CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 janvier 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } Published on 9 February 2026   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 2827/21 Irina VASILACHI against the Republic of Moldova and Russia lodged on 29 December 2020 communicated on 23 January 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the lawfulness of the applicant’s deprivation of liberty, alleged ill-treatment and conviction in the self-proclaimed “Moldovan Republic of Transnistria” (the “MRT”) on the territory of the Republic of Moldova. On 7 April 2020, after she had published a video on social media accusing an “MRT official” of committing murder, she was apprehended by the “MRT police”, allegedly with excessive force, and held in detention between 11 a.m. and 3.30 p.m. Shortly after her release she published another video explaining what had happened to her. On the following day the applicant lodged a complaint with the “MRT authorities” of unlawful deprivation of liberty, excessive use of force and being held incommunicado. On 13 October 2020 the “MRT Supreme Court” in a final decision, dismissed her complaints against the police department’s refusal to investigate. On 10 April and on 17 June 2020 a court of the “MRT” ordered the applicant to pay administrative fines for “defamation” of the “MRT official” and “MRT police”, resulting from the publishing the videos. She appealed, but her appeals were dismissed with a final decision of “MRT Supreme Court” on 23 September 2020. On 10 October 2020 the applicant lodged a complaint with the authorities of Moldova. The applicant complained under Articles 3, 5, 6, 10 and 13 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Does the applicant fall within the jurisdiction of the Republic o f Moldova and/or Russia within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention, as interpreted by the Court in 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 case?   2.     Has there been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention? In particular:   (a)     was the applicant subjected to ill-treatment by the “MRT” authorities (see Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, §§ 88 and 100-01, ECHR 2015) during her arrest;   (b)     was the applicant’s complaint in respect of the allegations of ill-treatment examined within the standards of an “effective and thorough” investigation for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention?   3.     Has there been a breach of Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant lawfully arrested and convicted ( see Saadi v.   the   United Kingdom [GC], no. 13229/03, § 84, ECHR 2008; Mozer , cited above, §§   122-50; and Lypovchenko and Halabudenco , cited above, §§   123-32)?   4.     Has there been a violation of applicant’s right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention? In particular, was the interference prescribed by law, did it pursue a legitimate aim and was it “necessary in a democratic society” (see Glukhin v. Russia , no. 11519/20, § 51, 4   July   2023)?   5.     Has there been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention read in conjunction with the relevant complaints raised by the applicant?