Published on 7 June 202 1

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 558/16 Serghei VARDIAÅžVILI against the Republic of Moldova and Russia lodged on 11 December 2015 communicated on 20 May 2021

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the applicant ’ s arrest and subsequent removal from the territory of the self-proclaimed “Moldovan Republic of Transdniestria” (“MRT”) with a six-month re-entry ban.

The applicant complains that his detention for 2 days was contrary to Article 5 of the Convention and took place in conditions amounting to inhuman and degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention. He also complains that his six-month re-entry ban and subsequent access to his home based on short-term stay permits interfered with his right to respect for private and family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention and with his freedom of movement, contrary to Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention. He complains about having no effective remedies, within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention, against the violations alleged under Articles 5 and 8 of the Convention as well as Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention. Finally, he complains that the “MRT” authorities imposed restrictions on his freedom of movement in a discriminatory manner on account of his Georgian origin, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the applicant come within the jurisdiction of the Republic of Moldova and/or the Russian Federation within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention as interpreted by the Court, inter alia , in the cases of Ilaşcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, ECHR 2004-VII, and Catan and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], nos. 43370/04 and 2 others, §§ 102-23, ECHR 2012 (extracts), on account of the circumstances of the present case?

2. Has there been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions in which the applicant has been detained ( Mangîr and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia , no. 50157/06 , 17 July 2018)?

3. Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention ( Vardanean v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 22200/10 , 30 May 2017)?

4. Has there been a violation of the applicant ’ s right to respect for his private and family life and for his home, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention ( Chiragov and Others v. Armenia [GC], no. 13216/05, §§ 188 ‑ 208, ECHR 2015)?

5. Has there been a violation of the applicant ’ s right to liberty of movement, contrary to Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 ( Georgia v. Russia (II) [GC] (merits), no. 38263/08, §§ 296-301, 21 January 2021)?

6. Has there been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Articles 5 and 8 of the Convention, and with Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention?

7. Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of his rights under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention, on the ground of his ethnic origin, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention?