CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 octobre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sADDDE81A { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sCF71F55 { width:100%; border-collapse:collapse } .s534D399A { width:4.16%; 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 } .s38AE08A1 { width:13.12%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s6835B238 { width:15%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sBA7C3A13 { width:31.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s63C0513B { width:20.1%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s21713D45 { width:15.78%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s89265D1A { width:4.16%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1B2CA6A8 { width:13.12%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB145D406 { width:15%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC260B883 { width:31.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2241DACF { width:20.1%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD7821266 { width:15.78%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s86731D0A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s8EE2D88E { height:66.25pt } .s148EE8B1 { height:41.3pt } .sB08AE2EE { width:15%; border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1FB8E379 { width:31.84%; border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s146DE8B1 { height:41.2pt } .s637A9263 { width:15%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt 1.4pt; vertical-align:top } .sF953D4A5 { width:15%; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt 1.02pt; vertical-align:top } .s8D460ECB { width:15%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7F704500 { height:39.7pt } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s91F6AE57 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } Published on 17 November 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 31359/18 Olga KRUGLOVA against the Republic of Moldova and Russia lodged on 26 June 2018 communicated on 27 October 2025 and 27 others – see appended list SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The cases concern the applicants’ deprivation of liberty in the self ‑ proclaimed “Moldovan Republic of Transnistria” (the “MRT”) on the territory of the Republic of Moldova. Their main complaints concern the unlawfulness of their deprivation of liberty and the inadequacy of the material conditions of detention (Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention). Some applicants also complain about being subjected to ill-treatment, unlawful home searches, property seizures, bans on entering or leaving the “MRT” region, and conviction for various alleged criminal offences by unlawful courts in the “MRT”. Their complaints are described in detail in the appended table. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     In all applications, 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 all applications (except nos. 18626/20 and 21775/22), has there been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention? In particular:   (a)   Were the relevant applicants detained in inhuman and/or degrading conditions of detention and were they provided with medical assistance required by their state of health (see, Lypovchenko and Halabudenco , cited above, §§ 105-111)?   (b)   Were the relevant applicants subjected to ill-treatment by the “MRT authorities” (see, Ilaşcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no.   48787/99, §§ 424-33, ECHR 2004-VII)?   3.     In all applications, has there been a breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular:   (a)   Were the applicants lawfully deprived of their liberty (see, Lypovchenko and Halabudenco , cited above, §§ 119-129)?   (b)   In application no. 1190/23, was the applicant’s arrest by the “MRT authorities” on Moldovan territory “lawful”, within the meaning of Article   5 §   1 of the Convention (see, Filin v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [Committee] , no. 48841/11, §§ 43-49, 17 September 2019)? Did the Republic of Moldova fulfil its positive obligation to prevent the alleged abduction of the applicant from the territory under its control ( El-Masri v.   the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no. 39630/09, §   239, ECHR   2012)?   (c)   In application no. 44744/20, did the applicant’s forced conscription into the “MRT army” constitute a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Article 5 of the Convention (see, Golub v. the Republic of Moldova and   Russia [Committee] , no. 48020/12, § 47, 30   November   2021)?   4.     In respect of application no. 41937/21, did the Russian authorities comply with the interim measure indicated by the Court on 7 January 2022 under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court? If not, did the respondent Russian Government thereby hinder the effective exercise of the applicants’ right of individual application, as guaranteed by Article 34 of the Convention (see Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey [GC], nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99, §§   128-29, ECHR 2005-I)?   5.     In respect of the remainder of the applicants’ complaints, do they disclose a violation of the Convention, as claimed by the applicants?   (a)   In the relevant applications, has there been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention (see, Lypovchenko and Halabudenco , cited above, §§   123 ‑ 129)?   (b)   In the relevant applications, has there been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention?   (c)   In the relevant applications, has there been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention?   (d)   In the relevant applications, has there been a violation of Article 11 of the Convention?   (e)   In application no. 41937/21, has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?   (f)   In the relevant applications, has there been a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention?   (g)   In all applications, has there been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention read in conjunction with the relevant complaints raised by the applicants?   APPENDIX No. Case name Application no. Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Representative Summary of facts Complaints Other complaints 1. Kruglova v.   the Republic of Moldova and Russia 31359/18 26/6/2018 Olga KRUGLOVA 1954 Tiraspol Russian   Alexandru POSTICA, Pavel CAZACU, Galina CERNIENCO On 1/12/2017 the applicant was taken into custody by the “MRT authorities”. On 3/4/2018 the “MRT Supreme Court of Justice” finally convicted the applicant of hooliganism and sentenced her to two years and six months’ imprisonment. She was detained between 1/12/2017-11/12/2017 in prison No. 1 “Hlinaia”, between 11/12/2017-20/1/2018 in “Tiraspol pre-trial detention centre No.   3”, between 20/1/2018-14/3/2018 in prison No. 3 “Caragas”, between 14/3/2018-20/4/2018 in “Tiraspol pre-trial detention centre No. 3”, and after 20/4/2018 in prison No. 3 “Caragas”. Article 3 of the Convention (material conditions of detention in all prisons): deplorable state of cells, overcrowding, smoking, lack of or insufficient electric/daylight, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or poor quality bedding and bed linen, lack of fresh air, lack of toiletries, poor quality food and water.   Article 5 § 1 of the Convention: deprivation of liberty ordered by unconstitutional authorities and not provided by law.     Article 13 of the Convention: absence of any effective remedy in respect of the complaints under Article 3 and Article   5 § 1 of the Convention. 2. Vardiaşvili v.   the Republic of Moldova and Russia 35496/18 23/6/2018 Serghei VARDIAŞVILI 1961 Dubasari Belarusian, Moldovan   Alexandru POSTICA, Nicoleta HRIPLIVII On 20/11/2017 the applicant was denied entry into the “MRT” region and was taken into custody by the “MRT authorities” at approximately 1.25 p.m., after he began an argument with the “MRT border guards”. He was then forcibly removed from the bus and held handcuffed for three hours. Subsequently, he was transferred to the “Dubăsari militia pre-trial detention centre”, where he remained detained until his release at approximately 3   p.m. on the following day. On 21/11/2017, the “Dubăsari District Court” imposed an administrative offence fine on the applicant on charges of “disobeying officials’ orders”. The applicant complained before the “MRT Supreme Court of Justice” about the unlawful deprivation of his liberty and about the conditions of his detention, but on 27/12/2017 the “MRT Supreme Court of Justice” upheld the decision of the “Dubăsari District Court” and rejected his claims. The applicant filed complaints with the authorities of both Moldova and Russia on 20/11/2017 and 26/11/2017. The Moldovan authorities initiated an investigation into the bodily injuries sustained by the applicant; however, no investigation was launched concerning the alleged unlawful deprivation of liberty.   Article 3 of the Convention (material conditions of detention in the “Dubăsari militia pre-trial detention centre”): no food or water provided, deplorable state of cells, lack of or insufficient electric/day light, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of fresh air, lack of toiletries.   Article 5 § 1 of the Convention: deprivation of liberty ordered by unconstitutional authorities and not provided by law. Article 13 of the Convention: absence of any effective remedy in respect of the complaints under Article 3 and Article   5 § 1 of the Convention.   Article 2 of Protocol No.   4 to the Convention: lack of legal basis for the ban to enter “MRT”.   3. Paslari v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia 35580/18 27/6/2018 Alexandr PASLARI 1987 Taraclia Moldovan   Alexandru POSTICA, Pavel CAZACU On 20/7/2017 the applicant was taken into custody by the “MRT authorities”. On 29/12/2017 the “Tiraspol district court” convicted the applicant of offering bribes and sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment with a probation period of five years. After being released from the “courtroom”, he fled the “MRT”. He was detained between 20/7/2017-29/12/2017 in “Tiraspol militia pre-trial detention centre” and in “Tiraspol pre-trial detention centre No. 3”. The applicant filed complaints with the authorities of both Moldova and Russia. The Moldovan authorities initiated a criminal investigation on 17/5/2018 on charges of unlawful deprivation of liberty. Article 3 of the Convention: (i)     inadequate or insufficient medical assistance in detention considering the applicant’s medical condition (severe allergies); (ii)     material conditions of detention in all prisons: deplorable state of cells, overcrowding, smoking, lack of or insufficient electric/day light, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or poor quality bedding and bed linen, lack of fresh air, lack of toiletries, poor quality food and water.   Article 5 § 1 of the Convention: deprivation of liberty ordered by unconstitutional authorities and not provided by law.   Article 13 of the Convention: absence of any effective remedy in respect of the complaints under Article 3 and Article   5 § 1 of the Convention 4. Nemchenko v.   the Republic of Moldova and Russia 37996/18 7/7/2018 Dmitry NEMCHENKO 1971 St Petersburg Russian   Alexandru POSTICA On 17/5/2008 the applicant was taken into custody by the “MRT authorities”. On 11/9/2010 the “Tiraspol district court” convicted him of several criminal offences and sentenced him to 11 years’ imprisonment. He was detained in: “Tiraspol pre-trial detention centre” between 17/5/2008-10/9/2010, “Hlinaia prison No.   1” between 17/5/2008-10/9/2010, and in “Tiraspol prison Nr. 2” between 11/9/2010-30/1/2018. He was released on 30/1/2018. The applicant filed complaints with the authorities of both Moldova and Russia. Article 3 of the Convention (material conditions of detention in all prisons): periodical solitary detention, deplorable state of cells, overcrowding, smoking, lack of or insufficient electric/day light, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or poor quality bedding and bed linen, lack of fresh air, lack of toiletries, poor quality food and water.   Article 5 of the Convention: deprivation of liberty ordered by unconstitutional authorities and not provided by law. Article 13 of the Convention: absence of any effective remedy in respect of the complaints under Article 3 and Article   5 of the Convention. 5. Kuzmiciov v.   Russia 3762/19 9/1/2019 Ghenadie KUZMICIOV 1966 Hlinaia Moldovan   Natalia TURCAN On 27/7/2018 the applicant was allegedly abducted by “MRT agents” from territory controlled by the Moldovan authorities, after his car had been stopped by the Moldovan patrol police. He was forcibly transported to the “MRT” and detained since then in “Hlinaia prison No. 1”. The applicant filed complaints with the authorities of both Moldova and Russia. The Moldovan authorities initiated a criminal investigation based on his complaints. The applicant remained in detention at the time of lodging the application. Article 3 of the Convention: (i) ill-treatment in detention by “MRT agents”; (ii)     inadequate or insufficient medical assistance in detention considering the applicant’s medical condition (heart disease, kidney cancer); (iii) material conditions of detention: solitary detention, deplorable state of cells, lack of or insufficient electric/day light, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or poor quality bedding and bed linen, lack of fresh air, lack of toiletries, poor quality food and water.   Article 5 § 1 of the Convention: deprivation of liberty ordered by unconstitutional authorities and not provided by law.   Article 8 of the Convention: (i) denied contact with family members; (ii) screening of correspondence.   Article 13 of the Convention: absence of any effective remedy in respect of the complaints under Article 3, Article   5 §§ 1 and 3, and Article 8 of the Convention 6. V.H. and E.H. v.   the Republic of Moldova and Russia 24535/19 30/4/2019 V.H. 1985 Nicoreni Moldovan   E.H. 1957 Nicoreni Moldovan   Alexandru POSTICA, Pavel CAZACU The applicants are mother and son. On 6/8/2018 the first applicant was taken into custody by the “MRT authorities”. He was detained in the “Dubăsari militia pre-trial detention centre” between 6/8/2018-10/8/2018, and in “Hlinaia prison No. 1” between 11/8/2018-1/11/2018. During his detention he was not allowed to receive any visitors. On 1/11/2018 he was convicted by the “Dubăsari district court” of offering bribes and was sentenced to a fine equivalent to EUR   3,980. After he was released in the “courtroom”, he fled the “MRT”. The first applicant filed complaints with the authorities of both Moldova and Russia. The Moldovan authorities initiated a criminal investigation based on his complaints. Article 3 of the Convention: (i)     inadequate or insufficient medical assistance in detention considering the applicant’s medical condition (HIV positive, latent tuberculosis, medium degree of disability); (ii)     material conditions of detention in all prisons: deplorable state of cells, overcrowding, smoking, lack of or insufficient electric/day light, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or poor quality bedding and bed linen, lack of fresh air, lack of toiletries, poor quality food and water.   Article 5 § 1 of the Convention: deprivation of liberty ordered by unconstitutional authorities and not provided by law.   Article 8 of the Convention in respect of both applicants: unlawful restriction on visits between the applicants during the detention of the first applicant.   Article 13 of the Convention: absence of any effective remedy in respect of the complaints under Article 3, Article   5 §   1, and Article 8 of the Convention. 7. Cașutchina v.   the Republic of Moldova and Russia 28398/19 18/5/2019 Liudmila CAȘUTCHINA 1957 Tiraspol Russian   Alexandru POSTICA, Pavel CAZACU Xenia CAȘUTCHINA   On 10/3/2017 the applicant was taken into custody by the “MRT authorities”. On 20/11/2018 the “MRT Supreme Court of Justice” finally convicted her of embezzlement and sentenced her to seven years and six months’ imprisonment. She was detained in: “Tiraspol militia pre-trial detention centre”, “Tiraspol pre-trial detention centre” and in “Tiraspol prison Nr.   3”. The applicant filed complaints with the authorities of both Moldova and Russia.   Article 3 of the Convention: (i)     inadequate or insufficient medical assistance in detention considering the applicant’s medical condition (heart diseases, high blood pressure); (ii) material conditions of detention in all prisons: deplorable state of cells, overcrowding, smoking, lack of or insufficient electric/day light, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or poor quality bedding and bed linen, lack of fresh air, lack of toiletries, poor quality food and water.   Article 5 § 1 of the Convention: deprivation of liberty ordered by unconstitutional authorities and not provided by law.   Article 8 of the Convention: (i) screening of the applicant`s correspondence; (ii) permanent monitoring of communication between the applicant and her visitors in the visiting area.   Article 13 of the Convention: absence of any effective remedy in respect of the complaints raised under Article 3, Article 5 § 1, and Article 8 of the Convention. 8. S.A. v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia 29358/19 23/5/2019 S.A. 1982 Tiraspol Moldovan   Alexandru POSTICA, Pavel CAZACU, Leonid APCOV On 8/8/2014 the applicant was taken into custody by the “MRT authorities”. On 15/3/2016 the “MRT Supreme Court of Justice” finally convicted the applicant of attempted murder and sentenced him to ten years and six months’ imprisonment. He was detained in “Slobozia pre-trial detention centre” between 8/8/2014-20/9/2014 in “Tiraspol pre-trial detention centre” between 20/9/2014-29/1/2016 and in “Tiraspol prison No. 2” starting from 29/1/2016. The applicant filed complaints with the authorities of both Moldova and Russia. The Moldovan authorities initiated a criminal investigation on 2/7/2018 on charges of unlawful deprivation of liberty. Article 3 of the Convention: (i)     inadequate or insufficient medical assistance in detention considering the applicant’s medical condition (HIV, epilepsy, degree of disability); (ii)     material conditions of detention in all prisons: deplorable state of cells, overcrowding, smoking, lack of or insufficient electric/day light, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or poor quality bedding and bed linen, lack of fresh air, lack of toiletries, poor quality food and water.   Article 5 § 1 of the Convention: deprivation of liberty ordered by unconstitutional authorities and not provided by law.   Article 13 of the Convention: absence of any effective remedy in respect of the complaints under Article 3 and Article   5 § 1 of the Convention. 9. Caraman v.   the Republic of Moldova and Russia 50777/19 16/9/2019 Vasilii CARAMAN 1967 Tiraspol Moldovan Alexandru POSTICA, Raisa BOTNARI, Pavel CAZACU, Nicoleta HRIPLIVII On 30/1/2008 the applicant was taken into custody by the “MRT authorities”. On 5/6/2009 the “MRT Supreme Court of Justice” finally convicted the applicant of attempted murder and sentenced him to 13   years’ imprisonment. He was detained between 30/1/2008-16/3/2019 in “Slobozia pre-trial detention centre”, in “Tiraspol pre-trial detention centre No. 3” and in prison No. 1 “Hlinaia”. The applicant filed complaints with the authorities of both Moldova and Russia. Article 3 of the Convention (material conditions of detention in all prisons): deplorable state of cells, overcrowding, smoking, lack of or insufficient electric/day light, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or poor quality bedding and bed linen, lack of fresh air, lack of toiletries, poor quality food and water. Article 5 § 1 of the Convention: deprivation of liberty ordered by unconstitutional authorities and not provided by law.   Article 13 of the Convention: absence of any effective remedy in respect of the complaints under Article 3 and Article   5 § 1 of the Convention. 10. C.M. v.   the Republic of Moldova and Russia 13895/20 5/3/2020 C.M. 1981 Tiraspol Russian   Alexandru POSTICA, Nicoleta HRIPLIVII, Pavel CAZACU   On 4/10/2016 the applicant was taken into custody by the “MRT authorities”. On 5/6/2018 the “MRT Supreme Court of Justice” finally convicted the applicant of robbery and sentenced him to 12 years’ imprisonment. He was detained in “Tiraspol militia pre-trial detention centre” between 4/10/2016-6/10/2016, in “Tiraspol pre-trial detention centre No. 3” between 6/10/2016-11/6/2018 and in “Hlinaia prison No. 1” starting from 11/6/2018. The applicant filed complaints with the authorities of both Moldova and Russia. The Moldovan authorities initiated a criminal investigation on 8/5/2018 on charges of unlawful deprivation of liberty. Article 3 of the Convention: (i)     inadequate or insufficient medical assistance in detention considering the applicant’s medical condition (HIV, osteochondrosis and other back disorders); (ii)     material conditions of detention in all prisons: deplorable state of cells, overcrowding, smoking, lack of or insufficient electric/day light, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or poor quality bedding and bed linen, lack of fresh air, lack of toiletries, poor quality food and water.   Article 5 § 1 of the Convention: deprivation of liberty ordered by unconstitutional authorities and not provided by law.   Article 8 of the Convention: (i) screening of the applicant’s correspondence; (ii) permanent monitoring of communication between the applicant and his wife in the visiting area.   Article 13 of the Convention: absence of any effective remedy in respect of the complaints under Article 3, Article   5 §   1 and Article 8 of the Convention. 11. Malyshev v.   the Republic of Moldova and Russia 18626/20 28/4/2020 Nicolay MALYSHEV 1981 Tiraspol Moldovan, Russian   Stepan POPOVSCHI On 22/4/2019 the “MRT president’s office” refused to register the applicant’s complaint and at approximately 11.40 a.m. he was apprehended by the “MRT” security and transported to a police station after he tried to video record the refusal. He was released on the same day at approximately 16.45 p.m. On 19/6/2019 the “Tiraspol District Court” administratively convicted the applicant for “disobeying officials’ orders” to stop video recording and imposed a fine on him. This decision was upheld on 23/9/2019 by the “MRT Supreme Court of Justice”. The applicant complained to the “MRT police” about illegal deprivation of liberty. On 26/9/2019 the “MRT Supreme Court of Justice” finally dismissed the applicant’s complaint against the police’ refusal to investigate. The applicant also challenged the refusal of the “MRT president’s office” to register his complaint, which was finally refused by the “MRT Supreme Court of Justice” on 28/11/2019.   Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention in essence Article 5 § 1 of the Convention: unlawful deprivation of liberty on 22/4/2019, between 11.40 a.m. and 16.45 p.m.     Article 6 § 1 of the Convention: tribunal established by law.   Article 10 of the Convention: unlawful restriction of his right to impart information (by filming content of public interest).   Article 13 of the Convention: absence of any effective remedy in respect of the complaints under Article 6 § 1, Article   10 and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention.   12. Eremenco v.   the Republic of Moldova and Russia 35291/20 5/8/2020 Alexandr EREMENCO 1985 Bender Moldovan   Alexandru POSTICA, Nicoleta HRIPLIVII, Pavel CAZACU On 13/11/2010 the applicant was taken into custody by the “MRT authorities”. On 28/5/2013 the “MRT Supreme Court of Justice” finally convicted him of several criminal offences and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment. The applicant was detained in: “Bender pre-trial detention centre”, “Hlinaia pre-trial detention centre”, “Tiraspol pre-trial detention centre” and in “Tiraspol prison Nr.   2”. On 13/11/2019 he was released. On 7/04/2020 the “MRT Supreme Court of Justice” upheld the decision of the “lower courts” to place the applicant under “administrative control” for a period of six years. This measure involved a restriction on leaving home between 11 p.m. to 6 a.m. and a requirement to report twice a month to “Bender police”. The applicant filed complaints with the authorities of both Moldova and Russia. The Moldovan authorities initiated a criminal investigation on 9/12/2019 on charges of unlawful deprivation of liberty.   Article 3 of the Convention (material conditions of detention in all prisons): deplorable state of cells, overcrowding, smoking, lack of or insufficient electric/day light, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or poor quality bedding and bed linen, lack of fresh air, lack of toiletries, poor quality food and water.   Article 5 § 1 of the Convention: deprivation of liberty ordered by unconstitutional authorities and not provided by law. Article 8 of the Convention: interference with private life following the placement under “administrative control”.   Article 2 of Protocol No.   4 to the Convention: lack of legal basis for the restriction to leave “MRT” following the placement under “administrative control”.   Article 13 of the Convention: absence of any effective remedy in respect of the complaints under Article 3, Article 5 §   1, Article 8 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention.   13. Rjavitin v.   the Republic of Moldova and Russia 44744/20 29/9/2020 Alexandr RJAVITIN 1994 Pervomaisc Moldovan   Alexandru POSTICA, Nicoleta HRIPLIVII, Pavel CAZACU In 2015 the applicant was conscripted into the “MRT army”. Later that same year, he “deserted” by fleeing to Chișinău. He appeared on television shows where he spoke about the ill-treatment in the “MRT army”. In December 2019 he returned to his home in the “MRT”, and on 18/12/2019 he was taken into custody by the “MRT authorities”. He was detained between 19/12/2019-30/12/2019 in a “military prison” and between 30/12/2019-24/1/2020 in “Tiraspol prison No.   3”. On 24/1/2020 he was forcibly re-enlisted into the “MRT army” and compelled to continue his military service. On 19/6/2020 he managed to “desert” again and fled to Chișinău. The applicant filed complaints with the authorities of both Moldova and Russia. The Moldovan authorities initiated a criminal investigation on 31/12/2019 on charges of unlawful deprivation of liberty. Article 3 of the Convention (material conditions of detention in all prisons): deplorable state of cells, overcrowding, smoking, lack of or insufficient electric/day light, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or poor quality bedding and bed linen, lack of fresh air, lack of toiletries, poor quality food and water.   Article 5 § 1 of the Convention: (i) forced conscription into military service by unconstitutional authorities and not provided by law. (ii) deprivation of liberty ordered by unconstitutional authorities and not provided by law.   Article 8 of the Convention: he was restricted from receiving any visitors during his detention.   Article 13 of the Convention: absence of any effective remedy in respect of the complaints under Article 3, Article 5 §   1, and Article 8 of the Convention 14. Glijin v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia 41937/21 9/8/2021 Adrian GLIJIN 1979 Camenca Moldovan   Tatiana GLIJIN 1980 Cuzmin Moldovan   Vera GLIJIN 1958 Sanatauca Moldovan   Vadim VIERU, Pavel CAZACU The applicants are a son, his mother, and his wife. On 7/10/2020 the first applicant was taken into custody by the “MRT authorities”. Since then, he has been detained in “Tiraspol pre-trial detention centre No. 3” and in “Hlinaia prison No. 1”. He remained in detention on the date of lodging this application. During his detention, he was denied the right to receive any visitors, including applicant 2 (his mother) and applicant 3 (his wife). Allegedly, “criminal proceedings” were initiated against the applicant on charges of treason. On 26/6/2021 a search was conducted at the home of applicant 2. The applicant’s relatives filed complaints with the authorities of Moldova regarding the unlawful detention of the first applicant, and a criminal investigation was subsequently initiated.   On 7/1/2022 the Court granted an interim measure under Rule 39, indicating to the respondent Governments that: they should ensure respect for the Convention rights of the applicant, and they should provide the Court, within two weeks after the date of the Rule 39 decision, with information to show what actions and measures have been taken by their authorities to ensure respect for the Convention rights of the applicant. While the Moldovan Government replied to the Court’s request, no reply followed from the Russian Government.   Article 3 of the Convention: (i)     inadequate or insufficient medical assistance in detention considering the applicant’s medical condition (heart problems, high blood pressure, COVID-19); (ii)     material conditions of detention in all prisons: solitary detention, deplorable state of cells, overcrowding, smoking, lack of or insufficient electric/day light, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or poor quality bedding and bed linen, lack of fresh air, lack of toiletries, poor quality food and water.   Article 5 § 1 of the Convention: deprivation of liberty ordered by unconstitutional authorities and not provided by law.   Article 34 of the Convention in respect of the Russian Federation: failure to comply with measures indicated under Rule 39   Article 8 of the Convention: (i) in respect of all three applicants: unlawful restrictions on visits with applicant 1 during his detention. (ii) in respect of applicant 2: unlawful search of her home on 26/6/2021.   Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in respect of applicant 2 concerning the search on 26/6/2021: unlawful seizure of property.   Article 13 of the Convention: absence of any effective remedy in respect of the complaints under Article 3, Article 5 §   1 and Article 8 of the Convention and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.     15. Mihalachi v.   the Republic of Moldova and Russia 45501/21 6/9/2021 Vitali MIHALACHI 1988 Bender Moldovan     Vadim VIERU, Maria MIHALACHE, Pavel CAZACU On 25/6/2015 the applicant was taken into custody by the “MRT authorities”. On 29/3/2016 the “MRT Supreme Court of Justice” finally convicted the applicant of drug trafficking and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment. From 26/6/2015 onward, he was detained in “Tiraspol militia pre-trial detention centre”, in “Tiraspol pre-trial detention centre No. 3” and in “Tiraspol prison No. 2”. The applicant filed criminal complaints with the authorities of both Moldova and Russia. The Moldovan authorities initiated a criminal investigation on 6/7/2020 on charges of unlawful deprivation of liberty. Article 3 of the Convention (material conditions of detention in all prisons): deplorable state of cells, overcrowding, smoking, lack of or insufficient electric/day light, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or poor quality bedding and bed linen, lack of fresh air, lack of toiletries, poor quality food and water.   Article 5 § 1 of the Convention: deprivation of liberty ordered by unconstitutional authorities and not provided by law.   Article 13 of the Convention: absence of any effective remedy in respect of the complaints under Article 3 and Article   5 § 1 of the Convention 16. Iularji v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia 45504/21 4/9/2021 Anna IULARJI 2000 Tiraspol Moldovan   Stepan POPOVSCHII On 13/9/2020 the applicant participated in a dance party organised at an abandoned farm outside a village in the “MRT”. Around midnight, the party was interrupted by “MRT police” and all the participants were apprehended and taken to the “Bender police station”. The applicant’s phone was taken away, and all information stored on it was examined by “police”. The applicant was released at approximately 7.30 a.m. the following day. On 2/11/2020 the “Bender district court” disregarded the applicant’s complaints of ill-treatment and discontinued the “contravention proceedings” against her, citing the absence of constituent elements of an offence. On 8/12/2020 the “MRT Supreme Court of Justice” returned the applicant’s appeal without examination. The applicant received a copy of the reasoned decision on 24/7/2021. In the course of administrative proceedings, the applicant complained about the unlawful deprivation of liberty, ill-treatment and interference with private life, but to no avail.   Article 3 of the Convention: (i) material: verbal insults, threats, a body search conducted in the presence of male officers, forced to undress down to her lingerie, compelled to lie on the ground for extended periods; (ii) procedural: failure to investigate the allegations of ill-treatment.   Article 5 § 1 of the Convention: Illegal deprivation of liberty.     Article 8 of the Convention: Interference with private life after illegal access of personal data on the applicant’s phone.   Article 11 of the Convention: restriction of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly not provided by law.   Article 13 of the Convention: absence of any effective remedy in respect of the complaints under Article 3, Article 5, Article 8, and Article   11 of the Convention.   17. Volcov v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia 45510/21 8/9/2021 Maxim VOLCOV 1999 Tiraspol Moldovan   Stepan POPOVSCHII On 13/9/2020 the applicant participated in a dance party organised at an abandoned farm outside a village in the “MRT”. Around midnight, the party was interrupted by “MRT police” and all the participants were apprehended and taken to the “Bender police station”. The applicant was released at approximately 8 a.m. the following day. On 17/11/2020 the “Bender district disregarded the applicant’s complaints of ill-treatment and discontinued the “contravention proceedings” against him, citing the absence of constituent elements of an offence. On 10/12/2020 the “MRT Supreme Court of Justice” returned the applicant’s appeal without examination. The applicant received a copy of the reasoned decision on 24/7/2021. In the course of administrative proceedings, the applicant complained about the unlawful deprivation of liberty, ill-treatment and interference with private life, but to no avail.   Article 3 of the Convention: (i) material: verbal insults, threats, forced to lie on the ground for extended periods; (ii) procedural: failure to investigate the allegations of ill-treatment.   Article 5 § 1 of the Convention: Illegal deprivation of liberty. Article 11 of the Convention: restriction of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly not provided by law.   Article 13 of the Convention: absence of any effective remedy in respect of the complaints under Article 3, Article 5, and Article 11 of the Convention. 18. Carpiza v.   the Republic of Moldova and Russia 45517/21 8/9/2021 Nicolae CARPIZA 1997 Tiraspol Moldovan, Russian   Stepan POPOVSCHII On 13/9/2020 the applicant participated in a dance party organised at an abandoned farm outside a village in the “MRT”. Around midnight, the party was interrupted by “MRT police” and all participants were apprehended and taken to the “Bender police station”. The applicant’s phone was taken away, and all information stored on it was examined by “police”. The applicant was released at approximately 9.30 a.m. the following day. On 17/12/2020 the “Bender district court” disregarded the applicant’s complaints of ill-treatment and discontinued the “contravention proceedings” against him, citing the absence of constituent elements of an offence. On 21/1/2021 the “MRT Supreme Court of Justice” returned the applicant’s appeal without examination. The applicant received a copy of the reasoned decision on 29/7/2021. In the course of administrative proceedings, the applicant complained about the unlawful deprivation of liberty, ill-treatment and interference with private life, but to no avail.   Article 3 of the Convention: (i) material: verbal insults, threats, physical assault, denial of access to toilet facilities, forced to lie on the ground and to stand facing a wall with hands raised for extended periods; (ii) procedural: failure to investigate the allegations of ill-treatment.   Article 5 § 1 of the Convention: Illegal deprivation of liberty. Article 8 of the Convention: Interference with private life after illegal access of data on the applicant’s phone.   Article 11 of the Convention: restriction of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly not provided by law.   Article 13 of the Convention: absence of any effective remedy in respect of the complaints under Article 3, Article 5, Article 8, and Article   11 of the Convention. 19. Dolgopolov v.   the Republic of Moldova and Russia 47762/21 2/9/2021 Alexandra DOLGOPOLOV 1997 Bender Ukrainian   Stepan POPOVSCHII On 13/9/2020 the applicant participated in a dance party organised at an abandoned farm outside a village in the “MRT”. Around midnight, the party was interrupted by “MRT police” and all participants were apprehended and taken to the “Bender police station”. The applicant’s phone was taken away, and all information stored on it was examined by “police”. The applicant was released at approximately 5.30 a.m. the following day. On 24/12/2020 the “Bender district court” disregarded the applicant’s complaints of ill-treatment and discontinued the “contravention proceedings” against her, citing the absence of constituent elements of an offence. On 9/2/2021 the “MRT Supreme Court of Justice” returned the applicant’s appeal without examination. The applicant received a copy of the reasoned decision on 29/7/2021. In the course of administrative proceedings, the applicant complained about the unlawful deprivation of liberty, ill-treatment and interference with private life, but to no avail. Article 3 of the Convention: (i) material: verbal insults, threats, denial of access to toilet facilities, a body search conducted in the presence of male officers, forced to undress down to her lingerie, compelled to lie on the ground and to stand facing a wall with hands raised for extended periods; (ii) procedural: failure to investigate the allegations of ill-treatment.   Article 5 § 1 of the Convention: Illegal deprivation of liberty.   Article 8 of the Convention: Interference with private life after illegal access of data on the applicant’s phone.   Article 11 of the Convention: restriction of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly not provided by law.   Article 13 of the Convention: absence of any effective remedy in respect of the complaints under Article 3, Article 5, Article 8, and Article   11 of the Convention.   20. Levin v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia 47765/21 10/9/2021 Iulianna LEVIN 1999 Dubăsari Russian   Stepan POPOVSCHII On 13/9/2020 the applicant participated in a dance party organised at an abandoned farm outside a village in the “MRT”. Around midnight, the party was interrupted by “MRT police” and all participants were apprehended and taken to the “Bender police station”. The applicant’s phone was taken away, and all information stored on it was examined by “police”. The applicant was released at approximately 8   a.m. the following day. On 26/10/2020 the “Bender district court” disregarded the applicant’s complaints of ill-treatment and discontinued the “contravention proceedings” against her, citing the absence of constituent elements of an offence. On 8/12/2020 the “MRT Supreme Court of Justice” returned the applicant’s appeal without examination. The applicant received a copy of the reasoned decision on 16/3/2021. In the course of administrative proceedings, the applicant complained about the unlawful deprivation of liberty, ill-treatment and interference with private life, but to no avail. Article 3 of the Convention: (i) material: verbal insults, threats, a body search conducted in the presence of male officers, forced to undress down to her lingerie, compelled to lie on the ground for extended periods; (ii) procedural: failure to investigate the allegations of ill-treatment.   Article 5 § 1 of the Convention: Illegal deprivation of liberty.   Article 8 of the Convention: Interference with private life after illegal access of data on the applicant’s phone.   Article 11 of the Convention: restriction of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly not provided by law.   Article 13 of the Convention: absence of any effective remedy in respect of the complaints under Article 3, Article   5, Article 8, and Article   11 of the Convention.   21. Udodov v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia 47909/21 2/9/2021 Aleksandr UDODOV 1998 Dnestrovsk Moldovan   Stepan POPOVSCHII On 13/9/2020 the applicant participated in a dance party organised at an abandoned farm outside a village in the “MRT”. Around midnight, the party was interrupted by the “MRT police” and all participants were apprehended and taken to the “Bender police station”. The applicant’s phone was taken away, and all information stored on it was examined by “police”. The applicant was released at approximately 7.30 a.m. the following day. On 6/11/2020 the “Bender district court” disregarded the applicant’s complaints of ill-treatment and discontinued the “contravention proceedings” against him, citing the absence of constituent elements of an offence. On 9/12/2020 the “MRT Supreme Court of Justice” returned the applicant’s appeal without examination. The applicant received a copy of the reasoned decision on 20/7/2021. In the course of administrative proceedings, the applicant complained about the unlawful deprivation of liberty, ill-treatment and interference with private life, but to no avail. Article 3 of the Convention: (i) material: verbal insults, threats, physical assault, denial of access to toilet facilities, forced to stand facing a wall with hands raised for extended periods; (ii) procedural: failure to investigate the allegations of ill-treatment.   Article 5 § 1 of the Convention: Illegal deprivation of liberty. Article 8 of the Convention: Interference with private life after illegal access of personal data on the applicant’s phone.   Article 11 of the Convention: restriction of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly not provided by law.   Article 13 of the Convention: absence of any effective remedy in respect of the complaints under Article 3, Article 5, Article 8, and Article   11 of the Convention.   22. Medvedeva v.   the Republic of Moldova and Russia 47910/21 2/9/2021 Yuliya MEDVEDEVA 1999 Tiraspol Moldovan   Stepan POPOVSCHII On 13/9/2020 the applicant participated in a dance party organised at an abandoned farm outside a village in the “MRT”. Around midnight, the party was interrupted by “MRT police” and all participants were apprehended and taken to the “Bender police station”. The applicant’s phone was taken away, and all information stored on it was examined by “police”. The applicant was released at approximately 8   a.m. the following day. On 6/11/2020 the “Bender district court” disregarded the applicant’s complaints of ill-treatment and discontinued the “contravention proceedings” against her, citing the absence of constituent elements of an offence. On 8/12/2020 the “MRT Supreme Court of Justice” returned the applicant’s appeal without examination. The applicant received a copy of the reasoned decision on 18/3/2021. In the course of administrative proceedings, the applicant complained about the unlawful deprivation of liberty, ill-treatment and interference with private life, but to no avail. Article 3 of the Convention: (i) material: verbal insults, threats, a body search conducted in the presence of male officers, forced to undress down to her lingerie, compelled to lie on the ground and to stand facing a wall with hands raised for extended periods; (ii) procedural: failure to investigate the allegations of ill-treatment.   Article 5 § 1 of the Convention: Illegal deprivation of liberty. Article 8 of the Convention: Interference with private life after illegal access of data on the applicant’s phone.   Article 11 of the Convention: restriction of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly not provided by law.   Article 13 of the Convention: absence of any effective remedy in respect of the complaints under Article 3, Article 5, Article 8, and Article   11 of the Convention.   23. Lomaca v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia 8412/22 2/2/2022 Ruslan LOMACA 1990 Poiana Moldovan   Vadim VIERU, Ludmila LOMACA, Pavel CAZACU On 5/8/2020 the applicant was taken into custody by the “MRT border guards” after crossing the Dniester river on a boat. He was charged with drug trafficking and placed under arrest. At the time of lodging the application, the applicant was still awaiting “trial”. Since 5/8/2020 he has been detained in “Camenca militia pre-trial detention centre” and in “Hlinaia prison No. 1”. The applicant filed criminal complaints with the prosecutor’s offices of both Moldova and Russia. The Moldovan authorities initiated a criminal investigation on 3/9/2020 on charges of unlawful deprivation of liberty. Article 3 of the Convention: (i)     inadequate or insufficient medical assistance in detention considering the applicant’s medical condition (his spleen was removed); (ii)     material conditions of detention in all prisons: deplorable state of cells, overcrowding, smoking, lack of or insufficient electric/day light, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or poor quality bedding and bed linen, lack of fresh air, lack of toiletries, poor quality food and water.   Article 5 § 1 of the Convention: deprivation of liberty ordered by unconstitutional authorities and not provided by law.   Article 13 of the Convention: absence of any effective remedy in respect of the complaints under Article 3 and Article   5 § 1 of the Convention 24. Corovai v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia 20796/22 12/4/2022 Igor COROVAI 1983 Tiraspol Moldovan   Vadim POGORLEŢCHII On 28/2/2016 the applicant