CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 avril 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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s67F7AEDB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } Published on 4 May 2026   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 9552/22 Ghennadii CIORBA against the Republic of Moldova and Russia lodged on 9 February 2022 communicated on 13 April 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s deprivation of liberty and the inadequacy of the material conditions of detention in the self-proclaimed “Moldovan Republic of Transnistria”, which is located on the territory of the Republic of Moldova (the “MRT” – for more details, see Ilaşcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, §§ 28-185 ECHR 2004-VII). On 12 July 2020 the applicant was taken into custody by the “MRT authorities”. He was charged with public calls for extremist activity and with insulting the “President of the MRT”, following posts he had made on social media. On 19 July 2021 he was convicted by the “Rîbnița District Court” and sentenced to three years and three months’ imprisonment. On 10 August 2021 the “MRT Supreme Court of Justice” upheld the conviction but suspended the execution of the sentence for a four ‑ year probation period. The applicant was detained in the “Rîbnița pre-trial detention centre” and in the “Hlinaia prison” until his release on 10 August 2021. The applicant was refused access to his prison medical file and was not provided with copies of the judgments, which had been classified as “State secrets”. The applicant lodged a criminal complaint about the violation of his rights in the “MRT” with the Moldovan authorities who on 18 October 2021 initiated criminal proceedings. The applicant also lodged complaints with the Russian General Prosecutor’s Office, but to no avail. The applicant complains under Articles 3, 5, 10, 13 and 18 of the Convention about his unlawful deprivation of liberty in inadequate material conditions for having exercised his freedom of expression, about the absence of legal remedies in respect of his allegations of violations, and about the restriction of his rights with the purpose of persecution and intimidation. He also complains under Article 34 of the Convention about being refused copies of the judgments convicting him. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Does the applicant come within the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation and/or of the Republic of Moldova 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.     Was the applicant detained in inhuman and/or degrading conditions of detention contrary to Article 3 of the Convention (see, Lypovchenko and Halabudenco , cited above, §§ 105-111)?   3.     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.     Has there been any hindrance to the effective exercise of the applicant’s right of individual application, as guaranteed by Article 34 of the Convention?   5.     In respect of the remainder of the applicant’s complaints, do they disclose a violation of the Convention, as claimed by the applicant? In particular:   (a)     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression, within the meaning of Article   10 of the Convention? (b)     Has there been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with the other complaints lodged by the applicant? (c)     Has there been a violation of Article 18 of the Convention in conjunction with the other complaints lodged by the applicant?