     Has there been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention? In particular, did the applicant have at her disposal an effective remedy to complain about the seizure of her passport? ( Milen Kostov v. Bulgaria , no.   40026/07, §§ 18-25, 3 September 2013)