CEDH · PRESS;ADMISSIBILITYDECISIONS;ENG — 18 juillet 2001

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s4026543C { width:10.5pt; display:inline-block } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     541   18.7.2001   Press release issued by the Registrar   CASE OF ILAŞCU, IVANŢOC, LEŞCO AND PETROV-POPA v. MOLDOVA AND THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION ADMISSIBLE       On 4 July 2001 the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights declared admissible the case of Ilaşcu, Ivanţoc, Leşco and Petrov-Popa v. Moldova and the Russian Federation (application no. 48787/99).   The applicants – except for the first applicant, who was released on 5 May 2001 – are currently held in custody in the Transnistrian region. The first applicant, Mr Ilaşcu, was convicted in 1993 and sentenced to death by a court in the Transnistrian region, which also ordered the confiscation of his property. The other applicants were convicted by the same court and sentenced to terms of 12 to 15 years’ imprisonment, and their property was likewise ordered to be confiscated.   Before the European Court of Human Rights the applicants complained of a violation of Article 6 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, on the ground that the court which had convicted them had had no jurisdiction and that at all events the proceedings which had led to their conviction had not been fair. They also complained, under Article 1 (protection of property) of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, of the confiscation of their possessions and maintained that their detention was unlawful, contrary to Article 5 (right to liberty and security). The first applicant also complained of a violation of Article 2 (right to life) on account of his death sentence. All the applicants also complained of the conditions of their detention, relying expressly on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 8 (right to respect for private life and correspondence) and, in substance, Article 34 (individual applications).   They considered that the Moldovan authorities were responsible for the foregoing violations since they had not taken adequate measures to put a stop to them. In their submission, the Russian Federation shared that responsibility as the territory of Transdniestria was de facto under Russia’s control owing to the stationing of its troops and military equipment there and the support the Russian Federation gave to the separatists.   ***   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contact:   Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court.